Discussion Title: Currency should not exist if automation takes over everyone's job.

1. A monetary economy should not exist if automation takes over everyone's job.
1.1. Con: Humanity currently has no replacement for the current economic system, so it is better to keep the monetary economy going than have nothing.
1.1.1. Con: Other economies and initiatives could replace the current one, as they already factor in automation \(such as a [resource-based economy](https://i2.wp.com/theeconomictruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1eaf0763b52b15f74db449c9f1b00774.jpg)\).
1.1.1.1. Con: Some of the trends the economy is headed towards \(such as a [digital economy](https://www.fastcompany.com/3056736/what-happens-when-we-become-a-cashless-society)\) creates problems of it own \(privacy issues\).
1.1.1.2. Pro: Robots could take over the economy by owning and managing money, thus forming a robot-based economy
1.1.1.2.1. Pro: AI could do a better job than humans for building an economy.
1.1.1.2.2. Con: Handing the monetary economy over to robots will possibly create a divide between robots and humans. Then robots might not take care of humans because they will not have a need to \(as humans are no longer part of the economy\)
1.1.1.3. Pro: Capitalism could transition to a creative economy, where everyone becomes a designer and automatons fulfill them.
1.1.2. Con: The current economic system will be replaced regardless of whether we do anything or not, because a fully-automated job world would change it anyway. Better to create something desirable and similar to what we have \(and start now to be prepared\) to continue our existence than have nothing \(as in no economic system, or at least one that's usable by people\).
1.2. Pro: This is a worth taking a chance on it, as there's little risk: spare currencies/the concept of it could be kept as a safeguard as we proceed, to restore it if complete automation doesn't work.
1.2.1. Pro: The combination of eliminating money along with automating everything could advance society to where a monetary economy would be needed again.
1.2.1.1. Pro: An example is if automatons become self-aware and self-sufficient to where they create their own society, they could decide to leave humans behind to fend for themselves. Then humans might need to pick the monetary economy back up to continue to survive if there are no other options available.
1.2.2. Con: The further society goes away from money, the harder it is to add back in, even if everything's in place to do so.
1.3. Pro: Just like other technologies that become obsolete, money \(an invention\) will become obsolete with automation.
1.3.1. Pro: There is little possibility of transferring money to the unemployed without jobs.
1.3.1.1. Con: A UBI could provide a steady source of income without working
1.3.1.2. Pro: Jobs and owning businesses are the main sources of most people's income. However, with no CEOs or owners of companies, no one will be able to access money generated from businesses.
1.3.1.3. Con: People can still take money that their family has in the form of inheritance and gifts.
1.3.2. Pro: In a [moneyless society](http://www.moneylesssociety.com/home/) \(a.k.a. a [post-scarcity economy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klQ7bb8bBsQ) where everyone is a [prosumer](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/prosumer)\), money would not be a necessity.
1.3.2.1. Pro: A UBI would not be needed either
1.3.2.1.1. Pro: A UBI does not address everyone's needs \(due to inequalities in the cost-of-living that cannot be supplemented with a job\) and thus demonetization is the better way
1.3.2.2. Pro: If people service their own needs \(through 3D printing and growing food\), then an economy is not needed \(as no one would buy services and goods that they could accomplish themselves\).
1.3.2.3. Pro: People can practically live in a "[digital resource abundance](https://keithhaviland.com/2015/08/11/digital-abundance-and-the-second-half-of-the-chessboard/)" one day through virtual reality \(VR\).
1.3.3. Pro: People could receive goods/services created by automatons instead of paying for them in the fully-automated world.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek \(created in the 1950s\) envisioned a[Futuristic society that does not use money](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/05/geeks-guide-star-trek-economics/amp/). Many human accomplishments predicted in Star Trek now exist \(or are in the process of development\) like: racial equality, automatic doors, 3D printed food, personal health devices \(tricorder\), interplanetary travel, etc.
1.3.3.2. Con: The individuals or organisations that own the automatons have no reason to just give goods and services away for free - eliminating money does not change that fact.
1.3.4. Con: It is not possible to predict obsolescence of money as automation and monetary consumption are not mutually exclusive.
1.3.5. Con: Money is not simply an exchange of money for goods - humans exchange money for services and human contact \(hand crafted goods, art, sex work, police services\).  Money is often in essence 'in return for you doing X I will provide you with Y'
1.3.6. Pro: A monelyess economy would be the next step in the progression/'evolution' of the world's economic systems.
1.3.7. Pro: As better-working ideas emerge, they replace those that do not work as well. Since money has its shortcomings, moneyless economies should eventually emerge, as they resolve the issues that money causes.
1.4. Pro: Civilization can survive/thrive without money/barter, as it has done so in the past.
1.4.1. Pro: These revolutionary times built the foundation for modern civilization before money \(1,000BC\): [Agricultural Revolution \(10,000BC\)](http://www.history.com/topics/neolithic-revolution) and [barter \(9,000BC\)](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/history-money.html)
1.4.1.1. Pro: Civilization growth is due to efficiency innovations \(starting from agriculture and including money\), not money itself. Thus, civilizations innovate out of money could theoretically survive and thrive without it.
1.4.2. Con: Since times change all the time, what worked in the past might not work well in the future.
1.4.3. Con: People will need to a replacement for money when it gets removed.
1.4.3.1. Pro: Luckily technology can take its place.
1.4.3.1.1. Pro: People's lives could get enhancements technologically to the point that they will not need to seek out goods/services and instead be able to rely on what they have on-hand.
1.4.3.1.1.1. Pro: Enhancements could by cybernetic, genetic \(not needing medical care due to excellent health or becoming autotrophic to not need food\), or digital \(uploading brains to the computer\).
1.4.3.1.1.1.1. Pro: People could live in virtual reality worlds when they upload their consciousness to the computer and make anything there, which would create a post-scarcity environment.
1.4.4. Pro: In the past \(before money\), the environment was the source of sustenance for people \(i.e. hunter-gatherers\). This proves that money is not the only base humans use to live.
1.5. Pro: Money should be eliminated, because it causes issues in society.
1.5.1. Pro: [Money "prevents the fair distribution of...necessities"](http://www.moneylessmanifesto.org/book/the-moneyless-menu/resource-based-economy-and-pay-it-forward/).
1.5.2. Pro: Certain economic systems that have money \(like capitalism\) force profits over people \(and the environment\), which is unsustainable.
1.5.2.1. Con: Just because capitalism is bad, doesn't mean we should go into an equally unaustainable/environmentally destructive [alternative](https://www.perc.org/2019/05/17/socialism-is-bad-for-the-environment/), as they don't eliminate the need for perpetual economic growth and resource-generation. Instead we should fix this first instead of running away into a fully automated economy \(as humans are still consumers in it\).
1.5.3. Con: It also has benefits, such as the regulation of consumption and the easing of trade. You have to be careful not to "Throw the baby out with the bath water".
1.5.4. Pro: A monetary economy is essentially a competition based economy. Therefore, this is really a question of whether or not we use competition in society. Competition by its very nature creates a very few winners, and a great many - as in billions - of losers. With de facto abundance created by automation, we no longer have to choose who gets resources and who doesn't. In fact, limiting people's access to resources becomes even more immoral. So yes, money has to go.
1.5.4.1. Con: Even with abundance, automation, and accounting for morality, resource allocation will inherently create competition for resources and bartering to fulfill transactions \(as currency won't exist\) if it doesn't reach those in need \(based on the automation setup\) and scarcity of resources arises.
1.5.4.1.1. Pro: In some automation setups, such as a planned, government-allocated layout, inefficiencies would lead to some people getting more resources than others. This would lead to competition for products and resources when they get scarce for individuals and/or societies.
1.5.4.1.1.1. Con: With the latest advancements in technology, people may avoid government allocations and create their own automatons to get their work done to get around this to fix their own issues \(as with automation, that is possible\).
1.5.4.1.2. Pro: Because people get what they want and need with automation, people will get different items and quantities than others. This unequal distribution would create a disparity where people feel that they don't have what someone else does, which could lead to competition and trading of products to satisfy immediate and perceived needs that people won't think of going to automation for.
1.5.4.2. Pro: With increases in technology and improvements to the efficiency of automation, eventually a fully automated system \(like FALC\) could be less resource wasteful than even capitalism \(such as on-demand with 3D printers instead of production runs and guesses at it\) and able to acquire resources better than humans \(as robots can collect material from outer space\). This would make scarcity virtually go away.
1.5.4.2.1. Con: With capitalism, increases in technology could allow for a lack of scarcity too, just likely at a lesser level. So it's not unique to completely automated workplace economies.
1.5.5. Pro: If this fully automated society is coupled with better systems of governance eliminating positions of power, then corruption would be virtually impossible.
1.5.6. Pro: People will not have to worry over money anymore
1.5.6.1. Pro: Not worrying about money could strengthen relationships as it a [top issue](https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/04/money-is-the-leading-cause-of-stress-in-relationships.html) in them currently.
1.5.6.2. Con: The value of hard work that went into building savings becomes worthless \(to the saver\).
1.5.6.2.1. Con: The value of hard work to create an equitable society gains value.
1.5.6.3. Pro: The problems associated with the monetary economy \(such as [socioeconomic inequality](http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education.aspx)\) will be eliminated.
1.5.6.4. Pro: People will have more free time to pursue life-enriching interests outside of work, such as: family time, friendships, mentoring, learning, debate, hobbies, sports, entertainment, travel
1.5.6.5. Con: People's purpose in life \(through jobs and monetary investments\) might vanish.
1.5.6.5.1. Con: Securing and expanding your monetary resources is a shallow purpose as it basically reduces humans' purpose to that of an animal, the mere chasing of resources. Removal of this driver will give people an opportunity to find more fulfilling purposes.
1.5.6.5.2. Con: People's purpose in life will not vanish. Instead, automation of their job will free up humans to find new ways to fulfill their time and find purpose.
1.5.6.5.3. Con: The purpose of someones life is not intrinsic to oneself but product of social and cultural influences. A different social and cultural \(and thus economic\) arrange would lead to different life purposes.
1.5.6.5.4. Pro: People might lose motivation to seek skills and locales that enhance their life since jobs and money are no longer motivation to them
1.5.6.5.4.1. Con: The new prevalent motivation would be to get social popularity. People's activity would be rewarded with likes and ratings on social media, or just smiles in real life.
1.5.6.5.4.1.1. Con: This could lead to a society based on fake social appearances rather than real personal well being \(See Black Mirror, S03E01\).
1.5.6.5.5. Con: Many people's purpose is not work related.
1.5.6.5.6. Con: Those involved in creative endures would be able to keep at such efforts without being paid if they were otherwise subsidized.
1.5.6.5.6.1. Pro: Creative people can produce positive emotions to others. This gives them a more meaningful and rewarding feeling than money.
1.5.6.5.7. Con: People could find a purpose by volunteering to charity missions.
1.5.6.5.7.1. Con: That will be a short-term solution as volunteering gets automated as well.
1.5.6.5.7.1.1. Con: Some situations such as natural catastrophes would benefit from all help available. Having automates to do the job does not exclude humans also joining their force.
1.5.6.5.7.1.1.1. Con: The capabilities that humans have make sense in current times, but in the future they could get in the way of helping people. The situations \(such as the Fukushima disaster\) would benefit more from automation as they could tackle environmental hazards that are too dangerous for humans.
1.5.6.5.7.1.2. Pro: On [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/) \(an online catalog edited by volunteers\), [bots](https://openlibrary.org/people/ImportBot) work on the same tasks as volunteers as well.
1.5.6.5.7.1.3. Pro: Citizen science projects like [Eyewire use volunteers to help computers learn and be able to replace them one day](https://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2013/08/19/70000-have-played-eyewire-game-that-trains-computers-to-map-the-brain/#8671939152e5).
1.5.6.5.7.2. Con: Once automation takes over, the quality-of-life worldwide gets improved \(with [access to Wi-Fi](http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51924) and [self-reliant farming](https://www.raptim.org/focus-on-ngos-20-organizations-dedicated-to-improving-agriculture/)\) to where 'charity missions' become a thing of the past.
1.5.6.5.7.2.1. Con: Automation cannot prevent natural catastrophes \(tsunamis, earthquakes, floods,...\). So voluntary help would always be required.
1.5.6.5.7.2.1.1. Con: Automation could help us not be affected by them through preventative tactics \(such as [monitoring equipment](https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/14/17011396/ai-earthquake-detection-oklahoma-neural-network)\). Then humans could react to dangers in time to not need a cleanup \(with volunteers\) afterwards.
1.5.6.5.7.2.1.2. Con: With automation, automation could possibly manipulate the weather \(like in the movie Geostorm\)
1.5.6.5.7.2.1.2.1. Con: The weather is a [Chaos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) system. The odds of finding a way to control it are very small. We can't rely on such small odds.
1.5.6.5.8. Pro: Status could be an issue for people where they cannot rely on the [reputation of their job for their social hierarchy standing](https://youtu.be/3cXPWyP0BBs?t=24m25s).
1.5.6.5.9. Pro: People might not know how to enjoy themselves since they are in the habit of spending money. Getting out of the habit will be challenging as for some it might be the equivalent of fighting an addiction. The transition can take away from their lifetime purposes.
1.5.6.5.9.1. Con: The next generation will grow in a world without that addiction. Each society change takes time before it becomes normal. The long term benefits of this change outweighs the cost of the transition.
1.5.6.5.9.1.1. Pro: For example for the baby-boomer generation it was normal to smoke anywhere, and a large share was addicted to smoking. But the millennials are living in a world with much fewer smoke, and a [Lower share](https://ourworldindata.org/smoking) of this addiction.
1.5.6.6. Pro: Debt would vanish, which would be a step towards happiness.
1.5.6.7. Con: Worrying about money is better than living with the wide spread waste and suffering caused by shortages and surpluses that have resulted from non monetary economies.
1.5.6.7.1. Con: The United States works purely on the 'motivator / limiter' of a monetary economy and has on of the highest per capita material consumption and waste generation on the planet.
1.5.6.8. Pro: money crimes \(laundering, counterfeiting...\) would not take place anymore either
1.5.7. Pro: Money corrupts our moral character by prioritizing values over the good itself in exchanges, which just [encourages greed and selfishness over morals](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/money-finance/#MoneRootAllEvil). The opposite can occur when money's eliminated.
1.6. Pro: The knowledge and conditions needed to automate labor comes from the sum total of human progress and therefore, in the long term, the fruits of its labor too belong to all of humanity. A monetary economy would be a poor fit for this eventuality.
1.7. Con: To prevent a monetary economy from existing would require active intervention and suppression.
1.7.1. Pro: As long as trading of any kind exists, communities will naturally gravitate toward treating some exchangeable good as a standard for valuation; this item is by definition money.
1.8. Con: Money is useful and important, and that will not diminish just because of automation.
1.8.1. Pro: Some things will always be scarce even if automation could bring in infinite resources - for example, original paintings by a specific artist - and money is an efficient way to distribute such things.
1.8.2. Con: We would really understand the importance of money only after complete automation takes place, as we won't know our needs until then.
1.8.2.1. Pro: Since the labor force has never been automated before, the impacts on the significance of money are not known. Delving into the unknown without any prior insight could incur unintended, negative consequences.
1.8.3. Con: If automation creates everything we need, no one owns the machines. This means no one makes money or can spend it \(especially if the cost of goods become so cheap from automating that they go to $0\), which defeats the purpose of having it: as a [medium of exchange](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money).
1.8.3.1. Con: Currency may no longer be needed on the consumer end, but it still may have a purpose on the supply side, as those purchases may still be large enough for it to exist: like mergers and acquisitions \(M&A\) and bulk orders. So humans won't use currency, but automatons would for this specific scenario.
1.9. Con: A demonitized economy raises so many unanswered questions \(listed in the pros\) that need to be answered first that it forms a barrier to even conceiving the possibility of having no currencies. This makes even a world like that too hard to start.
1.9.1. Pro: Will space colonies be the first demonetization civilization?
1.9.1.1. Pro: Will space colonies rely on an economy even with automation due to their dependencies on their home planet for resources?
1.9.1.2. Pro: If an economy continues in space, will space colonies have their own currency or will all the space colonies together have a 'space currency'?
1.9.2. Pro: Will robots become conscious \(i.e. develop a soul\) to where they realize the effects of their actions on people and decide to help them? To clarify, robots see humans lose their jobs and decide to help them survive out of repentance.
1.9.3. Pro: Will robots create their own society one day that would include a monetary economy?
1.9.4. Pro: If robots create their own society, will they leave people behind to where a monetary economy would need to be picked back up again?
1.9.5. Pro: How will possession of inherently scarce goods, such as "a soccer ball autographed by Dixie Dean," be determined in a non-monetary economy?
1.9.6. Pro: How will we control individual consumption?
1.9.7. Pro: If money is non existent, doesn’t that drift us away from capitalism and opportunity?
1.9.8. Pro: Will we have and need responsibilities in a demonetized world?
1.9.8.1. Pro: Will we find a new method to have responsibilities?
1.9.8.2. Con: Many psychological [theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_\(psychology\)) suggest that humans need to be doing 'things', to feel like we're accomplishing something and getting somewhere.  The 'what' of what we are doing may change but many humans need to be 'needed' and to feel accomplished \(and a way to measure that accomplishment\)
1.9.8.3. Pro: Are we going to find meaning without the economy providing responsibilities?
1.9.9. Pro: Is unemployment a realistic life plan?
1.9.10. Con: -> See discussion #8985: Humans will have a place and roles in a fully-automated world.
1.9.11. Pro: Will this allow for celestial bodies that only house robots and automation because they are freed of the monetary constraints of society and are allowed to just produce for humans in a location where humans are not capable of existing?
1.9.12. Pro: Will demonitizing cause the separation of development of robot and human societies?
1.9.12.1. Con: Without money, robots and people could coexist peacefully.
1.10. Con: Transitioning away from using currencies is difficult on a mass-scale
1.10.1. Con: Difficult doesn't mean impossible, so we should try it for the better good of future generations.
1.10.2. Pro: Some cultures might not resist, due to their avoidance of anything relating to [communism](http://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/052e593ca8b610da988f345b7ef9f8e4134f2e-v5-wm.jpg?v=3).
1.10.3. Pro: Having a limited monetary budget is what prevents people from over-consuming. If there is no money involved, people will be free to consume too much of Earth's limited resources \(Fossil fuels, water, lands,...\).
1.10.3.1. Con: Other methods, besides money, can reduce over-consuming. These can allow money to be eliminated without the negative side effects.
1.10.3.1.1. Pro: For example, innovation can create a post-scarcity world to cater to every person's individual needs. Automation would help to achieve this.
1.10.3.1.2. Pro: [Demonetization goes hand-in-hand with dematerialization](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cXPWyP0BBs), which gives people more capabilities \(a.k.a. do and have more\) with less resources.
1.10.3.1.2.1. Con: People will always want physical goods, because it's in the human nature to live and interact with a material environment.
1.10.3.1.2.1.1. Con: This will eventually change as future generations adapt to a more and more dematerialized world
1.10.3.1.2.1.2. Pro: People will want to [touch](https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201303/the-power-touch) material things or other people.
1.10.3.1.2.2. Pro: The capabilities for size of items is getting smaller, such as the processing power increasing per same chip size example mentioned in the video.
1.10.3.1.2.2.1. Con: We have more power per chips, but we also have more chips as more people can afford to have one \(or more than one\).
1.10.3.1.2.2.1.1. Con: Just because people buy more, the sheer small size would make the number bought irrelevant. For example, if people bought [a million one-atom large chips, it would only be the thickness of a book page](https://superbeefy.com/how-big-is-an-atom/).
1.10.3.1.2.2.2. Pro: Quantum computers now allow calculations to be made at the atomic level \(such as how [0's and 1's are based on photon positions](https://www.photonics.com/images/Web/Articles/2013/4/2/OPTO_Qubit1.png)\).
1.10.3.1.3. Pro: Automation can eliminate inefficiencies, which wastes less resources per product. Thus, more product is available to more people using the same amount of resources.
1.10.3.1.3.1. Pro: Systems that include automation \(such as a resource-based economy and post-scarcity world\) acknowledge resource consumption and actually decrease it. Consumers in these systems consume less or no resources for their goods/services than a monetary economy.
1.10.3.1.3.1.1. Con: If on one hand the "resources per goods" ratio decreases, but on the other hand the amount of goods produced increases strongly \(because of the absence of money limitation\), then the total amount of resources consumed will increase.
1.10.3.1.3.2. Pro: Automation eliminates costly human errors
1.10.3.1.3.3. Con: It is often hard and controversial to define and quantify what is needed or not.
1.10.3.1.3.3.1. Pro: Leisure, art, gastronomy,... are somehow needed for our well being, but how much of it do we need? The answer will vary a lot for each individual perspectives.
1.10.3.1.3.3.2. Con: Quantification comes from supply and demand. A monetary economy has trouble with this because the supply takes guesses at the demand. This act causes goods/services to be either over- or under-produced. In an automated society with immediate gratification of needs, people asking for something will be quantified as 'needed' whereas what is not asked for is assumed as 'not needed'.
1.10.3.1.3.3.2.1. Con: People sometimes ask for things they don't actually need, because for some reason they have been mislead to believe that they need it.
1.10.3.1.3.3.3. Con: The less accurate the fulfillment of an order is, the less needed the good/service is. For example if someone wants to watch a movie but is provided advertising with it, then the need was partially filled \(the movie was a need and the advertisement was not\). People will then try to go to where movies do not have advertisements. That movement could be quantified.
1.10.3.1.3.4. Con: This would give to AI a very strong authority and power, which would not be accepted because it's against freedom and democracy principles.
1.10.3.1.3.5. Pro: 3D printing at home could allow items that need no excess of trash alongside it \(such as packaging for shipping\)
1.10.3.1.3.6. Pro: 3D printing at home cuts out middlemen \(transportation/store\) by producing products on-the-spot for immediate use.
1.10.3.1.4. Pro: Automation could be taken out of the current capitalistic system and be placed in a [resource-based economy](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f4/3b/5c/f43b5c28a051c43a4107aff1de9df1c5.jpg) to decrease resource waste
1.10.3.1.5. Pro: People will have to learn self-control. I recall hanging out with a millionaire who was constantly reminding herself, "Don't be greedy".
1.10.3.1.5.1. Pro: In the new world of automation, education and laws may adjust to accommodate it. Schools may teach people to use discretion when consuming and laws would allow for enforcement of such policies.
1.10.3.2. Con: The monetary economy on the business side \(not the consumer side\) is the real reason that over-consumption exists. Eliminating businesses chasing profits \(to the point where they encourage over-consumption\) reduces this issue.
1.10.3.2.1. Pro: Some products are made where individual parts cannot be replaced. Consumers are forced to throw away the entire product and buy a new one instead of replacing the part.
1.10.3.2.2. Pro: Without a capitalist system, there would be no need of planned obsolescence. Objects will be made to last, so there will be less resource wasted in renewing old devices.
1.10.3.2.3. Con: Artificial scarcity already exists in our society \(to increase prices\), which limits resource consumption.
1.10.3.2.3.1. Con: Planned obsolescence causes scarcity of functional devices, forcing people to buy new items that they already have. This process is wasteful and encourages over-consuming
1.10.3.3. Pro: The monetary system already has its kinks worked out, whereas the automated/moneyless system has not.
1.10.3.4. Pro: If a [moneyless economy transitions to a gift economy](https://money.howstuffworks.com/moneyless-world.htm) \(assuming people do not over-consume\), then it would be theoretically possible to not over-consume in a world without money.
1.10.3.4.1. Pro: This would help the economy transfer from an ability- to needs-based one, because people would take what they need regardless of how hard they worked for it.
1.10.3.4.2. Con: A gift economy assumes everyone is productive. However, no one would be productive in jobs are not done by humans to make such gifts.
1.10.3.4.2.1. Pro: Humans cannot appreciate the efforts/resources required to make such gifts if they are not part of the process hands-on \(unless they are given the chance to\).
1.10.3.5. Con: A limited monetary budget does not prevent people from over-consuming. Otherwise our current capitalistic system \(with utilizes budgets\) would not see the effects of over-consumption as it does now.
1.10.3.6. Pro: Automation may overproduce goods/services because they are so capable at production, which will lead to waste.
1.10.3.6.1. Con: Automation may also have the job of overseeing the exploit and will take on the job of stopping it. Hence, this would not be an issue.
1.10.3.6.2. Con: Automation might not overproduce, as there would be no consumer base to overproduce for \(without humans having money/jobs\).
1.10.3.6.3. Pro: Without a consumer base \(because humans would have no jobs/money\), automatons would keep producing, because that is what they are designed to do. The combination would lead to a glut of products/stores/storage without anyone to buy it. None of the products would ever get used and thus be a waste of resources to create to begin with.
1.10.3.7. Pro: Better production capabilities with zero costs to consumer will equate to more people being able to buy resource-intensive goods/services.
1.10.3.8. Con: A fully-automated world will be able to extract resources in methods unimaginable today. Over-consumption will not be an issue, as automated extraction will keep up with the consumption of resources \(as it can access locations that human labor cannot\).
1.10.3.8.1. Pro: In a post-scarcity world that automation might create \(due to increased capabilities\), resources might not just be taken from Earth but anywhere in the universe. Then people will have unlimited resources to match their over-consumption.
1.10.3.8.1.1. Pro: Robots could be sole inhabitants of resource-rich celestial bodies to extract resources from and send back to the human-inhabited ones
1.10.4. Pro: Eliminating the monetary economy could create a resurgence of it in limited settings. So complete removal's virtually impossible.
1.10.4.1. Pro: Humans might rebel to all the automation taking over everyone's jobs and decide to form societies away from automation where they create and maintain money there \(such as through colonizing another planet or creating virtual reality worlds\)
1.10.4.2. Pro: Academic settings could have a teacher teach students about what a monetary economy used to be like by having an activity simulating it \(like everyone's given money with being assigned their own goods/services and the teacher lets them know they could trade\)
1.10.4.3. Pro: A video game could be based on people playing with fake money to buy goods/services
1.10.5. Con: Movement towards a world without an economy is already underway.
1.10.5.1. Pro: Assuming anti-monopoly laws are justly enforced, capitalism promotes competition, which is a race to zero price. Eventually all products will have a version that costs $0, and payment will be taken in another form such as data.
1.10.5.1.1. Con: In competitive markets, prices approach costs over time. While profitability inevitably disappears, hard production costs do not. Free products are not in any way inevitable.
1.10.5.1.1.1. Con: Free products are absolutely inevitable because our world is populated with price-sensitive consumers \(97% of the population and growing\) who want products that are free. Savvy businesses look for ways to get paid another way, i.e. advertising or selling consumer data in order to provide free products that customers want.
1.10.5.1.1.1.1. Pro: Automation allows for goods to be so cheap that some sellers have to give it away for free \(they cannot make a profit on it and it might be cheaper to give it away for free than sell it\).
1.10.5.1.2. Pro: Yes, competition is a race to zero. In today's competitive markets, [smartphones \(which can cost as little as $0\)](https://qlinkwireless.com/) and [5 million mobile apps, \(most of which are free\)](https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/) replace countless expensive physical and software products from just 10 years ago including: cameras, video cameras, DVDs, DVD players, home stereo systems, sound recording equipment, image editing software, video editing software, word processing software, etc, etc, etc. the list is endless.
1.10.5.2. Pro: Economic transitions are taking place with[collaborative consumption and a sharing economy](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/df/65/ec/df65ece8ab290c0c3ec1fc3b21f31236--sharing-economy-definitions.jpg)
1.10.5.3. Pro: Technology is making strides with open-sourcing software and crowdsourcing to make goods cheaper and also free.
1.10.6. Con: It being difficult doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. If we have a possibly better alternative, then we shouldn't fight to keep the first scalable economy we've come across. Keeping our heads in the sand isn't an efficient way to go about improving things.
1.10.7. Pro: It's been tried before and didn't work: in [2016](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation#Other_effects), India demonetized. The dependence on what ceased to exist resulted in mass chaos and economic suffering.
1.10.7.1. Con: Not transition slowly could lead to people not adjusting properly, which is not the fault of currency removal. With India it was abrupt to one of the largest populations on the planet, so it's reasonable to see why it failed.