money is destroying humans

I will be taking the position that money helps humanity to progress. I will begin by refuting Pro's arguments. 1. "Humans are meant to be free creatures. Now they are bound by the Almighty dollar. This piece of green paper decides what a person can eat, what they can drink, where they can live, what they can do in their time away from work, how educated they are and their overall quality of life." My opponent often claims that humans are slaves to the dollar, but has failed to provide any proof of this claim. However, I will still refute this claim. It is not money that determines what a person can and can't have, but human capital. Human capital is defined as "the stock of competencies, knowledge, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value (1)." Human capital is a main determinant of wealth, regardless of whether or not a money system is in place; that is to say that if there was no money system, and a barter system was in place, a person's human capital would still be the main determinant of wealth. Since money is not, at root, what determines what a person can and can't have, Pro's first point is irrelevant. 2. "Humans are forced to work for this paper which leads to losing time with family and friends and becoming robotic. Their health suffers either from the conditions they are working in or what they have to do to get to work such as not getting enough sleep." A person need to work hard regardless of whether or not money is present. In fact, without money, with a barter system in place, a person would need to work harder in order to be prosperous. This is proven by the economic phenomena known as "coincidence of wants (2)." This essentially means that a barter requires each person involved in the transaction to want what the other person wants. This lowers the overall transaction velocity, which lowers overall economic wellbeing, which means that in order for someone to become prosperous, they would need to work harder so they could possess higher value items to trade. Essentially, humans are forced to work for wellbeing regardless of the presence of money or not, and money does not worsen the situation from the standpoint of health, family, or friendship. In fact, money makes it easier to become prosperous with less work, therefore, money has the advantage over barter. 3. "The dollar has caused man to lose touch ith nature and spirituality. We only have one earth and we can no longer enjoy it. Trees and other forestry have been destroyed, oceans have been drowned with garbageand the sky has been polluted, all to make a profit." Once again, there is a lack of proof for Pro's claims, which is seen particularly when the reader looks Pro's claim about spirituality. However, I will still refute his claims. It seems like, in regards to the nature claim, Pro is speaking of a lack of conservation. I urge Pro to read about the cap and trade system (3). This is a system where money is used to curb emissions. There is a set amount of emissions, and companies must buy and sell emissions if they wish to gain more or allow other companies to use theirs. This provides companies with an economic incentive to reduce emissions and become more environmentally friendly. In regards to spirituality, money enables it. A spiritualist would have a very difficult time printing his views and spreading them without being able to offer money in return for the printing service. 4. "Money has caused conflict of all types. War is for profit. People kill each other for money or materials." This is a very vague statement. Money has the capacity to cause conflicts of all types, but so do many other things, such as resources, property, jealousy, and even love. As anything has the capacity to cause conflicts, this should be considered moot. Pro also claimed that war is for profit. While parties involved in wars aim to gain profit, this is also not necessarily monetary. Profit can be anything from increased resources, pride, or land. As money is not a sole cause of war, the statement "War is for profit" should also be considered moot in regards to this debate. Pro already said in the statement "People kill each other for money or materials" that money is not a sole reason for killings. This debate is about money, not necessarily resources. 5. "Money has created materialism" Money does not create materialism. People aim to benefit themselves. Greed is a part of human nature. Even if people did not have access to money, people would still desire things. Materialism is a constant. Now I will argue that money has actually led to human progress. 1. Money provides a valuable incentive towards progress. In 2004, the X PRIZE Foundation offered a $10 million dollar Ansari X PRIZE in a competition to Scaled Composites for crafting a commercial spacecraft. As a result of that incentive, space travel no longer exclusively belongs to the government (4). Humankind has progressed because of that cash incentive. In fact, countless innovations have sprung out of nowhere because of the money incentive. Some examples would be new surgical techniques that can more effectively save lives, cars with better fuel efficiency, and, in general, products of increasing quality. 2. Money promotes overall economic wellbeing. Without money, humanity is left only with barter as a means to perform transactions, and the problem with that was discussed earlier with the section about "coincidence of wants." Money, however, does not have that problem, as it can be easily exchanged for any good. This increases the total amount of transactions and helps people to be more satisfied with what they have, as there is less need for a compromise of wants. I look forward to my opposition's rebuttal. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.epa.gov... 4. http://space.xprize.org...