Othmane Dahi

On 7/11/2020 at 7:24 PM, Dord said:

 

Surely being "rich" is somewhat subjective, and dependable on what is desirable or coveted by members of a particular socio-economic group.

Even without cold, hard cash one may be deemed to be rich by having more bacon and eggs than his neighbour.

being rich means that you have more more money than average people

In this world rich will probably mean having more rights than average people 

because in this world you get more food than others if you weigh more than them or if you have to feed more people ( you have more children ...)

On 7/9/2020 at 1:07 PM, dimreepr said:

Our accomplishments'/economy is only possible because farmer's (a subset of humanity) produce enough food for everyone; therefore, logically they should be the richest (subset of humanity) in a sustainable economy.

No there is no rich in this world. If they are making food, others make them shelter and others drive water to their home and others make electricity and others make a car for them ...

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's a difficult question...

While we have enough to eat, accomplishments are???

I am srry I don't rlly understand what do u want to say

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

How do you accomplish that without money? 

accomplish what exactly, please

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

But, apparently, they won't have the right to  daily ration of $666 burgers, or a $35,000,000 luxury yacht. (And some people might consider such a yacht under-specified and only fit for their younger children. )

Yes I agree this is one of the problems of this world 

8 minutes ago, Ken123456 said:

I do not know of more than one creator God.

But in reality people talk about different Gods which one are you refering to ?

16 hours ago, Area54 said:

So you reject the idea that some people can only be satisfied by extravagance? What is your evidence for that?

what type of extravagance are you talking about ?

For example if you are talking about someone who needs more food than others he will take it based on his weight etc 

However if you are talking about someone who wants for example a personal boat to travel seas well that is still not extravagance if he will be doing a mission for example giving reports etc 

In addition people will have the right to have a boat to travel a certain amount of time per year and this time will be set according to how much people want to do it per year so everyone that wants it will have the right to do it

On 7/5/2020 at 4:50 PM, John Cuthber said:

Next time you see someone who is on the dole, ask them if they want a job.

even if they don't, they will have to work to get their food and their needs

On 7/5/2020 at 10:06 PM, HallsofIvy said:

How does that contradict what I said?  A person who is on the dole still needs money- staying alive is not living in a satisfying way!

take a look on my reply on his 

Every one will have a satisfying life but without extravagance

On 7/6/2020 at 8:22 AM, Ken123456 said:

Could God use a scientist to help save the world from a devastating destruction but the scientist was not a believer in God?

This is a question we can't answer because we don't know God we don't know if there is rules for him too or not

On 7/6/2020 at 8:22 AM, Ken123456 said:

Could God use a scientist to help save the world from a devastating destruction but the scientist was not a believer in God?

which God are you talking about ? If there is we might know supposely by the book he sent or the informations he sent to his messenger if we suppose that he is actually the God of this world

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Suppose you produce yoyos. You make perfect yoyos, but the world no longer is interested, no matter what your passion and ability at making yoyos may be. Who's going to subsidize your yoyo-making? And what for?

Okay I understand. I agree this is a big problem.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If we could remove the extremes at either end, our current system could lead to less of a focus on acquiring more wealth than is necessary. If we want to curb extreme greed and poverty, regulation is our best friend. I know this because of how much the obscenely wealthy hate it, and how much the devastatingly poor need it.

I agree with @sangui the problem is how can we achieve that. This world is a kind of solution but it has his own problems such as @joigus's

32 minutes ago, sangui said:

I don't see how this is incompatible with money (I see why it's impossible with our system, but we could build an alternative monetary system).

Money is the simplest way to trade (and trade is important, because it's the simplest way to connect people). So maybe just build some new rules ?

-Every body will receive a minimum salary (without looking for his employement, sex, age ...).

-Nobody can earn more than 10 times this salary (10  is just an exemple).

-An organisation can control some prices (for the most important supplies)  to avoid dangerous inflation.

 

It may be an alternative between our world and a world without money (remember : money is a tool, a tool can't be evil, it just may  be evily used).

I see what you want to do but I think you will need so much more rules 

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

The problem with this well-meaning idea is the law of supply and demand.

Can you explain more

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

The problem with this well-meaning idea is the law of supply and demand.

an exampe woud suffice

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Is your world different than the one Marx envisioned when he said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

I don't know what Marx exactly said. But I can say in this world " each one has to do a mission that benefits others, according to his ability and his passion, in return he recieves what he needs to live and to do his mission "

The problem here is that maybe someone might not find an opportunity to work even if he wants to. 

2 minutes ago, Othmane Dahi said:

The problem here is that maybe someone might not find an opportunity to work even if he wants to.

I think it is not fair to treat him like someone who doesn't want to work.

Just now, zapatos said:

Then don't deny you said something. Just say you are changing the rule. That way we can avoid wasted effort.

Okay that was my bad I will try to avoid it. Thank you.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

there should be a way in which you and I agree to exchange our products even if you're not interested in my beans and/or I'm not interested in your leather

I didn't quite get that, please explain. Why would I agree to take leather if I don't want it

I think between two people it's harder than with a group for the leather maker, because it will increase his chance of a client every while that wants to change his leather

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If she works and he doesn't, you said she will get more food according to you. ("if he doesn't he will take a lot less than those who does")

Yes you are right. If we take weight in consideration the state "if he doesn't he will take a lot less than those who does" is false.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You are changing the rules as you go.

I didn't finish setting the rules yet I am still constructing the world and if I see that one of the rules in unfair I change it.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

That's what money originally was invented for.

Okay I see what you meant before

3 hours ago, timo said:

I wonder how different that is from money. Effectively, you seem to get one credit for a task that you can use for someone doing another task for you (providing breakfast). There are a few differences to our current implementation of a monetary system: I assume you image a single world-wide credit currency, you seem to assume there are no fractions of credits, I am not quite sure how tasks/missions are assigned, ... . But most of these differences seem to be disadvantageous compared to our current system.

you don't get one credit for your work you recieve the right to take every right, including breakfast.

You do whatever mission you want and feel comfortable doing. 

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You directly tied how much you get to how hard you worked.

No I didn't, the people who work and are the same weight and have the same amount of children will receive the same amout of food. But who does not work will have a lot less just because he is not doing anything.

10 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

If you disregard fatalities due to direct acts of violence, some 1.2 million people died in the four years of the Khmer Rouge regime from hunger, disease, and other ‘natural’ causes linked to malnutrition and inadequate health care. Of course it is difficult to disentangle how much of this is a direct result of economic policies (or rather their absence), but you get the idea - it didn’t end well for the people of Cambodia.

I think Google is your friend here, I am not in a position to do that kind of research for you. Keywords such as “communities without money” will get you a lot of search results, both for historical communities, and current ones. They definitely do exist, but once you read between the lines (remember that much of the material will be biased one way or the other), it becomes apparent quickly that the absence of money - just like an abundance of it - is not necessarily correlated to increased happiness. There are always trade-offs of one kind or another, usually related to personal freedom, or opportunities to pursue things other than basic survival.

I actually personally know an individual who chooses to live without money for ideological reasons (he isn’t part of any community) - he makes it work for himself, but his days consist of hard toil from morning to late, just in order to secure his basic survival. I know that he has little to no time nor resources for any other type of pursuit. To be honest, that would not be my idea of a fulfilling life, but each to their own.  

Thank you so much.

9 hours ago, Area54 said:

In today's society we call these measures money. How does your proposal differ?

There is people who have money and there is who doesn't and there is some " missions " that you are paid more doing them than other missions .

9 hours ago, Area54 said:

A measure of the acceptable content of the breakfast

I didn't get that 

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

The harder I work the more numbers I get.

Well this is a problem for my world. In my word you don't recieve more food if you work harder, you do if you have more family members to feed.

3 minutes ago, Othmane Dahi said:

Well this is a problem for my world. In my word you don't recieve more food if you work harder, you do if you have more family members to feed.

It's a problem because a worker who work harder than someone might get the same amount of food than someone who work less harder. But when I was contructing this world the reason I put in this rule is that people will do a job that they like and they won't be worried if it pays less money.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

You guys go ahead and burn all your money.
I'll see how it works out, and MAYBE I'll do the same.

But I won't be the sucker who goes first.

LOL.

You can keep your money as a souvenir but it won't help you anw.

The problem that you show here is that people who are rich won't accept this system.

59 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

We all know how this turned out.

Lol I don't. Can you please help me with that?

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Many attempts have been made throughout history to set up communities/societies that don’t use money, and to the best of my knowledge none of them have worked out in the end. 

I really want to have an idea about what they did so maybe I can make use of their experience. Is there any place I can have some informations about these attempts, please?

2 hours ago, HallsofIvy said:

Most people would not want to work if they did not have to have money!

No every one has to do something. And if he doesn't he will take a lot less than those who does.

And you can't go in a market and take whatever you want, you have a limit.

2 hours ago, HallsofIvy said:

I remember when I was very young thinking about this.

 

well I am 19

Hey guys,

I imagine a world without money. In this world you have the right to have whatever you want in a certain limit. For example, you have the right to have something to have breakfast but you have a list of combinations you have to choose from. In return, you have to do your mission too. 

What do you think? Is it a better world? Is it possible? WHY?

If you have any question about the world you are free to ask

55 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That triggered a (not 100% serious) question in the context of the topic's talk about if prayer is scientifically healthy. What about the opposite, "prayer withdrawal"? When someone healthy that used to participate in prayer stops praying, for instance due to lost faith, are they supposed to get health problems? I've encountered numerous dubious source claiming "science proved" this or that religious activity to have a positive outcome but not so much about the opposite. 

Good point but we have to see it just like someone who practices sport regularly and then stopped 

He won't have health problems but he might get fat

53 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That seems like a semantics argument. I'm talking about actual contradictions. In Genesis 1, animals are created before man, and in Genesis 2, man  is created before animals. 

I see

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's the creation story, the first book of both the Bible and the Torah. It describes the six days of creation, but in two versions that sometimes conflict with each other.

That's a good example to explain what I meant. You may say now that six days is too small and we all know that six days we know is too small for the period it took for our universe to be constructed but they wil say six days means six periods of time

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps that's all the contradiction one should need.

Exactly, that's what I want

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You're right, one should be enough. Unfortunately, you're confusing logic with critical thought. Logic doesn't mean "this makes sense to me". Formal logic is for philosophy and maths. Science uses reasoned, critical thinking in order to avoid the subjectiveness of personal intuition.

I don't think you got my point. I do realize the difference. What I am trying to say is that the problem in definitions and the way Quran is written. For example we go to a muslim and we say hey I found a contradiction in this verse and he says no because the contradiction you got is based on your own understanding of the verse but the actual verse doesn't mean what you understood. And that's what I mean by "undoubtful and no logic person can say it's wrong despite of the meaning he wants to give to the verse"

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Quranic stories tend towards more morality and less detail than Biblical ones, which makes it tough to judge. All the Abrahamic religions mention the Flood, which is an automatic science contradiction (it would require way more water than the Earth has, and floods leave evidence which we don't find). The Quran introduces a fourth son of Noah who didn't believe, went to a mountaintop instead of the ark, and drowned. Neither the Bible or the Torah mention him, and you'd think they'd both jump at the chance to show what happens when you cross God.

this is a good point, but I have no intension to find contradictions in the stories.Well, maybe I can but it's not my main plan any way. I will primally search in verses that give some general truthes etc.

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Christians often say the same thing about the Bible, and when I mention that Genesis 1 says God created animals on a different day than Genesis 2 does, I'm told it's simply not a contradiction. Anything open to interpretation is going to be difficult to pin down.

I don't know what Genesis mean is it something in the Bible ?

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm trying to say that this isn't good supportive evidence for arguing that Muslim prayers have a better effect on health than a similar amount of exercise without prayer.

I think you didn't quite get what they are saying. They don't say that what they say (wishes, verses of the Quran ...) makes it healthy, they refer only to the moves when they say it's scientifically proven that it is healthy. Even though I found something reliable now(https://www.annsaudimed.net/doi/full/10.5144/0256-4947.2002.177), it doesn't mean that Islam is the religion I should believe in because they are just some normal moves that we do every day. 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

A little doubt is called skepticism, and I think it's a good thing.

I agree and I like it, but when it comes to something I will believe in for the rest of my life I just prefer to be as sure as possible

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Those books are full of contradictions.

Well I didn't read them. And muslims say that the Quran has no contradictions. And whenever I search online for contradictions in the Quran I find a lot of scandal and a lot of logical mistakes so I prefer to read the book my self instead of reading this kind of things

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If that's your criteria for judging their worth, how many contradictions are you looking for?

It's not about the number. I can find one and it will be enough but it should be undoubtfull and no logical person will say that it's true, because the problem is in definitions and interpretations.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm trying to say that this isn't good supportive evidence for arguing that Muslim prayers have a better effect on health than a similar amount of exercise without prayer.

A little doubt is called skepticism, and I think it's a good thing. It keeps us always questioning our current explanations to make sure they're as accurate as they can be.

Those books are full of contradictions. If that's your criteria for judging their worth, how many contradictions are you looking for? If you find 3, will you continue until you find 10 (or 20, 20 is a good number)? If you find the right number of contradictions, will you assume that religion is false, or not worthy of your support? 

Have you determined how you'll judge what a contradiction is? Can it be little things, like claiming in one passage that Prophet X stayed in the city four days and nights, while another passage says he stayed a week? Or are you only looking for the big stuff, like the errors in the days of creation between Genesis 1 & 2?

If you know some contradictions in Islam I really hope you can show them to me to evaluate them 

And thanks for the help I really appreciate it

5 hours ago, Strange said:

It would be interesting to know whether oral or written traditions are more error prone. It seems obvious that memorising epic tales, etc would be less reliable than relying on written forms. But I bet its not that simple.

It depends on how much people memorize it.

If there is a lot of people that memorize it and then when it was written down maybe there was a war and a lot of who memorizes it died and there is just a few written books and any group can write down their own version and change it