Does the entire human existence consist of convincing other humans to give you power (in the form of money)?

trer: Does the entire human existence consist of convincing other humans to give you power (in the form of money)?
It seems like all life is about is trying to convince your fellow humans to give you power (i.e. money) either by selling them something, selling your time for money, begging, etc.

Answers and Views:

Answer by tagsmommy32
The entire human existence playing in my head does not require that, no.

Answer by tempting_butnothanks
in a capitalistic society, yes. you could live in a theocratic society and give your entire existence to praising Allah or Mohhamad. or you could live in a tribal community and give your existence to surviving raids by the other tribes in the area.

Answer by Christopher G
yes it is sad sad sad

Answer by BOKO
No but politics consists of trying to get other people to do what you want them to do, an operation that seems to go very well with money (along with extortion and prostitution of course). Hardly the be all and end all though….

Answer by MJR
yes and no.

Think about human interaction as a whole. You can either coerce someone to do things your way, or you can persuade them to voluntarily do so. There is a grey area, but these are the two basic means of human interaction.

Now lets take a human surviving by himself: a subsistence farmer. We’ll call him Bob. He grow enough food to feed himself, and maybe a little extra for storage. Now say that Bob, living out in the wilderness supporting himself, actually has a neighbor, we’ll call Jack. Now Jack is also a farmer, but he is an inventive person and decides instead of sowing extra food, he builds himself a plow. Now Bob sees Jack using his plow and decides that it’s a pretty nifty invention, and he wants one for himself. He has several options. he can A: build his own plow, B: ask Jack to build him one in exchange for something of value to Jack, C: ask Jack for his plow, or D: kill Jack and take his plow.

Of all of these options, lets assume that Bob is not mechanically inclined, so his attempt to build a plow fails. That leaves him with options B, C, and D. Lets assume that Bob comes up to Jack and comments on his awesome plow.

Now if Bob chooses option D, and kills Jack, what happens? He gets the plow, but what if 10 years down the road Jack had gone and invented a windmill, a yoke, and a cart? These things would never have come into existed because of Jack’s death, so Bob’s short term gain is actually his long term loss. It’s also not very fair to Jack, who worked so hard to build his plow, that the nature of Bob’s muscles means that Bob could simply come over and take his belonging. Jack looses his life, Bob gets his plow. It’s a zero sum game. Bob wins, Jack looses (even though in the long run, Bob still looses)

Now lets assume that Bob is a slick guy, so instead of killing Jack, he asks him to give him his plow and Jack, being somewhat gullible, agrees to it. Now Jack has lost his plow, he’ll have to spend the energy that otherwise would have gone towards plowing his field for more food to build another plow. Like D, it is a zero sum game, Bob wins, Jack looses. Even if Bob and Jack are neighborly folk and Bob returns the plow, that is still lost production for Jack

Now lets take a look at option B. Bob wants a plow, and Jack is a smart enough fellow to suggest that instead of giving Bob that one, he’ll build him another one if Bob gives him, say, his neat pet rock, or maybe some of Bob’s extra food. Bob in this scenario is an agreeable guy, so he agrees. Jack builds him another plow, and trades it to Bob for that extra food or maybe for that pet rock. In this case, both men win. Bob gets a plow, and Jack gets compensation for his energy. Even if it were something useless like a pet rock, Jack decides that the warm and fuzzy feeling from having a pet rock is worth the extra effort to make another plow.

Now lets assume a couple of years later, a man named Bill wanders by. Now Bill, he’s an unusual one. Instead of farms, Bill has sheep. He can use their wool to make some pretty stylish clothes, a heck of a lot cooler than those furs that Jack and Bob are wearing. Now Bob wants some clothes that Bill makes, and their options are the same. Lets assume that this is the Bob who choose option C. He doesn’t have a pet rock anymore, but he does have lots of food laying around and Bill, needing to eat, agrees to give them some wool in exchange for some food. Everyone wins. Bill gets to eat, and Bob and Sue gets some comfy, styling wool clothes. Now Jack wants some wool, too, but Bill doesn’t have any use for any of Jack’s farming equipment, but as a matter of fact, He does still have that old pet rock that Bob gave him. Now Jack likes his pet rock, but decides that having wool clothing is more important to him than owning the pet rock Bill agrees that the pet rock is pretty cool, so Bill gives Jack the wool in exchange for the pet rock. Everyone wins again: Jack gets the clothes so he can be as cool as Bob, and Bill gets that pet rock that gives him that warm and fuzzy feeling inside for owning it.

Now lets assume that in a few more months, Both Jack and Bob find themselves more pet rocks. Bill returns, with more wool for more clothes, but he had traded his pet rock away to someone else because they didn’t need wool, but they did have these crazy cool sandals that he really wanted. Bob and Jack over the months ripped their clothes up while they were working, so they need more wool from Bill. Now Bill could take the food in exchange from Bob, again, but he figures that lots of people like pet rocks, so he trades his wool for Both Jack and Bob’s pet rocks. Everyone wins again.

This little story demonstrates how humans interact with each other. Agreeable trade is truly the only moral interaction because, as I demonstrated, it is the only scenario that is win-win. Giving it or Stealing it means that someone looses while the other one wins. I threw the pet rocks in there to demonstrate how money works. Money is not a thing that possesses actual power, it is a common medium of exchange. That Bill walked away with two pet rocks did not mean that Bob and Jack were suckers who were bent to Bill’s power, it meant that Bill had something they wanted, and they had something he wanted. That Bill has Bob and Jack’s two pet rocks does not mean that Bob and Jack are poorer, it just means that Bob and Jack decided that what Bill has is more important to them than what they had.

Trade brings us together as equals. Money is simply the physical medium of this trade. Power does not does not factor into the equation unless coercion is involved.