Technological and Socio-Economic Progress Toward a Post-Monetary Civilization: From Utopia to Real Policymaking

Get Full Text in PDF

Abstract

This article begins by examining the fallacies of meritocracy and capitalism. It then explores a new socio-economic system that promises to be more sustainable, equitable, and conducive to happiness than the one dominating most of the planet today, highlighting the crucial role of scientific progress. Our existing system thrives on scarcity, resulting in an unfair distribution of wealth and opportunities. In contrast, the proposed model relies on technological advancements to lead humanity into an age of abundance, rendering money irrelevant. The ultimate goal is to achieve a planetary civilization that is post-monetary, democratic, egalitarian, sustainable, and happier. The article offers recommendations for public policies and business actions to help realize this vision.

1. Introduction – The Current Condition of Humanity

The striking improvement in living standards over the past 80 years has not prevented inequality, environmental deterioration, and unhappiness from expanding across the globe.

In 2013, Bong Joon-ho, who would later gain international acclaim for the Academy Award-winning film Parasite, directed the sci-fi movie Snowpiercer. Set in a post-apocalyptic future where Earth has become a frozen wasteland due to a climate catastrophe, the film depicts humanity living on a perpetually moving train. The elites reside in the luxurious front cars, while the poor are crammed into squalid tail compartments, performing repetitive tasks under the watch of armed guards. Fights and revolts are either spontaneous or orchestrated to control overpopulation.

The dystopian nightmare portrayed in Snowpiercer could become a reality if humanity fails to change its current trajectory. Globally, since 1990, inequality has been increasing within many middle-income countries and most of the developed ones.* Inequality is a dramatic societal challenge that can no longer be neglected. Regarding the climate cataclysm, “It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes”.† Despite growing investments in renewables, over 80% of the energy consumed by human civilization still comes from fossil fuels.‡ We recycle very little—only 19% of global waste—and waste an enormous amount of food, enough to feed 2 billion people, or twice the number of malnourished humans.§ In other words, we are failing to use the planet’s resources effectively and efficiently, which significantly impacts the climate.

Inequality and climate change also appear to affect happiness. The 2024 edition of the World Happiness Report shows that happiness in North America, Australia, the Middle East, North Africa, India, and many European countries has declined from 2006-2010 to 2021-2023.¶ Globally, less than one in four employees feel motivated at work (in Europe, approximately one in ten). Additionally, 59% of workers are “quiet quitting”, and half of the workforce is actively looking for another job.** This is concerning, given that adults spend most of their time at work.

On the other hand, in many respects, humanity is doing better now than a few decades ago. For instance, we have eradicated diseases that were deadly centuries ago, we have the internet, we have apps that help us find love, and we can travel across the globe in just a few hours. In democratic nations, there are plenty of development opportunities for children regardless of their family’s status. However, this progress should not prevent us from questioning whether the current situation is ideal, whether we are building enough foundations for further improvement, and whether a better socio-economic system is unattainable. The purpose of this article is to argue that the answer to these questions is “no” and proffer a theoretical model for the future, including some potential steps needed to achieve it.

2. Premise no. 1: Privilege is Mistaken for Merit

Despite its numerous benefits, capitalism is built on shaky grounds by
overestimating merit, leading to an unfair distribution of wealth.

This premise builds upon a fundamental consideration of free will. Stephen Hawking said: “The molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets… so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”†† This article adheres to his view and the evolutionary explanation of free will. It is crucial to state this at the outset because, until conclusive proof on the nature of free will is found, the only valid standpoint on this matter—and the one on which this article is predicated—is an agnostic one that accounts for the environmental and biological factors, such as privilege and chance, that condition an individual’s decisions. Human choices, efforts, and talent—in one word, merit—are derived from, or at least influenced by, a sequence of “nature” and “nurture” inputs.

If the ontology of free will is debatable, then the ontology of merit is equally contentious. Consequently, can we depend on a socio-economic system founded upon it?

Capitalism is based on the premise that, among other things, a) through merit anyone can succeed, and b) success is measured by financial wealth. This way of thinking underplays the importance of aleatory factors, reinforces the sense of entitlement of wealthier individuals, and generates conscious and unconscious biases against those with “unsuccessful” profiles. This finding is supported by empirical research on, for example, the limited social mobility in OECD countries and the uniformity of behavioral traits among people in positions of leadership.‡‡

As a result, wealth tends to remain a prerogative of those who share similar characteristics in a self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing cycle. If we acknowledge that success is caused by many factors beyond our control, this system must appear to us profoundly unjust.

The concentration and perpetuation of wealth have two significant downsides. First, there is no certainty that people with similar traits associated with financial success make decisions that benefit everyone.§§ Second, higher levels of wealth provide access to better services, which are precluded to the less affluent citizens. A glistening example is education. According to the US National Bureau of Economic Research, children whose parents are in the top 1% of income earners are 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League college in America than those whose parents are in the bottom income quintile.¶¶

This first premise leads us to question meritocracy, the foundations of capitalism, and therefore capitalism itself —a system credited with creating and flourishing the middle class, expanding consumer choices, and allowing underdeveloped nations to catch up, but also with causing or contributing to cause inequality, hyper-financialization, and cronyism.

3. Premise no. 2: The Benefits of Science and Technology Greatly Overweigh their Downsides

Humanity must rely on science, technology, and, more broadly, progress to address the issues described in the introduction and implement a new and better socio-economic system.

Technology is often perceived as dangerous and frightening. For example, when the largest particle collider was about to be switched on in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2008, someone launched a lawsuit to stop it, fearing it would create a black hole and swallow the entire planet.*** Another example is the recent rise of AI, which has prompted lawmakers in various regions to pass regulations in an attempt to control it. Yuval Noah Harari has posited that “non-human intelligence threatens our very existence.”†††

Provided that risks to human life, civil rights, and the planet are prevented, my proposed model adopts a more optimistic approach to technological and scientific progress.

In the field of space exploration, for example, progress has been stellar. Space
mining—the exploitation of resources on celestial bodies such as asteroids and our natural satellite—is now considered by NASA as part of its Artemis mission to bring humans to the Moon and Mars.‡‡‡ To mention another example, continuous advancements in medicine, such as the CRISPR and mRNA technologies, raise hopes that many illnesses, including cancer, might eventually be defeated. The benefits of innovation are abundant in many other fields, and it would be impossible to mention them all here. Even in seemingly overhyped areas like generative AI, genuine positive outcomes are likely to be filtered from nonsense and will eventually produce tangible improvements on productivity.§§§

Scientific progress is essential as it is our primary means of developing defenses against a wide array of potentially deadly natural and anthropogenic phenomena. For instance, due to the intrinsic physics of our solar system, plant life on Earth will cease to exist in about 600 million years. In 1.1 billion years, there will be no seawater left on our planet’s surface, and in 7.59 billion years, the Earth will ultimately be engulfed by the Sun.¶¶¶ As a species, we must accept that if we wish to survive, we must eventually leave Earth and we can do it only by advancing our knowledge.

Progress often arises from the demystification of dogmas and the questioning of established beliefs and social stigmas. It expands the boundaries of the mind by freeing it from prejudices. Technological progress frequently accompanies social and cultural advancements. For example, during the XV and XVI centuries, when humans began to question religious dogmas, sensing that human intellect could provide more convincing answers to the great mysteries of life and the cosmos, the Renaissance and Humanism flourished. Geniuses like Copernicus and Galileo Galilei rose to prominence, paving the way for modern science based on observation, theory, prediction, and experimentation.

This second premise leads us to wonder whether scientific progress might give humanity a chance to build a new socio-economic system that preserves the advantages of capitalism while removing its drawbacks.

4. Theoretical Considerations: Can Humans Thrive Without Money?

The proposed model is based on the conviction that money should eventually be replaced by a system combining the abundance of most resources with the equitable distribution of inherently scarce ones, under a technology-supported governance. This article claims that such a system would be enabled by the universalization of a) ingenuity via education, and b) access to energy.

Corrections to pure capitalism and uncontrolled liberalism have been proposed and, sometimes, implemented. Social democracies, for instance, opted for a hybrid system that safeguards free market and private property while assigning certain tasks exclusively or partially to states. This system ensures that citizens contribute according to their possibilities to the cost of healthcare, pensions, and education. In the business realm, “stakeholder capitalism” is noteworthy. In this form of capitalism, “companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.”****

Nonetheless, the problems described in the introduction—inequality, climate disaster, and unhappiness—are more urgent and cumbersome than ever, requiring more ambitious and drastic solutions to guide our decisions. A new model for the future is needed.

My proposal aims to offer such a model by answering the hypothetical question: “What would occur if humanity chose to eliminate the use of money?” Around 5,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, humans realized that money was a functional and efficient tool to replace barter and ensure the supply of goods and services to individuals and communities. Nowadays, we can ask whether a better alternative, able to alleviate the issues raised in the introduction, can be developed.

To answer this question, it is crucial to acknowledge that money essentially rewards two fundamental factors: energy and ingenuity. Energy is the property needed to perform work, manifesting itself in, for example, electricity and heat. Ingenuity is the cognitive ability to be creative and original by conceiving either pragmatic solutions or novel ideas that provide intellectual and/or hedonistic gratification. In my view, ingenuity is always a combination of nature and nurture elements that must be distilled and sublimated by education and lifelong learning.

Other factors are non-fundamental. For example, a sufficiently evolved civilization can circumvent scarcity: the physical limitation of materials and goods can be overcome by harvesting resources through space mining, inventing comparable or better substitutes, and enacting a perfect zero-waste economy. However, cases of extreme scarcity, such as unique artworks and patents, are exceptions and must be regulated by a form of governance. This topic will be discussed later.

Besides energy and ingenuity, other factors either derive from one or both fundamental elements, depend on societal conventions, or cease to make sense in a truly efficient post-monetary socio-economic system. Unlike energy and ingenuity, these non-fundamental factors are not indispensable in every transaction and economic activity. Ultimately, the value these non-fundamental factors create is not real but only monetary.

Here is an example to explain why energy and ingenuity are fundamental. Antimatter is considered the most expensive thing on Earth, with its price estimated to be between $25 billion and 3,000 trillion per gram.†††† It is a form of matter with opposite charge relative to classical one, theorized in the early XX century by physicists such as Paul Dirac and observed in 1932. By examining how antimatter is produced, its constituents, and how these constituents are made, one can see that the value added at each step of the production chain serves primarily as reward to either energy or ingenuity. It is important to note that I will greatly simplify this reverse engineering process.

Antimatter is manufactured in particle accelerators. The concept of a particle accelerator is to bring very tiny particles near light-speed and smash them against each other or a target. Scientists study the resulting debris to answer open questions about fundamental physics and to discover theorized particles. One of the simplest accelerators is the cathode-ray tube, which was used in old TV sets. To continue this examination, let’s consider the cathode-ray tube’s relative simplicity. In it, a source of electrons—the cathode—shoots rays onto a phosphorescent screen. A magnetic deflector guides rays to form shapes on the screen. To buy this type of simple accelerator, one would therefore pay for the inventors’ idea (Julius Plücker and Johann Wilhelm Hittorf) and the materials used in its construction.

The cathode is typically made of copper, the screen of phosphor, and the magnetic deflector of various materials, including polypropylene. Polypropylene is a plastic polymer. How is plastic made? First, fossil fuels like oil are extracted. This process requires engineers to devise extraction techniques and tools, taking responsibility for their proper functioning and safety (ingenuity), a significant amount of energy to power these tools (energy), and technicians to operate them. Technicians are compensated for their expertise (ingenuity) and their labor (energy).

After extraction, oil is refined into ethane and propane. These molecules undergo a process known as “cracking,” where they are heated to extremely high temperatures to produce monomers such as ethylene and propylene. The value of cracking depends on energy and the ingenious ideas of those who invented and perfected it, such as William Merriam Burton and Eugène Houdry.

Once the monomers are created, they are combined with catalysts to produce a polymer “fluff”, which is then fed into an extruder. The extruder melts the fluff and transforms it into plastic. Again, the value of extrusion lies in the reward for its inventor (Joseph Bramah) and the high energy required for the melting process.‡‡‡‡

To sum it up: if any price is broken down to its components, and then the price of these components is broken down again, and this process is iterated until the components cannot be split further, it becomes clear that the fundamental blocks are, inevitably, energy and ingenuity.

We can now return to the initial question: “What would occur if humanity chose to eliminate the use of money?” The answer is as follows: once the access to ingenuity and energy is universalized and rendered free for all, a civilization that functions without money becomes conceivable.

To universalize ingenuity, education must be considered the most important factor of production and progress, and the greatest and noblest goal of mankind. Education must gain a status of prominence among all other human activities and be profoundly rethought to focus not on standardized notions, but on the aptitudes and abilities of each individual. Access to advanced and specialized education should be granted to everyone, enabling all to contribute their genius to collective well-being and prosperity. Education should be lifelong so that the opportunity to contribute does not discriminate based on age. Technology plays a major role in reshaping education, offering possibilities in terms of ubiquity, convenience of access, and personalization. If education is neglected by political agendas, even “advanced” nations risk plunging into ignorance, populism, reactionism, dogmatism, bigotry, and regression. Action is urgent: the average results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which the OECD administers every three years to 15-year-olds around the world to test their mathematics, scientific, and reading skills through standardized problems, have been deteriorating since 2012.§§§§

In this context, it is crucial to emphasize that while capitalism undeniably contributes to promoting innovation by bolstering the private sector and the creation of patents and incentivizing employees to improve productivity through economic rewards, “self-determination” drivers have been found to be more effective in fostering innovation than monetary incentives. Factors such as interest, importance, and personal fulfilment are more influential in motivating creativity and ingenuity than merely capitalistic incentives.¶¶¶¶

To universalize energy, it must become increasingly accessible and affordable. Data shows that renewable energy is already cheaper than energy from fossil fuels.***** The average price of solar panels has dropped by 90% in the last decade.††††† Global investments in renewables are growing faster than ever, with the added capacity in 2023 up by 50% compared to the previous year, and renewables accounting for 86% of newly installed electric energy capacity worldwide.‡‡‡‡‡ Theoretically, solar energy alone could power the entire planet. With more political willpower and public and private investments, significantly more solar energy can be harnessed. For example, uninhabited desert regions (e.g., the unclaimed area of Bir Tawil on the border between Egypt and Sudan) could be used to install solar panels. A global grid, combined with modern energy storage units, could avoid nighttime outages. Another practically infinite source of energy is geothermal, which has seen the largest drop in price in recent years.§§§§§ Besides high initial investments, geothermal boasts long-term operational costs that are “basically zero”.¶¶¶¶¶ In summary, a diverse mix of renewable energy sources can drive this process further and, eventually, make energy free.

As briefly mentioned above, even in a world with free, abundant, and high-quality energy and ingenuity, a system of control and distribution seems inevitable. In a sufficiently remote future, perhaps this task will be performed by machines of superior intelligence. In the more immediate term, a form of governance that is as light and democratic as possible would be required to manage education, justice, extremely scarce and unique objects, and infrastructure maintenance.

Governance is defined as a system to manage public resources that is non-hierarchical, participatory, decentralized, and network-like—rather than representative—but at the same time reliable, authoritative, legitimate, and resistant to ideology and crime. Such a system should be self-organizing, self-sustainable, and unbureaucratic, because otherwise people would need to be paid just to keep it running. As such, governance can replace traditional governments based on either representative democracy, which countless studies have proven flawed,****** or non-democratic systems, which are incompatible with an egalitarian model. The enabler of governance is, again, technology.

Blockchain, for example, can be applied even to public management. The principles of blockchain—resistance to fraud, decentralization, a certified single version of the truth, and the potential to automatize procedures—can allow citizens to track taxes from the moment they are paid to the moment the money is spent, ensuring no graft occurs. With “blockchain voting”, citizens would be able to cast their votes on a secured social platform, rendering parliaments redundant as democracy would consist of technologically advanced referendums. The next logical step is called “augmented democracy”. Under this system, voting power is delegated to avatars. By integrating it with the blockchain, the system becomes resistant to alterations and free from a single controlling entity. Anyone would be able to train and audit the algorithm.

The concept of “government by algorithm” dates back to the 1960s. Since then, many experiments have been performed to make public interest decisions based on data and precise forecasting models or to automate decisions. Examples of realms where algorithms have been used include smart cities, criminal prevention, and judiciary systems.

The model proposed in this article therefore requires defining a roadmap to universalize the fundamental drivers of monetary value—energy and ingenuity—and rely on a technology-powered governance to manage certain services and scarce or unique objects. This roadmap will be discussed in more detail later.

5. The Preservation of the Planet and the True Pursuit of Happiness

The model proposed in this article would contribute to the fight against
anthropogenic climate change and increase people’s happiness.

The proposed model aims to eliminate waste, maximize the efficiency of all factors of production, and create abundance. As a result, it would affect the sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Electricity and heat production—the largest source—would benefit from the switch to renewables, which are not only the cleanest and safest sources but also the ones that use the least land.†††††† Solar panels, for example, can be installed on the roofs of existing buildings and even on windows as transparent layers under certain conditions.‡‡‡‡‡‡ Emissions from industrial processes—the second largest contributor—would decrease thanks to improved waste management systems that aim for full recycling. The principles of circular economy would also apply to the third largest contributor, i.e., the cultivation of crops and livestock, which is primarily intended for food production. “[…] the food system today is wasteful, resource intensive, and polluting. A third of food is lost or wasted. Food waste and byproducts are landfilled, incinerated, and left to rot.”§§§§§§ Transitioning to a more circular, efficient, and healthy nutrition system would ensure everyone has enough to eat by procuring local and seasonal food, maximizing the efficiency of supply chains, and diversifying diets (75% of food globally comes from just 12 plants and five animal species).¶¶¶¶¶¶ The abandonment of fossil fuels—necessary to achieve free energy, given their physical scarcity—would abate the emissions from transportation and buildings, the last two contributors. The European Union is making significant strides: the EU Parliament and Council agreed in 2023 to make all new cars and vans zero-emission by 2035, and Germany passed a law in 2023 obliging all new residential heaters to be powered by renewables for at least 65% of their capacity.

Furthermore, the proposed model would contribute to a happier population. Although happiness is somewhat subjective, certain exogenous factors have been universally identified as predictors. The Harvard Study of Adult Development, which followed hundreds of men and their offspring for 80 years, found that the meaningfulness of human connections is the best predictor of a long and happy life.******* On the other hand, objective explanations have been identified as predictors of unhappiness. Wars and conflicts, obviously, produce significant stress.††††††† Climate change causes anxiety, especially among younger people, sometimes to a clinical degree.‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ Research shows that the deterioration of mental health in young people over the past decade could be partially explained by uncertainty about social connections, education, and job security.§§§§§§§ Not surprisingly, work is also a major stressor, as it was alluded to in the introduction. Studies show that work-related stress has increased greatly in the late 1990s and early 2000s.¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

By working towards a post-monetary civilization, at least some of the reasons for unhappiness would be alleviated, and happiness predictors would be strengthened. Work would be less of a stressor as it would be performed for reasons beyond economic reward. Education would be designed to customize formats, timetables, workloads, and expectations to individual needs. Through participatory democracy and de-politicization, political ideology would be superseded, preventing many societal conflicts, given that political differences account for most societal conflicts in wealthy nations.******** As governments cede their legitimacy and power, so does the concept of “nation-state”. Traditional borders would gradually disappear until a planetary civilization will render wars between nations pointless and obsolete. Lastly, by encouraging people to participate in a governance system, a strong social network would develop, providing individuals with a sense of purpose and an antidote to loneliness.

6. Recommendations for Public Policies and Business Actions

This section delineates some ideas for the practical implementation of the model proposed,
structured into a two-phased approach, and provides a checklist for policymaking.

The following taxonomy and roadmap for implementing the proposed model should be regarded as a set of inspirations, without claiming to be exhaustive. This approach distinguishes two phases: a prodromic or preparatory phase, which is advisable to implement in the forthcoming decades, and a subsequent or aspirational phase, contingent upon the successful execution of the preceding actions, anticipated to be realized within several centuries. This roadmap also underscores the imperative of a gradual transition to a post-monetary society, as prices progressively lose their relevance—for example, through the commoditization of certain products—and lifestyles become increasingly sustainable, for example, through the attainment of full circularity.

Figure 1: The Goal of a Post-monetary Civilization: A 2-phased Approach

Policymakers who are persuaded by the proposed model can contribute by supporting actions and policies that, directly or indirectly, aim to:

• Democratize access to public services such as education and justice, energy production and provision, and law-making and enforcement (Social & Participatory Democracy).
• Foster research and innovation (Progress).
• Decrease the bureaucratic, regulatory, and fiscal burden (Hollowing-out).
• Enhance international cooperation (Enhancement or Expansion).
• Reduce scarcity, eliminate waste, increase efficiency, promote circularity, automate processes, and create abundance (Resources’ universalization).

This is called the “SPHERe model” in this article.

Further avenues of research building on the “SPHERe model” could be envisioned to more precisely delineate the steps or strategies necessary for the proposed transition and survey citizens’ acceptance. Additionally, targeted tests for specific enabling innovations, such as participatory democracy, could be developed.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the positions or policies of his affiliated organization.