What would happen if the idea of money and bartering did not exist or the idea did not evolve during history and no item held a status of 'precious' in terms of monetary value? Like if people gave what others wanted without fuss and greed did not exist. For example NASA wanted a rocket and they were given what they wanted and the term investment wouldn't occur in this or any other exchange.
closed as too broad by John Dallman, JDługosz, Hohmannfan, Bellerophon, Brythan Oct 31 '16 at 23:45
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
To begin with, a distinction needs to be drawn between money and value. Your question implies two subquestions.
- What is there was no money?
- What if everything held the same value?
The first question is easy to answer. If there was no currency, then items of greatest practical value would be worth more. For example, which would you rather have, a glass of water or a pot of gold? Now, which would you rather have in the desert? Money is just a governmental structure where people are forced to accept the fact that a slip of paper holds intrinsic value.
The second question is definitely more philosophical. Let's go back to the water and the gold. It's not possible for these two items to ever hold the same value to society, as they have two different functions. For humans to believe that they are worth the same would require extreme lack of critical thinking, or big brother telling them that's the way it is.
To answer both, if there was no money, people would barter. But if humans had no concept of value we would be less intelligent than monkeys, because even they can tell the difference of value between food and dirt.
Lack of these two concepts would lead to very boring history. It would imply the fact that no inter-cultural interaction existed, if these people were intelligent enough to form a culture. Since cities form because of a shared interest in valuable items/land, there would be no cities. Nomadic wouldn't even begin to describe this race, because people usually settle on land that is better than other land, but since everything is held as equal, even if they found an open pit of diamonds they wouldn't care.
This is an interesting question, but a world built with this lack of concept wouldn't be very exciting.
I see what you are asking. I'm gonna give the standard disclaimer. Here it is: I have a very cynical view of human nature, and I understand that some (humanists for one) will disagree with me, but with that said, I'm going to give it a shot.
I don't personally believe that a world inhabited by humans could be greed-free, but for the sake of the question, I'll theorize.
Networked would be a good adjective to describe your world. Everyone will need the products produced by someone else (obviously) and this will bring about a few things.
- Less war (a good thing)
If I want something from Joe's country, I'll think twice about invading him to get it. This is because, in a greed-free world, he would be providing me that thing for free in the first place.
- Less motivation (possibly)
Listen, I get it, but hear me out. Profit is a strong motivator, and makes people move quickly, so without that, infrastructure could be sluggish. Maybe counter this with trade policies?
As a note, Thomas More's Utopia would be a great read. It can be slow, but it's free to the public.
It describes a greed-free society, and the implications thereof.
Less war is definitely a good thing, and the lack of motivation could be overcome with smart policies (some of which are described in the book). I hope this answers the question. There are hundreds of answers to this question, since money is a very permeating idea in our culture, but these two stuck out in my head.