Resource Based Economy > Monetary Economy

My opponent opens with an unsubstantiated claim, that money is the root of most of the world's problems and then writes bullet points to assert this statement. I will address those now: Poverty: My opponent believes that poverty leads to over population in Africa. I assert that the opposite is true. Over population in Africa (which causes the society to be unsustainable) is what leads to poverty. This is true of all heavily impoverished countries that over breed, and has nothing to do with currency. Corruption is existent in every society and eliminating currency would not eliminate corruption. If we replaced currency with resources (goats and bricks) people would exploit others for, goats and bricks. Hence corruption exists independent of currency, or a monetary system. Wars existed before there was currency or a monetary economy. Starvation is a result of an unsustainable society addressed above. Death from preventable diseases would exist even in a resource-based economy. High crime rates are most prevalent in unsustainable societies. Pollution and economic instability are inevitable in large societies and not a result of currency. What my opponent believes is due to currency can simply be explained with human nature… Furthermore, my opponent's solution to these issues (eliminating the monetary system) would not eliminate the root of these problems that lies within the nature of mankind in general. Instead, to offer a simple idea, I suggest a universal solution that has nothing to do with currency: Increase literacy rates, lower birth rates, and the society will be more sustainable. Therefore conflicts, starvation and death will not be a ‘necessary' part of these social structures. My opponent says: "Now how do we fix or greatly reduce all of these problems? My solution is to remove the source" Since my opponent believes erroneously that currency is the problem, we can assume removing it wont solve anything. My opponent's individual suggestions are worth considering within the already established framework of most societies. Exploiting volcanoes, nature and whatever else can be used perpetually would indeed be beneficial to mankind. There is no reason to believe that these ideas could possibly replace the way our economies already work though. The greatest problem with this entire idea is in an already accepted reality of our world. If there is no incentive for me to get an education and work hard to sustain my lifestyle, why should I do it? If I am guaranteed a living, food, shelter, and a preset allowance in this system, what prevents me from simply doing nothing? Naturally, some percentage of people will give an answer that is simpatico with a resource system, such as saying: I work for self-satisfaction or the betterment of the world etc, and not for personal gain. But what percentage of this world is this? What would prevent the world from becoming a global society where only 1% (or less) are actually working, and 99% of us are just sitting around having fun and waiting to be given the food and housing that this system promises us? Everything about the resource-based economy sounds great (and idealistic) in theory, but without an answer to this question, I don't see how such a system could ever be reasonable or sustainable… The competitive structure in the capitalistic system (as an extension of the monetary system) has been responsible for creating much of the things that have made our lives better, decreased the risk of starvation and disease, and inherently gives incentive for all of us to get an education and work hard. The resource-based economy is likely to result in the opposite.