"Jay thinks about 10% of the labor force is all that's needed to produce essential goods and services like basic clothing, food, health care and yes, toilet paper."

Does anyone believe this?

Not to be disrespectful, however this I read a similar essay in college and it was first published in 1848 by Karl Marx, in Germany and was titled “The Communist Manifesto”. This is an extension or modernization of Marx’s vision for a utopian society in terms of a finite resource world.

In response to the questions:

1: No, Capitalism is still here and will be here, it will not go away without some dramatic and/or violent intervention.

2: No

3a: The same thing we have always been in competition for, our mates, you can take the chimp out of the savanna, and you can’t take the savanna out of the chimp, humans are still primate mammals and all that we know in our current system boils down to seeking/obtaining better mating prospects.

3b: Wealth could be defined by the accumulated inheritance of durable goods, those things that were bought with eMergy credits that were not consumables.

4: Define easily, there are and have never been easily available resources, technology has made resources more attainable and/or viable however obtaining resources has never been easy.

5: ? however the transition to such a societal system would be wrought with massive human suffering and conflict as any global system is bound to be met with great opposition by somebody.

In summary, my take on this essay is that this is an interesting academic idea however more a work of science fiction than a real viable plan, as for one, it does not address the details, and the devil is always in the details. For example if everyone works for 2 years, how do you decide who is a doctor with a training period of 26 years min or a farm hand with 11-12 years min. How do you address the differential in training? Is it interest based, or aptitude based, which would be better? I always wanted to be a rock star, in terms of interest, however my aptitudes have always been toward science and engineering. If a child wants to be a farm hand however clearly has a talent for science/medicine, how do you coerce him/her into becoming a doctor in a society without rewards for educational investment?

How does the “Global Government” work, who decides which scientists are in charge? What is the makeup of the global governing body; climatologists, chemists, physicists, geologists, biologists, psychologists, mathematicians, anthropologists etc.? How do they make decisions, vote? In that case you have only created a global technocratic democracy.

How do you define global mutual coercion, especially in a society without money? What do you do if a city, province, state, country, etc. isn’t towing the line or local scientists disagree with the global? Get a mob, hit everyone collectively in the offending group on the head with a stick and say “Bad”. Economic sanctions are the prevailing means of nonviolent coercion today, without money in a global society how do you coerce someone, cut off the food, water, tp perhaps? What happens when cutting off, food, water, tp etc. fails to have the effect?

This essay presents an interesting spin on “The Communist Manifesto” updated for a post industrial finite resource world. I see hints of ideas from H.G. Wells as well. It opens up interesting ideas for debate, however at best it is not anything approaching a viable plan.