Keeping money under a lock and key may not help sustain our world after all. Another factor, more difficult to eradicate than money, will stands in its way.

 

Should we make everything free?

There are numerous amounts of adventures we would like to have and goals we want to achieve. However a main factor disrupting our progress is money. What would a world be like if there was no money? According to the Free World Charter — ‘free, fair and sustainable’. Yet there are some potential flaws with this view of life.

The ideology behind the Free World Charter is to optimise life by eradicating poverty and greed. Surely though, if everything was free, our greedy nature would get the better of us.

Pushing the pessimism aside, the Charter aims to stop us from being so hostile towards each other. The world has become increasingly more challenging to survive in and the idea of a free and fairer society sounds promising. In truth, all our species needs to survive is oxygen, water and food; yet we have become jeopardized by our greed for a wealthier life.

Richer in money yes but richer in life, not necessarily. The Free World Charter aims to make the step towards helping mankind live a better more sustainable existence.

The Charter addresses many reasons as to why implementing it would benefit the Earth and its sustainability. But if it had to be said in one word it would be: money. Money has been one of the root causes for injustice, waste, debt, unemployment and obstructed progress. We live in an unfair dog-eat-dog world where survival is nearly impossible without a small piece of paper with a number on it.

Implementation of the charter seems to be the big factor attached to certain issues. Much depends on public support and promotion, therefore awareness is key. People need to see the Free World Charter as a logical progression to the next level of societal evolution. The official website explains that politicians will have to agree with the people and that this will not be problematical. Hindsight illustrates otherwise. The likelihood of the leading party and collaborative parties being in agreement for such a structural change would be unlikely. And I’m only talking about Britain. The vast scale of international collaboration seems near impossible.

In the Charter there are 10 assertions to aid human survival and progress. Everything will be declared free to use within the limits of nature and technology, with the focus on helping sustainability. This is supposed to run smoothly provided that people respect the common goal.

The problem with this is that it assumes that everyone is the same. All individuals are meant to collaborate and see this as a positive, shared goal. But regardless of social standing, the competitive gene in our systems is a hard one to eliminate. One can argue that this new world would have no rules other than sustaining life and nature. The idea of having whatever we desire would overwhelm us; our greed gene will kick in.

A harmonious existence is a beautiful ideal, but just like every new rule or system established creates new opposition, so the idea of having free access to necessities may lead to anarchy.

The Charter initially sounds like a huge benefit to society, eradicating injustice, poverty and ultimately sadness. But, one must consider its lack of detail and the potentially destructive assumptions it makes. Above all, the sweeping political change needed to realise this idea, seems to have been optimistically glossed over.

Sadly, greed is in human nature and our race can easily be overwhelmed by it — even if it is to the detriment of a larger good. Let’s think about that.