Stephen, much as I wish things were different, as far as we can see, we humans are highly illogical, selfish creatures.

We are descended from animals which are driven by selfish instinct, rather than collective logic.

That for me, is why our logic is twisted with the cannibalistic ideas of profit, and controlled scarcity.

This is the logical reason your scheme is unlikely to ever be accepted.

If our planet came to be run by non-profit Ai, maybe things could be different, but again, the nature of humans seems to make that also highly unlikely.

A possible way forward for your scheme might be to demonstrate its effectiveness by way of a working model which shows it in operation in a small community, somehow isolated from the real world economy. That could maybe be done in something like a virtual world, but again it would need to be done in a virtual world not itself created for profit, in order that a simulated economy within would not have value “siphoned off” by the platform owners.

We have not yet seen a virtual world of that nature survive, due to the pressures of the drive for profit.

It is the same reason we have not seen non-profit cultures and civilisations survive, in all of human history, alongside profit driven cultures which have devoured them, and logically also most of the evidence of having done so.

So for me, the only solution seems to be to use technology to “bridge” our selfish nature, overriding our natural instinct to isolate and divide ourselves as individuals and communities from one another, in a way that we are literally forced to work with one another, as one, in collaboration, all over the world, in order to survive as a species.

That has already mostly been done, by the internet, though we arguably see more friction between humans, it is because we have been thrust together. I have confidence our differences will settle soon, with everyone learning to “Live and let live”.

What remains, for real sustainability, is the need to power humanity with energy which does not come at the expense of our environment.

For that, we must dispense with the ideas of controlled scarcity and profit.

A logical way to do that is to change the nature of markets in such a way as to remove the incentive of trading for profit.

That has already been done by the issue of free money, confirmed by the otherwise unexplainable sustained value of the dollar, and bankrupt company shares, freely traded on markets by all people, together with all world currencies.

So we see free money is the route to free power, the final piece in the jigsaw of a sustainable humanity.

So, I would ask the same question of you; where is the logical argument against this?