guys I just love talking about economics let me tell you why

[Lahrmid]

I feel that this discussion is just prolonging arguments about facts that we are all aware of, if we just stop and think for 2 minutes.

[JustasJ]

As the only specie we know of that can make moral judgments to simply be amoral in my eyes is not enough. We're no better than any other animal in that regard. What good is our so called progress in that light? We exist simply to exist when we could be more? Guess I'm advocating here that failed potential is a crime and should be considered evil.

What is more than existence? What is a failed potential you talk about? And why do you call that a crime? Crime against whom? Crime committed by whom? To be considered evil by what standard?

We exist and we have to choose our own reasons for existence. And the only thing better than existence is actually living your life to the fullest and making the most of your life you can get. Not doing so might be considered a personal failure, but it's not really a crime.

Furthering human kind as a race? There are objective goals out there that can be considered morally good. Striking a balance with nature, educating everyone, adjusting population increase to what can be sustained and balancing wealth

I wonder what you consider to be objectively good, because the only objectively good thing to do is to improve the personal value of your life as much as you can and living your own life to the fullest while the objectively evil thing to do would be to ruin the life of your own and of others and not things you mention.

there is no moral reason however to accumulate wealth for the sake of wealth like in our current society). And I'm not saying an altruist should completely ignore his own desires as long as that's not what his entire life sums out to be

There is no reason to accumulate wealth for the sake of wealth just like there is no reason to collect postage stamps for the sake of postage stamps. Wealth is a by-product of achievement and a person who does everything only to have money is clearly doing something wrong. For example, I am in the process of getting a job as a blacksmith and I want that job not because I want to have money(even though I have really little) but because I want to do something that's interesting, challenging and fun and I am getting paid for it.

... And altruist is not an altruist if he doesn't give up his own desires completely.

[Avu]

What is more than existence?

Anything we set up to do.

What is a failed potential you talk about?

Anything we would be able to achieve if we did not satisfy ourselves with survival reproduction and other base needs. It wouldn't mean anything of course but it would be an exercise in willpower and our superiority as a race.

And why do you call that a crime? Crime against whom? Crime committed by whom? To be considered evil by what standard?

Because it is in my eyes. Committed against ourselves by ourselves. A brilliant mind in the domain of physics that could advance our understanding of the world who instead chooses to be say a cook or a security guard because it makes him happy is guilty of a similar crime. It's easy to empathize with such a person like loftar says egoism is in our very core but it would still be a loss of potential. Egoism can drive progress but it can also put a stop to it. I don't know what to call this way of seeing things it's not exactly altruism either because I believe in some pretty drastic shit that would never be considered altruistic like population control and eugenics maybe it's a form of utilitarianism.

We exist and we have to choose our own reasons for existence. And the only thing better than existence is actually living your life to the fullest and making the most of your life you can get. Not doing so might be considered a personal failure, but it's not really a crime.

Sure that's one way at looking at things and it has it's merits. But what exactly does living life to it's fullest mean? Drinking eating and having sex all day long? Accumulating wealth and social status? Procreating and the care of children? Certainly you agree that working towards the betterment of mankind is a goal that can make your life full so to speak.

I wonder what you consider to be objectively good, because the only objectively good thing to do is to improve the personal value of your life as much as you can and living your own life to the fullest while the objectively evil thing to do would be to ruin the life of your own and of others and not things you mention.

That's only true in an egoistic mindset (which is our natural state yes) but in an utilitarian perspective for example objective good is the good of the majority or the average

There is no reason to accumulate wealth for the sake of wealth just like there is no reason to collect postage stamps for the sake of postage stamps. Wealth is a by-product of achievement and a person who does everything only to have money is clearly doing something wrong. For example, I am in the process of getting a job as a blacksmith and I want that job not because I want to have money(even though I have really little) but because I want to do something that's interesting, challenging and fun and I am getting paid for it.

And yet there are so many people that do accumulate wealth just for wealth sake. People that would lie steal cheat do morally dubious deals hurt the environment contribute to the impoverishment of others just to increase that wealth. You could call that an achievement I guess and our society as a whole tends to do that we judge people by the number in their bank account and their car model and not their value as a person.

... And altruist is not an altruist if he doesn't give up his own desires completely.

How does that cope with the altruists desire to help others? You could even fit that in your completely egoistic view of things. But perhaps I did chose the term wrong. Being an egoist and working towards the betterment of mankind are not opposed but being an egoist focusing completely on other aspects is bad, evil wrong or whatever you may want to call it. I'm not asking here for the impossible or for man not to be man just for a change in focus. (the difficulty lies in the fact that the rewards are not immediate not immediately obvious and are not even considered worthy goals by most)

[JustasJ]

Anything we set up to do.

What if I set up to make some money?

Anything we would be able to achieve if we did not satisfy ourselves with survival reproduction and other base needs. It wouldn't mean anything of course but it would be an exercise in willpower and our superiority as a race.

If people didn't satisfy their basic needs there just wouldn't be any. And what kind of superiority would it be if someone chose not to satisfy their basic needs? A person who hangs himself, depriving himself of his most basic need: oxygen is in no way superior to the person who works hard to earn his daily bread. It seems as if you want people to give up their lives just because they can and this seems fundamentally sick to me.

Because it is in my eyes. Committed against ourselves by ourselves. A brilliant mind in the domain of physics that could advance our understanding of the world who instead chooses to be say a cook or a security guard because it makes him happy is guilty of a similar crime. It's easy to empathize with such a person like loftar says egoism is in our very core but it would still be a loss of potential. Egoism can drive progress but it can also put a stop to it. I don't know what to call this way of seeing things it's not exactly altruism either because I believe in some pretty drastic shit that would never be considered altruistic like population control and eugenics maybe it's a form of utilitarianism.

Do you know that steam power was invented by Greeks about a couple thousand years ago but was applied only in 18th century by a few egoistic people who just wanted to make money? All the technological progress of human society was done by egoists. Wright brothers built an airplane to win a cash prize. Egoism is the main driving force of human achievement.

Population control works fairly well on individual level in a society that allows people freedom of choice to have children or not, so I missed your point here.

Sure that's one way at looking at things and it has it's merits. But what exactly does living life to it's fullest mean? Drinking eating and having sex all day long? Accumulating wealth and social status? Procreating and the care of children? Certainly you agree that working towards the betterment of mankind is a goal that can make your life full so to speak.

Well, think of people who want to make the world better and who actually do so. There's a serious difference between the two. Most charities don't solve any problems, foreign aid just helps the corrupt governments of third world countries to enslave their citizens while selfish businessmen provide poor people with employment opportunities and help them escape poverty.

That's only true in an egoistic mindset (which is our natural state yes) but in an utilitarian perspective for example objective good is the good of the majority or the average

You can't change human nature and in a society of egoists utilitarian perspective loses all meaning since what is good for one is very often good for everyone.

And yet there are so many people that do accumulate wealth just for wealth sake. People that would lie steal cheat do morally dubious deals hurt the environment contribute to the impoverishment of others just to increase that wealth. You could call that an achievement I guess and our society as a whole tends to do that we judge people by the number in their bank account and their car model and not their value as a person.

Very few people actually do it because some of those things are crimes and we do not live in a society full of criminals. And our society does not tend to value people by their wealth, but by their success and people who are successful are valuable. Not because they have a lot of money, but because they made a lot of money.

How does that cope with the altruists desire to help others? You could even fit that in your completely egoistic view of things. But perhaps I did chose the term wrong. Being an egoist and working towards the betterment of mankind are not opposed but being an egoist focusing completely on other aspects is bad, evil wrong or whatever you may want to call it. I'm not asking here for the impossible or for man not to be man just for a change in focus. (the difficulty lies in the fact that the rewards are not immediate not immediately obvious and are not even considered worthy goals by most)

It doesn't. I can't. You did. Most rewards from investments made are not immediate, but it doesn't stop people from making them. Imagine a pharmacy developing a cure from AIDS and spending billions in the process. Do they want to make a profit, make world a better place or make world a better place while making a lot of money in the process.

And people do not need to change their focus. They simply need to develop a better understanding of themselves and the world.

[Avu]

What if I set up to make some money?

You could do that and many do does not make it any good though.

If people didn't satisfy their basic needs there just wouldn't be any. And what kind of superiority would it be if someone chose not to satisfy their basic needs? A person who hangs himself, depriving himself of his most basic need: oxygen is in no way superior to the person who works hard to earn his daily bread. It seems as if you want people to give up their lives just because they can and this seems fundamentally sick to me.

Ehm perhaps I worded it wrong by satisfy themselves I mean be content with strive for nothing more.

Do you know that steam power was invented by Greeks about a couple thousand years ago but was applied only in 18th century by a few egoistic people who just wanted to make money? All the technological progress of human society was done by egoists. Wright brothers built an airplane to win a cash prize. Egoism is the main driving force of human achievement.

You know what else has been good for progress? War.

Well, think of people who want to make the world better and who actually do so. There's a serious difference between the two. Most charities don't solve any problems, foreign aid just helps the corrupt governments of third world countries to enslave their citizens while selfish businessmen provide poor people with employment opportunities and help them escape poverty.

Who said anything about charities and foreign aid in the form of dumped money? And how do the nike child factory workers escape poverty exactly by working in a nike factory? What those people need is education and infrastructure starting with their corrupt governments (btw I'm sure corruption is purely an altruistic and utilitarian problem right nothing to do with egoism) while selfish business owners do employ them the best those people can ever hope is to emigrate to a better country.

You can't change human nature and in a society of egoists utilitarian perspective loses all meaning since what is good for one is very often good for everyone.

Oh lolz praise the dictator his good is our good may he live forever.

Very few people actually do it because some of those things are crimes and we do not live in a society full of criminals. And our society does not tend to value people by their wealth, but by their success and people who are successful are valuable. Not because they have a lot of money, but because they made a lot of money.

Indeed we do not live in a society full of criminals (even though prisons are breeming to the full) but see those that get caught are actually the failures the winners get to write the laws and control governments and an egoistic man would do ANYTHING as long it benefited him and he could get away with it so that that with your criminal society.
So you say that rich kids who inherited all their money and never managed to expand on it aren't treated better than say a really good doctor? Wealth is everything in our society how you got it means too little as long as you got it.

It doesn't. I can't. You did. Most rewards from investments made are not immediate, but it doesn't stop people from making them. Imagine a pharmacy developing a cure from AIDS and spending billions in the process. Do they want to make a profit, make world a better place or make world a better place while making a lot of money in the process.

Oh man you served this one perfectly. What is more profitable to make a cure fore AIDS treat everyone and poof no more AIDS no more need for cure or invent drugs to treat the symptoms. The egoist would definitely chose developing the cure and withholding it until it was sure someone else was willing to market it (which is unlikely being a very profitable business anyway for a very limited number of players that have a vested interest to keep the status quo). Like I said it before egoist can be a driving force for progress but it can be a huge stop on it as well. Competition is supposed to be the mechanism that bypasses this but it can be easily be exploited secret deals made prices set and all that funny business nobody likes to think about.

They simply need to develop a better understanding of themselves and the world.

Understand what that we're glorified animals with animal drives and a very inflated opinion of ourselves?

[niltrias]

We all know that money is the root of all evil because the idiom says so.

First off, that is not what the idiom says, you might want to go check your source.

Second, this topic has gone so far off-topic and so far into conceptual no-man's land that I doubt it can recover.

[krawco]

Blame Canada

[Jacob_Lee]

Pick one.

I like the look of the coin better. I may be an American who likes my shitty paper money, but a coin just looks more valuable, and they are more fun to hoard.

I spy with my little eye, a pun.
Anyway, a coin based economy doesn't seem to be a good option for H&H, i'll stick with mushrooms and bartering.

[JamesPenny]

A post actually referncing H&H. First for about a billion pages. Bravo.

I think a central bank account system that can only be accessed by building... I dunno.. 'shrines' would be cool. Store up to <arbitrary number> coins and make it possible to buy extra inventory space (like in a vault) using precious metals (or how a bout a herb that anyone can pick (to make it fair on newbies)). Kinda hard to justify it in-game though.

[Shask]

Leave the H&H economy alone. Let cities experiment with coins if they want to, but look at what we have already. The game is in alpha stage and the community has already gave certain resources commodity status, like bricks and cavebulbs. And in a game without a currency it seems like commodity = currency as they are easy to "price" relative to other goods.

Besides, it would be really unique to have an online RPG without gold/silver coins, hurr durr.