Resource Based Economy > Monetary Economy

We have infinite energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) and more than enough water. We could easily filter the ocean’s water into tap. In fact, that would be helpful, because due to the ice caps melting; sea levels are going to rise. Plants and animals can reproduce, so in a controlled environment, we could have infinite food. Without the barrier of money, the food can also be good quality. People are building new buildings every day, and many of those are from natural resources, not recycled. We have unoccupied areas such as deserts (both hot and cold), some mountains, and the ocean. All of which contain resources. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 300 times over, so all of the electronics and energy can be used to supply people with new things. People make TVs and phones every day, and recycling parts for these aren’t that common right now. If you look at the Venus Project, Jacque Fresco actually designed everything to be sustainable. The things he designs are profit-proof but extremely efficient. They can be re-used, easily maintained, recycled, and produced a lot more than the current resources. But it can't be done today, because it's bad for the 'economy'. It would take less energy and resources to create and maintain his city designs than it would to maintain today's cities. To conclude my ‘do we have enough’ statement: We have the energy, food, vast land of untapped resources, and the electronics. Without monopolies, the resources could be distributed easily in a relatively short period of time to change the face of the earth and accommodate everyone. Overpopulation is only going to make the monetary system worse. If we have economic equality, people won’t feel the need to have so many children (as proven by my round 3 statement). BUT if we have, say 15 billion people we’re gonna need 2 planets regardless of the system. The projected population for 2100 is 10.1 billion, and by then we’re also projected to be able to take resources from Mars and the moon, and manipulate things on a molecular level to accommodate our needs. They have ownership of what they need and access to what they want. I mean why would I want to hoard bricks if I already have quality housing for free? Isn’t the invention of the artificial heart linked to Sci-Fi-to-real-life dreams? Any medical advancement is made to solve a medical problem. The advancements are patented for the pharmaceutical companies to gain profit. People come up with ideas for inventions every day, and their only incentive is to change the world, since they know how hard it is to make money as an inventor. Many still want to get rich, but what if they were already financially comfortable (for lack of a better term)? Then all inventors’ only incentive would be to change the world. I designed concept phones before. I just want them to be made because they’re a lot more efficient than other phones. Money is just a bonus, because I do need it to survive in the current system. If all of the money in the world were to disappear tomorrow, we’d be at loss of nothing but our sanity. The thing that is so hard about owning a business is keeping the business. It’s all about money. It wouldn’t be business in the same sense as it is today; it’d be a group of people coming together to form ideas and put them in action, not a group of people struggling to keep the company's profit, and resorting so scams. There’s a monopoly on gold. There could still be jewelry, but most would go towards useful things like electronics and grills, as you stated. If you want a swimming pool, then maybe that is feasible. We have the tools to dig a ditch and we have the water and rock (to make concrete). Other luxury items; everyone would have easy public access to, and not ownership. That’s one small sacrifice of values that would have to be made in order for this to work, but I won’t go on that tangent. Money is a false incentive: http://tinyurl.com...