Yes. Please rate the better world: World A (has food) or World B (does not have food).
Money isn't magic. Its an abstraction. Remove it and possessions become currency.
So if your better world does not make "money" (read: food, water, shelter, doctors, raw materials, etc.) then your "better" world will kill all of its inhabitants.
It's obvious that money is not a sufficient abstraction for resources and/or the usage of money eventually leads to world b. The "money system" is killing whatever resources it's supposed to represent.
> It's obvious that money is not a sufficient abstraction for resources and/or the usage of money eventually leads to world b
Citation needed...
We had "resource based economies" for hundreds of thousands of years. In that time, millions starved to death.
Clearly a hidden variable exists... North Koreans starve under a monetary system. Americans waste billions of pounds of food every year under a monetary system. How could money be responsible for both outcomes? Surely there are alternative explanations.
Money isn't magic. Its an abstraction. Remove it and possessions become currency.
So if your better world does not make "money" (read: food, water, shelter, doctors, raw materials, etc.) then your "better" world will kill all of its inhabitants.