I'm a Utopian idealist - prove me wrong!

=THE DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE DO THINGS THEY LIKE WITHOUT BEING PAID TO= I didn't claim that people would work "only to serves other's needs". I said that people are motivated by factors other than money. Kindness is one of these factors, but there are others. The evidence screams that humans have intrinsic motivators – needs for things like self-expression, purpose and autonomy – not just extrinsic motivators like money. Here is a tiny corner of the evidence; I don't have room to go into detail: 1971 - Deci finds that financial rewards make people less interested in doing tasks (http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu...) 1973 – Lepper et al. find that children are less interested in tasks if given rewards (http://courses.umass.edu...) 1990s – Many experiments demonstrate that humans are hardwired for empathy (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..., http://home.uchicago.edu..., http://www.bcn-nic.nl..., http://dx.doi.org..., http://cat.inist.fr...). In other words seeing someone in suffering is neurologically very similar to being in suffering oneself. We care about others whether we want to or not; it's the way our brain is built. I have spent the past 6 years obsessively studying human motivation, both theoretically and in-field. Every job I've ever had has centred around understanding human motivation. I do not think I am "naive" on these subjects. The people who have spent time studying human motivation – advertisers, salesmen, social scientists, cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, child development experts, evolutionary psychologists, lamas etc. – all accept intrinsic human motivation. The masses who have never taken an interest in really looking at human motivation are the ones who groan that Man works only for money. They're the naï¿½ve ones. I am aware that it is fashionable to say that people are selfish, cold and greedy, and to label anyone who admits that people can be cooperative, compassionate and creative as "naive". This is only a fashion - and a cynicism. It is not scientific; it ain't even commonsensical. Look at how you and your friends spend your time – it is obvious that people do a lot of things for fun, curiosity, for self-expression or for other intrinsic reasons. This whole website runs on intrinsic motivation. Do people study music for years without being paid? The answer is yes, of course. I know many such people, and I'm sure most of my readers do too. My opponent also tries to deny that people can learn out of passion. There is so much evidence for intrinsic motivation in education that I can barely scratch the surface of it here. Studies show that people are motivated to learn by curiosity, intellectual stimulation, to meet people, to broaden ther horizons, and a host of other reasons. Career and money considerations are only one motivator among many (http://www.jstor.org..., http://www.aclacaal.org..., http://www.jalt-publications.org...). The evidence also shows that people who are motivated by interest learn better and have more fun than those who learn to help their career (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com..., http://www.citeulike.org...). I am saying nothing more controversial than "People do things they like to do." To argue that people must be paid or they won't play guitar is tantamount to saying that people must be paid to do the things they like, which is pretty absurd. =WHAT IS LEISURE?= "This sole argument destroy your thesis, as a society with more than 50% of his population working thorough law, entertainment, research, and security cannot be considered as a "leisure" society." By "leisure society" I meant a society in which people do things they like. "Leisure" extends beyond sipping pina coladas on a beach and includes very active things. =IS THIS SENTENCE A PARADOX?= "As for the paradox part, your example is nothing more than a logical fallacy, while mine stands real ground. (No offence intended, of course)" You're asserting that you are right and I am wrong; this is not an argument. I said that one can buy resources with money and use them to create free resources, and that people do this all the time. Could you please specify what kind of fallacy this is? =PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND PIRATE INDUSTRY= "a country's work production being redefined into automation cannot be considered as a "free-source" project." Nowhere did I claim that public and private sectors will become open-source. To repeat my basic idea: The open culture will create abundance using a) free information and b) sophisticated, small, self-replicating fabrication devices. Meanwhile, public and private sectors will continue to do what they do. Private industry will move towards automation (as it always has) because automation saves money. = R&D FUNDING = My opponent wants a direct answer on whether I think India would spend money on R&D. I do not "think" that they "would"; I simply wish to point out that they do, to the tune of $5.8 billion a year and rising (http://www.nature.com...). = RESTRICTION ON INFORMATION = That technology can be restricted, rather than free, is a good point. I'm glad you raised it. AdCiv is not possible if repressive authorities (military, governmental, corporate – it does not matter) suppress knowledge. I accept that it is a possibility. However, I think it is unlikely to happen for three reasons – Some know-how is patented or kept secret. But this doesn't negate the existence of the open domain. When the open domain contains enough know-how for people to create abundance, then it doesn't matter that other information is restricted. Second, the cat's out of the bag. There are already a lot of free resources and there is no mechanism by which information, once free, can later be made unfree. Third, even if a totalitarian dictatorship took over (unlikely) and tried to hide every scrap of useful knowledge from public use (unliklier still), they would almost certainly fail. Communication is now international, so the totalitarian state would have to take over the entire world to stop the flow of information. The ability to set up pirate internets (Dark Webs) is already so widespread that Dark Webs are estimated at 500 times the size of the Internet. Basically I think the trend of governments being monumentally unsuccessful in stopping file-sharing will continue. = TURN AND FACE THE STRANGE CH-CHANGES = My opponent specifies three changes he thinks are unlikely to be achieved in a few decades – He claims that R&D won't happen for lack of money. This is massively inaccurate, as I have shown repeatedly. Automation is almost inevitable. If technological development continues in the future, automation will certainly come with it. Automation will not cover 100% of jobs, but that's ok, because people do things they like to do. I dealt with freedom of information above. =CLOSING STATEMENT= The claim of effortless abundance within a few decades is very radical to many people. It may naturally cause some incredulity at first. But it is simply the outcome of a number of trends that are in themselves quite uncontroversial – that technology is advancing, that technology is leading to automation, that the Internet provides free information, that information is becoming of supreme importance, that there is an open value chain that bypasses old organizational structures, that open resources are gonna continue to grow, that fabrication devices are becoming better, smaller, digitally-controlled and self-replicating, and that free resources enable people to d