Perhaps this is how it should be

Something like that would not work because of human nature. When everyone is rewarded, there is no incentive to better yourself or try to reach your potential. A segment of the population will realize that they'll be taken care of regardless of their efforts so they'll make no effort and others will have to take up the slack. In capitalism it's true that a relative few prosper much more than the masses. But those few are who start companies that employ people and provide jobs as well as goods. Who would create and maintain employment in the Mother Nature economy?

I'm not sure that it could work because the world at large is primarily dominated by men. Within certain societies, men dominate outside of the home while women run everything within the household economy. I'm of Italian descent; my grandfather was an immigrant where my grandmother was an orphan. He went out and worked while she handled everything at home. She even doled out an allowance to him! My mother tried to be the same way, but there were two major differences: 1) she chose to work outside of the home, and 2) she did not marry an Italian. For a true matriarchal society to work, I think there would have to be a total role-reversal between men and women, and to be honest, I don't see that happening anytime soon. We have adapted to our traditional roles over many years, and until men can BEAR a child, I seriously doubt we'll see a change.

Yes, definitely. I think this method would be much more beneficial to the majority.

Mother Nature is also sometimes cruel. I've just been clearing up the remains of a nest of baby rabbits which a rat had been into, ripping the babies apart then leaving them. Mother Nature allows the strong to prey on the weak. It's the way life is, but sometimes people forget it. Let's not copy her example completely.

I wish I'd looked at this discussion before I tackled your other one. This covers a lot of what I was thinking (in the background) when I suggested universal female emancipation. I would certainly agree in principle, although I would point out that there is a minority of men who would be just as useful in these terms, and a minority of matriarchal women who would fit best with the current status quo (Thatcher and Palin come to mind). In anthopology we learn that most "peasant" economies ran on a basis of altruism - e.g. nobody goes hungry unless everybody goes hungry. Then there is the potlach principle which the British banned Native Americans from using because it was the antithesis of capitalist thinking, in which the tribe's "Big Man" (to use a PNG term generically) annually helds a big party and gave away his wealth to even up the playing field. I am also reminded of an anthropologist in Thailand, who found one of his informants bewailing the fact that three of her four pigs had been slaughtered. He later found out that having four pigs had made her insufferably smug and hoity toity, so the rest of the village decided to put her back in her place. Lash