Without a direct incentive, productivity is low and people starve. That’s why Lenin had to implement the ‘New Economic Policy’ in 1921. The result was a sharp rise in productivity and prosperity.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Survival is the incentive of getting money in order to get food to live. There is always an incentive, regardless of there being money at all.
Productivity wouldn’t halt if people had a goal to achieve, the goal now days seems to be “Get a nice house, get a nice car, work on the self.” Instead of working on mankind. It’s fueled by greed and selfish-importance. People wouldn’t starve because survival is the incentive, and they also wouldn’t starve due to it being free. Different people have different skill sets that can contribute to the advancement of humanity. Every person on their own without being socially engineered, is unique.
Illnesses, natural disasters. Starvation if quotas of food/water aren’t met. The simpler things. It would not be fueled by greed, people would still work… But instead of working for themselves they would work to better humanity, because they wouldn’t need to work for themselves due to having what they want.
I know that. I just tried to put the relevant facts forth. That is all.
Secondly, if you look carefully, the writer tried to compare the cast system of various cultures to the ants. And, in that context, he wrongly used the analogy of Indian cast system and skin color to support his argument. That was my only point.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere.
Illnesses - medical care is free. Correct? How much medical care should be provided to a person? Some diseases require extensive hospitalization and surgery, do we have the resources to ‘cure’ everyone? Should we stop building Ferraris and instead build MRI machines? How much effort should be put into medical research versus building housing?
Natural disasters - Could be as simple as not building your house under a volcano. Or should we divert the lava flow away from the houses?
Starvation if quotas of food not met - who starves first in that case? How is food allocated to the rest?
We have plenty of resources, with this type of society science and medical would actually have a sufficient amount of resources specifically dedicated, for all we know with science we could find more resources in space. We have enough resources to cure or give medicine to everyone, a lot of medicines come from plants. Plants can be grown in abundance.
I don’t think anyone would starve. I read that Washington was working on making a fruit garden, growing fruits and what not in a park area. Not sure if it was viable or not, but it sounds like it could work, why wouldn’t/couldn’t it?
People could live where they wanted, but they should know the risks before living next to a Volcano, perhaps diverting the lava if possible, who knows. We can’t always control deaths from natural disasters, well not at this time. This is why we should be working towards advancement, so we can. Instead of the self out of greed. The faster we advance, the faster we find answers/solutions to problems. Idea’s come from difference, a huge part of this society is conformity.
It seems like philosophers are the only ones who do have achievements though. There are a lot of philosophers, even ones who don’t call themselves it, can be it.
