The reason I have been talking extensively about the structural problems of NPOs is because, in reality, it's a setup. While it may seem like NPOs are irrelevant to many people, they may actually be related in the future. The situation where people involved in NPOs are earning their living expenses elsewhere while volunteering without pay can be seen as a glimpse of a future where a basic income is implemented or an energy revolution occurs, leading to a society where people are not financially constrained.

In terms of structure, it's similar to the idea of engaging in activities without needing to worry about earning a living.

Therefore, if everyone blindly pursues a "society where people are not financially constrained," it may actually lead to a very suffocating and difficult world. We should be more aware of this.

A society where people are not financially constrained may seem like a good thing, but I believe it may not be. In such a society, where financial constraints are eliminated (by some means), "actions" are more easily justified, and it becomes a "survival of the fittest" situation. There are fewer constraints on actions, and the opportunity to "close down a business because of a lack of funds" becomes extremely rare, leading to a situation where businesses continue to operate like zombies, without enthusiasm. The opportunity to "learn through money" is lost, and the level of service may decline (like the "privileged business" of public officials), leading to a decline in "awareness," and organizations that remain stagnant for a long time (like the service areas of old highways) may continue to exist without much improvement, leading to an increase in misunderstandings and a maximization of "self-justification." This is not an ideal situation. Previously, stress existed due to money, but it also served as a constraint, allowing for a proper "closure" (making it impossible to continue the business), which had the potential to lead to a better society. However, now, with NPOs having a much lower break-even point, it may lead to a society that perpetually struggles with more difficult-to-resolve stress.

I have a certain basis for this, as I remember seeing a "sphere of harmony" in my dreams or out-of-body experiences, where people were not financially constrained, but they were still experiencing the same kind of stress. In that "world where people are not struggling with food, clothing, and shelter," there were many people with low anger thresholds who would easily get angry and yell at the slightest unpleasant action or statement by others. There were no brakes on people's misunderstandings, self-justification, and ego expansion. It was a suffocating society, far from ideal.

When a person of high status, like a lord (in the Commonwealth, which was a society of warriors, so literally a lord), provides various services and assistance, the people living in that country would not show a displeased expression, but would smile and say, "Thank you," (while thinking, "This is a nuisance," but with a strained smile), and receive the service. In such a world, people could not rest, and it was common to quietly eat and express their gratitude to the person in charge after finishing. Although money existed in that world, it was not as necessary, and it was enough to simply leave money around. Therefore, it was important not to displease the person in charge.

This closed society and special human relationships within the NPO show us what happens when a society that is not constrained by money becomes a reality. In reality, people who are not constrained by money in the general world have the potential to be "good" people. I think that if this state of not being constrained by money continues, it will be beneficial for people's learning. It is a matter of degree; for example, people can still eat the minimum amount of food, so it can be said that Japan already has a basic level of life without hardship. However, because there is a constraint of money, people can learn.

In reality, when a society becomes one where money is not a constraint, simply having money will not earn respect. Instead, a person's value will be determined by factors such as family background, type of work, position, and the number of people who are associated with them. It seems that even if you offer a lot of money, you will not be able to stay in a good room in a good inn, and you will only be able to receive a good room and good food from the innkeeper if they recognize your family background and personality. This is something I can say from my experience in the Commonwealth.

Many people say, "Let's aim for a society where people are not constrained by money." However, what I learned from seeing such a society in the form of the Commonwealth is that simply eliminating the constraint of money will lead to a difficult society. Rather, a society where people can equally enjoy services based on the common value of "money," and where there is room for improvement in life even if they do not have money now, but can earn money, seems to have more potential than the Commonwealth.

However, this is a matter of degree, and it is also a matter of people's awareness. As I mentioned earlier, if people quit their jobs when enough money reaches everyone, it will lead to inflation according to Keynes' law of price equilibrium, and there will always be a situation of "not enough," which will continue to sustain the current society.

On the other hand, if people continue to work even when they are no longer financially struggling, an ideal society can be realized. It would be a society that is neither an extreme situation like a "共栄圏" nor the money-oriented society we have now, but rather a society where money exists, but the basic necessities are shared.

Now, it seems we are at a point where we need to choose which kind of society we want to create.

This is mainly the situation in Japan. In the United States, there are cases where people have no hope and end up living on the streets, so the extent to which society should support basic necessities is a matter of degree. In Japan, there is public assistance, so basic food and shelter are generally available. However, there is a "double structure" where money still plays a significant role, and in that sense, the current Japanese society is arguably moving in a direction that aligns with what God desires.