Resource Based Economy > Monetary Economy

Thanks for the response. You made some interesting points. The first of which I'd like to address is "overpopulation causes poverty." While it is true that overpopulation makes the situation worse, poverty and overpopulation form a loop that begins with poverty. These people need their children to take care of them when they are ill, but there is a high infant mortality rate, so using probability, they have 6 kids so at least one can grow up to care for them. "Death from preventable diseases would exist in a resource-based economy" It is true that it would happen nonetheless, but I claimed that the Resource-Based Economy would be able to greatly reduce that. One example would be by sending AIDs treatment to Africa, without a concern for sacrificing the pharmaceutical company's profit. "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..." Yes, ever since Capitalism has been established there have been advances in medicine. But that is a product of the Scientific Revolution, occurring around the same time. They found advancements in medicine because they had a passion for what they did. They wanted to change the world. Some doctors today feel this way, including my cousin. They just wanna help people. Some people also sacrifice low salary to do what they love, but also contribute to society effectively. There are also non-profit organizations around today. And some soldiers join the army to help their country; not for the financial benefits. We could put that passion into something good. There was no system in place before money; it was anarchy. People just claimed stuff and that was that. If you wanted it too, you're out of luck. By the way, money is anti-economy. The true goal of an economy, by definition, is to strategically preserve and create efficiency. The current system demands the opposite. A Resource-Based Economy is not trade. It's distribution where it's needed. People have ownership of what they need consistently, and access to everything they want as they use it, like a library. There would also be businesses, but they wouldn't compete for money, they'd contribute for the betterment of society and to get known for it."Celebrities wouldn't do charity if it wasn't in the public eye." –Ricky Gervais A friend of mine once said, “If I had a lot of gold, wouldn't people steal it?" similar to your "goats and bricks" argument. Without money, gold doesn't hold the same value. It's not that rare, but jewelers have a monopoly on it. So the value depends on the function. If you need goats for your farm, you can just get goats. There's enough to goat around; you don't have to steal. If a fellow farmer doesn’t really need as many goats as they have, then you can have some. "Increase literacy rates, lower birth rates…” Good luck paying for schools around the world. Lowering birth rates is a good way to decrease the problem, but corruption and other power-related (and therefore money-related) problems would persist. "Therefore conflicts, starvation and death will not be a ‘necessary' part of these social structures." You say all of these problems are human nature, so any solution would not work (you did not specify how that would link to my solution’s failure in particular) yet you still think yours would make these problems obsolete. In order to change the behavior, you have to change the environment. People are a product of their culture, and one main aspect of culture is economy. Look at the Middle East for example: they use oil to strengthen their economy. That oil is causing wars. Didn't you like being a child and not having to worry about earning your right to live? A resource based economy would be like that, but you would learn whatever interests you and what you enjoy to make yourself feel useful. But you wouldn't act like a child.