Y'know... I tried to get in touch with Jacque before He passed. Managed to contact someOne that worked directly with Him (a handler?) - wish I could remember the name - who told Me that Human choices would be relegated to preference - this color or that, this flavor or that, etc. - and that AI would be making all the "important" choices.
Funny. Jaque himself never mentioned the use of AI but to use an open sourced, publicly accessable computer to manage the distribution of goods. How much is needed, and where, where are there any tech problems available, where are there plumbing issues etc.
He also mentioned the use of "government" would be completely obsolete.
Well, I do not doubt there were Ones who wanted to "handle" Him and His work. He likely wanted nothing to do with AI running things - wish I could have talked to Him directly. He and I were on the same page (but for the encapsulated cities...). The web (open-source) could easily handle who needs what where.
But yeah, when abundance is flowing, all We need is Us delivering Ethical consequences to Any who choose to break the three Laws.
I was curious to see how your estimates of the amount of work that Free Energy would make unnecessary stacked up against the published data. Although there is no where near enough detail in the published stats to accurately determine that amount, here’s a rough guess based on 2023 Canadian data from Statistics Canada.
Table 14-10-0022-01 reports the current number of employees by industry sector in Canada... here’s a summary of the percentages:
- at least half of these jobs are wasted on financing, taxation, accounting, marketing & distribution
- of the productive jobs remaining at least another half could be automated or done by robots most likely just 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Goods-distribution industries 19.8%
(wholesale, retail, transportation, warehousing)
- without the need for brokers, sales, accounting, financing & taxation the movement of goods from producers to end users could be almost completely automated most likely just 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Finance & professional services 19.6%
(finance, insurance, real estate, legal, scientific & technical, management)
- without money most of this sector would disappear completely or be automated most likely just 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Education & healthcare 20.6%
- this sector will change as people take more responsibility for their own health & education
- once money is no longer driving these agendas people will contribute lovingly to improve
these sectors - new technologies could cut the human labour requirements by half most likely 10% of the current workforce would still be needed here
- without the need for money and accounting this sector could be almost totally automated most likely just 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Public administration 5.9%
- this sector would likely grow as more people got involved in the decision making processes
- while the enormous burden of taxation and income supports would be removed, new services
to support transparency, disclosure and increased citizen participation would be needed most likely 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Totalling up all of the above suggests that at least 1/3 of the current workforce would still be needed to operate society smoothly.
Is it reasonable to expect that at least one out of three people would be willing to devote some of their time and skills to the betterment of their community for no other reason than public gratitude and praise? I’ll let you think about that…
If people could just recognize that they would be far better off if money was abolished altogether then there would be nothing to stop the development of natural Free Energy sources. All of the wonderful social transformations that Amaterasu continuously writes about would become reality. I want to live there now. How about you?
Okay... Oil and gas and utilities diminish in use and importance with free energy flowing...
They already have farming robots, and I do not doubt We can find plenty of People who love to farm...
And Your assessment on other things is pretty good. Though I think You are not seeing that many of those things are pushed for money reasons - "Public administration?" What would that mean in a society that focuses on People solving problems Ethically that affect Them? There is no "administration."
What "new services?"
And yes, there are plenty of creative jobs People would love to do, and I will guess We will have many more than enough.
And again, I would not abolish money. The point to using it will vanish and it will dissipate. But if People want to set up voluntary communities that trade, barter, or used representational things, They're welcome to it...
Money is used to gain access to the things people need. We eliminate that restrain and now people have access. But supply is needed and work is still needed to keep the shelves full.
We need robots - automation - where no One wants to do the work. And robots don't demand a wage - just energy...which is free.
And with 80% of Us no longer enslaved to moving Our wealth up to the psychopaths in control... There will be plenty who love to do most of the work - even much of it We could add robots for, but let the People at it first.
There is a difference between “abolishing” and allowing something to fall into disuse. “Abolishing” something implies an active effort, maybe a mandate or something. Decree: “I hereby abolish money!” No One “abolished” buggy whips - but they fell into disuse when the car came to be.
Then the question becomes how do you get people to accept not getting paid tokens for their labour when tokens are still required to buy things they need?
I don't "get Them to." Add free energy. When the cost of energy is removed, prices will drop. And keep dropping, because 100% of the cost of EVERYTHING is energy. The resources sit here freely, but it takes energy to put them into useful configuration.
As the cost of automating becomes affordable, necessary jobs no One wants to do will be automated by Those who love to build robots and such. People will move out of jobs They don't love as the cost of things gets closer to zero, and start doing what They love to do.
The web will be used as a coordination point... Have You read My piece on the blueprint?
"When the cost of energy is removed, prices will drop. And keep dropping, because 100% of the cost of EVERYTHING is energy. The resources sit here freely, but it takes energy to put them into useful configuration."
•
Human energy is a large part of the total energy society uses and you never seem to answer how human energy becomes Free Energy. It's not as easy as unveiling a hidden technology like electrogravitics.
"Public administration?" What would that mean in a society that focuses on People solving problems Ethically that affect Them? There is no "administration."
We would still need people to organize and manage public resources likes roads, parks, etc.
Well, I can assure You there are plenty of People who would love to tend to parks... If They didn't have to schlep in to sell insurance or whatever, so as to survive, that's what They would do.
As for roads, where there are problems, the Ones who are affected will solve for them. But if We have electrogravitics... Cars will likely be flying.
I have read and watched most of your information materials. I love the direction you are headed towards, I just don't think the path from here to there is completely defined.
Construction and manufacturing are primarily driven by profit motive, with planned obsolescence built into a lot of the manufacturing. When We are making things with quality and made to last, a great deal of such will be unneeded.
Construction will diminish, as things are renovated, but there will still be some.
Anyway, by My calculation, a large part pf those jobs can be automated. And much of what’s left is creative. And when there is a problem, Those affected can seek the BEST solution, not the cheapest or most profitable for Some - or left to fester for lack of funds.
And virtually all the other “jobs” out there are to move money about and upwards, always upwards.
If everything were free then we'd all be equal but a whole lot of people don't want to be equal. They want to be SUPERIOR. They believe they DESERVE to live better than the rest of US because they are smarter, more talented or better looking (look at Hollywood celebrities and professional sport stars). If we could all access ridiculous luxury then luxury itself would become useless as a way to display status and privilege. Even normal working people fall into this trap and take pride in owning better cars, boats and houses than their neighbours. Equality scares people.
Then We earn status by producing the BEST, the most appreciated. It will be social currency We earn, actually deserved.
And You're right. mansions will not generally be sought out. Lots of maintenance and no status.
It's not "equality" We will see, but a vying for the greatest betterment, the best solutions to problems, the most appreciated artwork, the highest quality of information taught, and so on.
But really, that "status" seeking is a learned behavior in a moneyed society. In the societies that emerged in abundance where no money arose, the People earned respect, admiration, and such, with the leaders having the most regard for the quality of solutions They provided.
There was no "I'm better than You because I have more objects than You do."
I guess You want to bring Us down to a common denominator? Am I reading that correctly? Then there will be no competition, and no One will learn to lose gracefully. No One will win. But no egos will be bruised or propped either. Mediocracy?
I'm just not seeing the issues in a society where All may live as richly as they choose cooperating and competing for the best solutions.
In the societies without money, cooperation was much greater than competition, though They did have games and so competition was there.
No I am not in favour of any "common denominator" other than an equal respect for others. I am merely trying to clarify what I believe is the psychology behind people's reluctance towards financial equality.
Reluctance towards "financial equality" is learned. When One does not need to learn that in a dog-eat-dog world that financial systems give rise to, One learns cooperation. As I pointed out.
We;ve had lots of talks but it's clear you haven't understood a word I've said! You talk about the price of energy going down when free energy is here, but price itself is something that needs to be fundamentally looked at. It all derives from the scarcity system which is the money that banks issue. Now if WE issued the money, psychopaths would not be able to control anything. You see the conditions are made perfect with this scarcity system for psychopaths to thrive and those with ethics to live against their nature. Imagine if our own production were the source of the pricing, were the value? That's what a decentralized system could provide us. Crypto is not good because it only replaces one type of elite for another (the tech people) We need a system that transfers numbers (that's all money is) from one account to the other - NO MIDDLEMAN! There is no need for supervsors anymore - we've grown up! The systems we use are steeped in the old age, when information traveled slowly - now it travels instantly and the systems are no longer viable or relevant. You should be asking - how do we get started on this system I'm talking about. You should be questioning everything, not ignoring things. No wonder you haven't heard any good ideas - because you have not been listening to them! Perhpas you have been poopoohing them outright and not giving them a chance to be absorbed? But this is important stuff. This is stuff that can free us all, and in the shortest amount of time. Maybe you enjoy being tortured?
This system I speak of where your time is the value, will only be temporary because it is like a training exercise for recomprehending the world as abundant. Don't underestimate the psychological entrenchment of everyone because we have seen money as scvarce for eons. It takes training to see it as abundant. And it needs a whole new way of operating. Once we see money as abundant (because it is based on our production - which is infinite) then we can use machines and computers to determine what the demand is and therefore, how much to produce. All you'd need to do is to go to the resource centers, pick up anything you want and walk out the door with it. The computer will read that that item needs to be replenished. It's so simple, but our minds are what need to change. We need to imagine before we can achieve. What gives you the idea that the psychopaths are going to ever give up their control? We have to go another way to their way and show how good it can be, but it takes the first trailblazers to do it, to see it and to desire it. Then whne others see us doing it, they will want it too. It's like dancing - very few want to be the first on the dancefloor but when two get up, then the rest do too!
There’s Your issue. You think I say the price of ENERGY will drop. No. As the price of energy is removed from production, the price of the PRODUCTS will drop.
How on earth did you get there? I am simply pointing out that in human history it has always been that many
humans take and do not make. The Bible says to teach a man to fish. I think it is incredibly naive that free energy will somehow turn every human into saints.
Wasn't specific with what you mean by eliminate so I jested a bit.
Bit of dark humor.
I don't think turning human into "saints" is the goal here. But to have abundance accessed by all. Abundance will create a different environment around us but there are certain things we must tackle down to get there. I think personally that people must get over the superstition of authority and the love of money. We get rid of those two things in the minds of the people, slowly. Educating the race and slowly but surely more and more awakening as a result and more coexistence will happen on its own. That's partly the idea though.
I suspect that Most will let go of any love of money when it's fading away with the free energy flowing as They become able to have the things They only dreamed of having - and Many will discover that the only reason They wanted some given thing was because of its status symbol and no longer want it when any "status" is removed from it.
But yes, it would help greatly to let go of the idea that anyOne has "authority" over any Other. Working on it.
Who said anything about making Humans "saints?" We do not need People doing necessary things no One wants to do. We can automate those things. What I have said is that the point to breaking the Laws of Ethics vanishes when We ALL can live richly. And most of Us will fulfill Our potential (doing what We love to do) rather than schlepping into a job We can think of many things We would rather do than the jobs.
The arts and the sciences will blossom.
What free energy does is remove the accounting for Our energy added into a system, freeing Us from the psychopaths such systems WILL promote to the top, allowing Us ALL to live as richly as We choose, fulfill Our potential, follow Our bliss, make Our dreams come true.
I dispute that. When We can create as We love to do, We will do so. The problem is that We must plug Our energy in somehow, to get the energy accounting tokens to survive on. And... When You only need 5-10% of Us, doing needed work because We love to do it, for the social currencies of praise, thanks, appreciation, and other such positive currencies, where do You see a problem with "takers?"
Why is 1/3 required? Can any of that be automated?
Please break that down.
And... Are these jobs some People would love to do? If not, why can they not be automated?
If the work is something They love to do, then absolutely They would do it for payment in social currency if They did not need money to survive richly. And if there is a problem that needs solving, the Ones affected WILL move to solve for it. And earn social currency as well.
And it's not that I would "abolish" money, so much as allow it to fall into disuse, being archaic and pointless.....
https://youtu.be/_OdVdnzG9t4?si=NEzyUheq2doBCpPT
Y'know... I tried to get in touch with Jacque before He passed. Managed to contact someOne that worked directly with Him (a handler?) - wish I could remember the name - who told Me that Human choices would be relegated to preference - this color or that, this flavor or that, etc. - and that AI would be making all the "important" choices.
I was aghast!!!
It was at that point I quit supporting TVP.
Funny. Jaque himself never mentioned the use of AI but to use an open sourced, publicly accessable computer to manage the distribution of goods. How much is needed, and where, where are there any tech problems available, where are there plumbing issues etc.
He also mentioned the use of "government" would be completely obsolete.
Well, I do not doubt there were Ones who wanted to "handle" Him and His work. He likely wanted nothing to do with AI running things - wish I could have talked to Him directly. He and I were on the same page (but for the encapsulated cities...). The web (open-source) could easily handle who needs what where.
But yeah, when abundance is flowing, all We need is Us delivering Ethical consequences to Any who choose to break the three Laws.
I was curious to see how your estimates of the amount of work that Free Energy would make unnecessary stacked up against the published data. Although there is no where near enough detail in the published stats to accurately determine that amount, here’s a rough guess based on 2023 Canadian data from Statistics Canada.
Table 14-10-0022-01 reports the current number of employees by industry sector in Canada... here’s a summary of the percentages:
•
Goods-producing industries 20.5%
(farming, forestry, logging, fishing, hunting, mining, oil & gas, utilities, manufacturing, construction)
- at least half of these jobs are wasted on financing, taxation, accounting, marketing & distribution
- of the productive jobs remaining at least another half could be automated or done by robots most likely just 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Goods-distribution industries 19.8%
(wholesale, retail, transportation, warehousing)
- without the need for brokers, sales, accounting, financing & taxation the movement of goods from producers to end users could be almost completely automated most likely just 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Finance & professional services 19.6%
(finance, insurance, real estate, legal, scientific & technical, management)
- without money most of this sector would disappear completely or be automated most likely just 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Education & healthcare 20.6%
- this sector will change as people take more responsibility for their own health & education
- once money is no longer driving these agendas people will contribute lovingly to improve
these sectors - new technologies could cut the human labour requirements by half most likely 10% of the current workforce would still be needed here
•
Other non-government services 13.6%
(accommodation & food, information, culture, recreation)
- without the need for money and accounting this sector could be almost totally automated most likely just 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Public administration 5.9%
- this sector would likely grow as more people got involved in the decision making processes
- while the enormous burden of taxation and income supports would be removed, new services
to support transparency, disclosure and increased citizen participation would be needed most likely 5% of the current workforce would still be needed in this sector
•
Totalling up all of the above suggests that at least 1/3 of the current workforce would still be needed to operate society smoothly.
Is it reasonable to expect that at least one out of three people would be willing to devote some of their time and skills to the betterment of their community for no other reason than public gratitude and praise? I’ll let you think about that…
If people could just recognize that they would be far better off if money was abolished altogether then there would be nothing to stop the development of natural Free Energy sources. All of the wonderful social transformations that Amaterasu continuously writes about would become reality. I want to live there now. How about you?
Oh, and don't forget replacing the slave's creed, the work "ethic," with the Betterment Ethic, a true Ethic.
Okay... Oil and gas and utilities diminish in use and importance with free energy flowing...
They already have farming robots, and I do not doubt We can find plenty of People who love to farm...
And Your assessment on other things is pretty good. Though I think You are not seeing that many of those things are pushed for money reasons - "Public administration?" What would that mean in a society that focuses on People solving problems Ethically that affect Them? There is no "administration."
What "new services?"
And yes, there are plenty of creative jobs People would love to do, and I will guess We will have many more than enough.
And again, I would not abolish money. The point to using it will vanish and it will dissipate. But if People want to set up voluntary communities that trade, barter, or used representational things, They're welcome to it...
"I would not abolish money"
If people aren't paid for their energy inputs (to work) you've abolished money?
Money is used to gain access to the things people need. We eliminate that restrain and now people have access. But supply is needed and work is still needed to keep the shelves full.
We need more workers not more money.
We need robots - automation - where no One wants to do the work. And robots don't demand a wage - just energy...which is free.
And with 80% of Us no longer enslaved to moving Our wealth up to the psychopaths in control... There will be plenty who love to do most of the work - even much of it We could add robots for, but let the People at it first.
I would love a few robots to help with my farming. I know how to do some electrical work. Though the programming part would be out of my league.
I can relate! I keep looking at the dishes and wondering where My dish-washing robot is!
There is a difference between “abolishing” and allowing something to fall into disuse. “Abolishing” something implies an active effort, maybe a mandate or something. Decree: “I hereby abolish money!” No One “abolished” buggy whips - but they fell into disuse when the car came to be.
Then the question becomes how do you get people to accept not getting paid tokens for their labour when tokens are still required to buy things they need?
I don't "get Them to." Add free energy. When the cost of energy is removed, prices will drop. And keep dropping, because 100% of the cost of EVERYTHING is energy. The resources sit here freely, but it takes energy to put them into useful configuration.
As the cost of automating becomes affordable, necessary jobs no One wants to do will be automated by Those who love to build robots and such. People will move out of jobs They don't love as the cost of things gets closer to zero, and start doing what They love to do.
The web will be used as a coordination point... Have You read My piece on the blueprint?
Blueprint for a Society of Ethical Sovereigns (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/blueprint-for-a-society-of-ethical
"When the cost of energy is removed, prices will drop. And keep dropping, because 100% of the cost of EVERYTHING is energy. The resources sit here freely, but it takes energy to put them into useful configuration."
•
Human energy is a large part of the total energy society uses and you never seem to answer how human energy becomes Free Energy. It's not as easy as unveiling a hidden technology like electrogravitics.
"Public administration?" What would that mean in a society that focuses on People solving problems Ethically that affect Them? There is no "administration."
We would still need people to organize and manage public resources likes roads, parks, etc.
Well, I can assure You there are plenty of People who would love to tend to parks... If They didn't have to schlep in to sell insurance or whatever, so as to survive, that's what They would do.
As for roads, where there are problems, the Ones who are affected will solve for them. But if We have electrogravitics... Cars will likely be flying.
Projects will still need to be organized and managed using people.
That’s what the central site is about. Bringing People together to solve problems. Including emergencies.
I do hope You read My Blueprint piece…
I have read and watched most of your information materials. I love the direction you are headed towards, I just don't think the path from here to there is completely defined.
Here's a closer look at the percentage of the total workforce employed in the goods-producing sector:
•
Agriculture - 1.3 %
Forestry and logging - 0.2 %
Fishing, hunting and trapping - 0.1 %
Mining, quarrying, and oil & gas extraction - 1.4 %
Utilities - 0.8%
(together the above primary resources employ only 3.7 % of the workforce)
Construction - 7.8 %
Manufacturing - 9.0%
Construction and manufacturing are primarily driven by profit motive, with planned obsolescence built into a lot of the manufacturing. When We are making things with quality and made to last, a great deal of such will be unneeded.
Construction will diminish, as things are renovated, but there will still be some.
Anyway, by My calculation, a large part pf those jobs can be automated. And much of what’s left is creative. And when there is a problem, Those affected can seek the BEST solution, not the cheapest or most profitable for Some - or left to fester for lack of funds.
And virtually all the other “jobs” out there are to move money about and upwards, always upwards.
If everything were free then we'd all be equal but a whole lot of people don't want to be equal. They want to be SUPERIOR. They believe they DESERVE to live better than the rest of US because they are smarter, more talented or better looking (look at Hollywood celebrities and professional sport stars). If we could all access ridiculous luxury then luxury itself would become useless as a way to display status and privilege. Even normal working people fall into this trap and take pride in owning better cars, boats and houses than their neighbours. Equality scares people.
Then We earn status by producing the BEST, the most appreciated. It will be social currency We earn, actually deserved.
And You're right. mansions will not generally be sought out. Lots of maintenance and no status.
It's not "equality" We will see, but a vying for the greatest betterment, the best solutions to problems, the most appreciated artwork, the highest quality of information taught, and so on.
But really, that "status" seeking is a learned behavior in a moneyed society. In the societies that emerged in abundance where no money arose, the People earned respect, admiration, and such, with the leaders having the most regard for the quality of solutions They provided.
There was no "I'm better than You because I have more objects than You do."
Competition is the breeding ground for superiority. When superiority infects the ego that's when the trouble begins.
I guess You want to bring Us down to a common denominator? Am I reading that correctly? Then there will be no competition, and no One will learn to lose gracefully. No One will win. But no egos will be bruised or propped either. Mediocracy?
I'm just not seeing the issues in a society where All may live as richly as they choose cooperating and competing for the best solutions.
In the societies without money, cooperation was much greater than competition, though They did have games and so competition was there.
No I am not in favour of any "common denominator" other than an equal respect for others. I am merely trying to clarify what I believe is the psychology behind people's reluctance towards financial equality.
Reluctance towards "financial equality" is learned. When One does not need to learn that in a dog-eat-dog world that financial systems give rise to, One learns cooperation. As I pointed out.
Life is not a competition. It is a cooperation.
Abundance -> Cooperation; Scarcity -> Competition (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/abundance-cooperation-scarcity-competition
Right, but I am talking about the reality that we are now living in.
We;ve had lots of talks but it's clear you haven't understood a word I've said! You talk about the price of energy going down when free energy is here, but price itself is something that needs to be fundamentally looked at. It all derives from the scarcity system which is the money that banks issue. Now if WE issued the money, psychopaths would not be able to control anything. You see the conditions are made perfect with this scarcity system for psychopaths to thrive and those with ethics to live against their nature. Imagine if our own production were the source of the pricing, were the value? That's what a decentralized system could provide us. Crypto is not good because it only replaces one type of elite for another (the tech people) We need a system that transfers numbers (that's all money is) from one account to the other - NO MIDDLEMAN! There is no need for supervsors anymore - we've grown up! The systems we use are steeped in the old age, when information traveled slowly - now it travels instantly and the systems are no longer viable or relevant. You should be asking - how do we get started on this system I'm talking about. You should be questioning everything, not ignoring things. No wonder you haven't heard any good ideas - because you have not been listening to them! Perhpas you have been poopoohing them outright and not giving them a chance to be absorbed? But this is important stuff. This is stuff that can free us all, and in the shortest amount of time. Maybe you enjoy being tortured?
This system I speak of where your time is the value, will only be temporary because it is like a training exercise for recomprehending the world as abundant. Don't underestimate the psychological entrenchment of everyone because we have seen money as scvarce for eons. It takes training to see it as abundant. And it needs a whole new way of operating. Once we see money as abundant (because it is based on our production - which is infinite) then we can use machines and computers to determine what the demand is and therefore, how much to produce. All you'd need to do is to go to the resource centers, pick up anything you want and walk out the door with it. The computer will read that that item needs to be replenished. It's so simple, but our minds are what need to change. We need to imagine before we can achieve. What gives you the idea that the psychopaths are going to ever give up their control? We have to go another way to their way and show how good it can be, but it takes the first trailblazers to do it, to see it and to desire it. Then whne others see us doing it, they will want it too. It's like dancing - very few want to be the first on the dancefloor but when two get up, then the rest do too!
There’s Your issue. You think I say the price of ENERGY will drop. No. As the price of energy is removed from production, the price of the PRODUCTS will drop.
Anyway, denise, We have been round and round.
Have a lovely life.
The problem with humanity is that there will always be makers and takers. So my question would be how do we eliminate the takers?
The takers and makers are humans are they not? You asking how to kill people?
How on earth did you get there? I am simply pointing out that in human history it has always been that many
humans take and do not make. The Bible says to teach a man to fish. I think it is incredibly naive that free energy will somehow turn every human into saints.
"how do we eliminate the takers?"
"Eliminate".
Wasn't specific with what you mean by eliminate so I jested a bit.
Bit of dark humor.
I don't think turning human into "saints" is the goal here. But to have abundance accessed by all. Abundance will create a different environment around us but there are certain things we must tackle down to get there. I think personally that people must get over the superstition of authority and the love of money. We get rid of those two things in the minds of the people, slowly. Educating the race and slowly but surely more and more awakening as a result and more coexistence will happen on its own. That's partly the idea though.
I suspect that Most will let go of any love of money when it's fading away with the free energy flowing as They become able to have the things They only dreamed of having - and Many will discover that the only reason They wanted some given thing was because of its status symbol and no longer want it when any "status" is removed from it.
But yes, it would help greatly to let go of the idea that anyOne has "authority" over any Other. Working on it.
Who said anything about making Humans "saints?" We do not need People doing necessary things no One wants to do. We can automate those things. What I have said is that the point to breaking the Laws of Ethics vanishes when We ALL can live richly. And most of Us will fulfill Our potential (doing what We love to do) rather than schlepping into a job We can think of many things We would rather do than the jobs.
The arts and the sciences will blossom.
What free energy does is remove the accounting for Our energy added into a system, freeing Us from the psychopaths such systems WILL promote to the top, allowing Us ALL to live as richly as We choose, fulfill Our potential, follow Our bliss, make Our dreams come true.
Nothing in there about being a "saint."
I dispute that. When We can create as We love to do, We will do so. The problem is that We must plug Our energy in somehow, to get the energy accounting tokens to survive on. And... When You only need 5-10% of Us, doing needed work because We love to do it, for the social currencies of praise, thanks, appreciation, and other such positive currencies, where do You see a problem with "takers?"
Why is 1/3 required? Can any of that be automated?
Please break that down.
And... Are these jobs some People would love to do? If not, why can they not be automated?
If the work is something They love to do, then absolutely They would do it for payment in social currency if They did not need money to survive richly. And if there is a problem that needs solving, the Ones affected WILL move to solve for it. And earn social currency as well.
And it's not that I would "abolish" money, so much as allow it to fall into disuse, being archaic and pointless.....
If people weren't paid for their energy inputs (to work) what would be the point of money?
Indeed.
Did you get the email I sent to you?
No, I did not… I double-checked. Nothing.
I think I replied already?