Simply, a society where people are not financially struggling is a difficult world to live in. Even eating a meal requires consideration for others, and it's a suffocating situation. This is something I can say based on my experience in the Pacific coastal region of Japan, in a different timeline.
I understand that many people are struggling financially, but in a society where people are not lacking in food, clothing, and shelter, people tend to become arrogant and there are many people who shout at others without respecting them. There are many people with low anger thresholds, and I have seen scenes where they suddenly become hysterical.
In other words, even if people are not struggling with food, clothing, and shelter, problems continue in different forms. People have desires to be "fulfilled," and if those desires are not met, anger and anxiety increase.
For example, in the dining hall, meals were basically free or, if there was a charge, it was a nominal amount. When eating, people would "hesitate" and "be nervous" while watching the host's expression, and would politely ask, "I would like to have a meal..." If they said "okay," people would quietly eat, and after eating, they would deeply bow and say, "Thank you..." Sometimes, they would pay the fee, but some shops would not accept it.
In addition to the dining hall, in places like fabric shops and inns, it is basic matter to make requests in a "humble" manner. Inappropriate requests are treated equally.
Furthermore, it was a society where people were expected to dress appropriately for their status. There are no official rules, but people are pressured to wear clothing that is appropriate for their status.
In today's society, various things are being said, such as basic income and energy revolutions that will eliminate financial hardship. However, it is said that such a society can only exist in a few places, and even in Japan, the situation is now questionable. The "Co-prosperity sphere" (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere) was based on Japanese values, but even in the current world, if people become financially secure, everyone may quit their jobs, causing infrastructure to collapse. As a result, we may return to Keynes' equilibrium theory and end up in a society where money is scarce again.
If people fulfill their obligations even when they have plenty of money, then a society with less financial hardship may be possible. On the other hand, if people simply want to be lazy and create a society of idlers, then we will once again end up in a society where money is insufficient and people experience hardship.
Alternatively, as a result of people no longer worrying about food, clothing, and shelter, other things besides money may become important. It may become impossible to obtain rare items or services simply by having money, and the arbitrary judgments of those who "provide" services may increase. The providers may judge how much goods or services to provide based on "who they are giving them to." Since everyone has enough money, we cannot simply provide goods and services to everyone. If the "restriction" of money is removed, there is no other way to restrict things, and it is possible that the limits of providing services and goods will be set by people's (personal) arbitrary judgments. This is a possibility based on the experience of the "Co-prosperity sphere"
In reality, based on the experience of the "Co-prosperity sphere" the current society is healthier than the suffocating and closed society of the "Co-prosperity sphere" In the current era, if you have money, you can go to a restaurant and eat without worrying about anyone, and the same goes for cafes. In terms of interactions with others, the current society seems to be a more casual and enjoyable place to live.
The current system of money can be said to allow people to learn and have hope of becoming "good people" because it requires a certain degree of hardship to obtain it. A society without financial hardship is a society where ego can freely and arbitrarily behave, and it is a society where strange people may hold power and continue to be swayed by it, as seen in some isolated rural communities. At least, if there is a "restriction" of money, it will eventually lead to a decline and loss of power, and then people can "learn" again in a situation where there is no money.
Even if the current situation leads to an abundance of money, only a few cunning individuals will become wealthy. Large conglomerates emerge, dominating the market in areas such as "land" and "services," making it extremely difficult for the general public to participate. While goods and services may appear equal on the surface, they are actually restricted, and good products and services are almost completely "hidden" from the general public, to the point where the general public may not even realize that such things exist. As a result, even though the system appears equal and promotes sharing, the reality is that people are living in different worlds from the beginning, and they cannot recognize each other's lives, goods, and services.
This could potentially be an ideal society, but if it fails, it could become a world where arrogant landlords and unpleasant individuals thrive, making it very difficult to live in. In the Co-Prosperity Sphere, both of these aspects seemed to coexist. As time passed, people gradually accumulated stress. In some ways, it was a very ideal society, but there were also a certain number of strange people, and these strange people often dominated goods, land, and services. For example, when receiving a service, such as eating at a restaurant, one would have to bow deeply to the owner, with the upper body parallel to the ground and the waist bent at approximately 90 degrees, and politely (even if it was flattery) say, "It was delicious, thank you." The owner would then smile and say, "Oh, really? Come again." This may seem like an ideal society, but some owners might become hysterical if they perceive even the slightest rudeness from a customer, forcing customers to be very careful with the owner, creating a very stifling society.
Of course, there are still stories like this today. While it is natural to have some interaction with the staff when receiving a service, in the Co-Prosperity Sphere, the emphasis on being considerate of the store was excessive, creating a society where people constantly felt a great deal of stress.
Some spiritual people are aiming for a "society where people are not troubled by money," and they are talking about various things, such as free energy and a revolution in the money system. However, I know what it was like to live in the Co-Prosperity Sphere, and I think that the current capitalist society is actually a better place for people to live happily.
And, since capitalism functions by having something "lacking," whether it's energy, housing, or food, if we consider capitalism to be a choice made according to God's will, then I think God is taking various measures to maintain this "lacking" state in order to perpetuate it.
In reality, there are many places where conspiracy theories are discussed, such as "movements to suppress 'free energy' and similar technologies are part of the dark side of the energy industry." However, based on fundamental principles, even if such movements exist, if they are conspiracies by humans, it is impossible for ordinary humans to suppress "everything." Therefore, it seems more natural to believe that there is a divine will behind the fact that "everything" has been suppressed time and again. Indeed, even if something appears to be a conspiracy, the world is vast, and unless there is a divine will, "free energy" and similar technologies would normally be utilized somewhere in the world. Therefore, the fact that "everything" related to free energy is being suppressed suggests that God intends to keep people in a "restricted" state so that they can be guided to become "good people," preventing a social revolution that would allow people to freely engage in activities, which would lead to a further deterioration of society. That is my personal interpretation.
Rather, when I see the ego of current "free energy" advocates, I see glimpses of personal desires and selfish intentions to live freely. This reveals that even if people gain energy freedom, they will not necessarily become happy. The underlying desire of current "free energy" advocates is to live a life of luxury like nobles. This means that in such a system, the people who form the foundation and keep the system running would be forced to work as slaves to support that society. This hierarchical society, like the Middle Ages with "nobles and slaves," is something that God would least desire. As long as "free energy" advocates are moving in that direction, "everything" related to free energy will be suppressed by God. Compared to a society with slaves, the current capitalist society, where there is a "lack" of something, allows people to live happier lives.
On the other hand, there is also the possibility of transitioning to a state similar to a "sphere of co-prosperity," where people fulfill their obligations with sufficient money circulating. However, even in such a state, there is a possibility of replicating the conflicts that existed in the "sphere of co-prosperity."
In reality, there will be a transitional period. Initially, people may enjoy freedom and liberation from financial constraints, but a society where people are "free from financial constraints" will inevitably transition to a system where people are not given services or goods simply because they have money, but rather, services and goods are provided "selectively" based on the individual and whether they are truly in need. This is because a certain number of people will inevitably be "shameless" and demand things based solely on money. As a result, people will no longer be able to live freely simply because they have money, and society will become like the "Co-prosperity sphere" (Kyoei-ken), where people have to constantly consider the feelings of others, making it a difficult place to live.
While people may enjoy freedom for the first few decades, eventually, it will become a more troublesome society. As a manifestation of this, the problem of overtourism in various parts of the world is emerging, and the situation where people may not receive adequate service simply because they have money can be seen as one possible direction for the future of society. In normal life, if people become so abundant and enjoy free time, there will still be a certain number of people who provide services, but it would not be surprising if there is a trend to restrict services for those who are simply "shameless" and only want to enjoy themselves. Such arbitrary judgments were the "common sense" in the "Co-prosperity sphere"
And, as is happening now, more and more businesses will operate without a sign, only through introductions and referrals. When people can live without earning a lot of money, it is natural for them to start accepting only customers who are a good fit. On the other hand, services for the general public will continue for a while, and people will not notice this "invisible wall." However, eventually, this "unbreakable wall" and "invisible wall" will become recognized, and the social hierarchy will become clearly divided.
And, even if nobles appear initially, they will only receive appropriate treatment if they have the corresponding character. Even those who initially believe they can live without doing anything and have attained a high social status will eventually have to do something appropriate to earn respect. This will be reflected in their appearance, demeanor, and personality, so those who have an inappropriate status and lack character will inevitably suffer. The most important thing is appropriateness. However, even if the first generation is inappropriate, the next generation will have a different experience, as they will live a life without constraints from birth. Therefore, as generations change, people who have received appropriate education will take on positions that match their abilities, and this system will become stable.
It may seem that free energy would lead to a transportation revolution, allowing people to travel freely anywhere they desire. However, in a system like the "Co-prosperity sphere" even when staying in accommodations, one's background was meticulously scrutinized. Only those with stable jobs and a clear role were allowed to stay in decent lodgings. If no other accommodations were available, even subpar lodgings might be provided (due to the person's need for shelter), but the quality of the food served would often be noticeably different. Guests had no choice in the food provided; the inn determined what was appropriate based on the guest's perceived status. Only those who presented themselves well, had a clear background, and were accompanied by several others received proper service. In a society with abundant money and energy, the ability to travel freely might actually become more difficult. Conversely, the current society, where services are available to those who can afford them, is arguably more free.
It is unlikely that proponents of free energy and those seeking a revolution in the monetary system, who aim to transition to a less free and more restrictive society, will succeed in the foreseeable future. If such a society were to emerge, it would be one riddled with greed and audacity, and for those who remember the hardships of the "Co-prosperity sphere" (on a soul level), it would be a traumatic and repulsive experience. It is natural to prefer a society supported by money, where one can live comfortably. Perhaps, individuals with such memories are instinctively sensitive to the dangers of free energy and may even sabotage it.
Therefore, those who truly understand the concept of a sharing society may hesitate, while those who seek to exploit free energy and the idea of a sharing society for their own gain, or those who aspire to become powerful and control a nation, may find it a useful slogan. In such cases, activities promoting free energy and freedom are likely to end up as scams. Currently, many who loudly proclaim equality are not genuinely advocating for a sharing society (as understood by those who truly understand it), but rather are hiding their true goal of creating a society where "power is concentrated in the center," a form of "communism," and the general public is essentially "slaves" under the guise of equality. Such deceptive individuals may hijack the movement and lead to fraudulent outcomes. Even if an activity is initially carried out by well-intentioned people, and even if many good people are involved, there is a risk that cunning individuals will infiltrate, gradually take over the organization or activity, and ultimately lead to fraudulent results. As a result, even if free energy is achieved, people's lives will remain difficult, nothing will change, and only the rulers will be different, similar to the French Revolution. If the system does not change, the power structure will remain the same, even if the energy source changes. There is currently about a 30% chance that society could become such an unfortunate place. However, even if that happens, it is only the first stage. This could trigger an energy revolution, creating a situation where, even though people are outwardly constrained by the system, they can be energetically free if they become aware of it. At that time, those in power will try to prevent the emergence of a sharing society by spreading propaganda to keep people from realizing this. This is because there are individuals in power who want to continue living a life of privilege. This intermediate state is likely to last for about a generation. In the next generation, the children of these privileged individuals will be born into a similar position, and from there, a path to an egalitarian society can emerge. By that time, "ownership" will become more established, especially real estate, which will often be passed down through generations. People will live on a solid foundation based on "secure land." When people's livelihoods are secured and guaranteed, especially as generations change, what was previously used to brainwash and control the masses will gradually change, and a consensus will emerge (especially among the younger generation) that "you don't have to work so hard" and "sharing is better." In this way, even if a sharing society is not immediately realized, the foundation for it will be laid over generations. However, this is still a future prospect, and for the time being, a capitalist society will continue. This is because it is likely to make people happier.
However, perhaps, the basic scenario (70% probability) is that it will not become such a fraudulent society, but will simply transition smoothly into a sharing society. The fraudulent society mentioned above is a roundabout way and a social loss, so people need to be careful and monitor to prevent such fraudsters from taking over society.
When I say these things, I am often evaluated as "don't attract that negative reality" or "a negative person," and like past spiritual movements, some people try to plant a bad image and try to divert attention from these dangers (or unconsciously). First, these people who try to hijack such movements are only a small minority, so "manifestation through collective consciousness" will not occur based on the ideas of a few people. Therefore, there is no need to worry about it actually happening. However, there is a risk that such a small group of people will hijack the movement, leading to an undesirable reality for the general public. Therefore, people need to be careful to prevent such a bad world from coming, and they must be able to identify and exclude dishonest people. While there is a need to monitor, there is no need to worry excessively about it. Of course, the ability to discern is essential as a prerequisite.
God's intention is not for this capitalist society to end, but rather, God believes that a society where people do not have to worry about food, clothing, and shelter is ideal. In the era of prosperity, when people no longer had to worry about food, clothing, and shelter, society became one where people became arrogant and felt suffocated, so avoiding such a situation, "a society where people can live happily without worrying about food, clothing, and shelter" is what God desires.
Such a society can transition from the capitalist society, and even as it gradually transitions to a society where people do not have to worry about food, clothing, and shelter, if people continue to fulfill their obligations, they will be able to live happily.
In order to achieve this, people must first become wealthy, no longer have to worry about money, and even if they have enough money, they must fulfill their obligations. If people quit their jobs because they have enough money, the price level will rise according to Keynes' equilibrium theory, and the economy will reach an equilibrium where they do not have enough money. On the other hand, if people continue to work as an obligation even if they have enough money, they will have an abundance of money but will not be extravagant, will not be arrogant, and will not demand various things, and the ideal society that God desires will be realized.
To a certain extent, as a major trend, the transformation will likely proceed, somewhat gradually, towards a world where "money has low value," and everything will eventually flow into that state. Before these major trends emerge, it is necessary to establish the values that will form the foundation of the new world. If these values are established, a smooth transition will be possible, but people who are deeply immersed in capitalist society will experience a greater shock. In Europe and the United States, it might simply take the form of economic collapse, leading to a chaotic society, and a "sharing society" might not function well.
Gradually, people are becoming wealthier, and money is becoming abundant. As people in Europe and the United States flock to "cheap Japan," we are entering a state of overtourism. However, if more and more people stay in "cheap Japan" for months, a "sharing society" will not function. In a sharing society, the basic principle is that if you stay in a place for a long time, you should help with some work in that area. Otherwise, you will eventually be treated as a nuisance and asked to leave. While the beginning of the era of transformation may be celebrated with freedom, if everyone has enough money, there will be a certain degree of "customer selection." In a world where money is abundant, it is less likely that someone will start a business simply because there is a shortage of lodging. Currently, many foreigners are opening hotels in Japan for business purposes. However, if earning money becomes less advantageous, only those who contribute through opening hotels, or those who continue their family business, will survive. In the Commonwealth, starting a new business decreased, and preserving the land and traditional family businesses became the norm. In a stable society, "entrepreneurship" decreases, and jobs and society are passed down through generations. This has both good and bad aspects; for those who love new things, it may be a boring world. Therefore, the system of the Commonwealth was not necessarily good, and capitalism has the advantage of constantly creating new businesses, which can be enjoyable for people. Nevertheless, it is a matter of balance. The basic principle is capitalism, and the "sharing" that is based on Japanese values will create a dynamic fusion, which is what will be interesting in the future.
In the Commonwealth, professions were too rigid, which led to a society where people were not troubled by their livelihoods, but it was a very stifling society with little change.
On the other hand, the current society is based on capitalism, and in countries where capitalism has been overemphasized, such as the West, the pursuit of self-interest is prioritized. However, even in such societies, those who succeed can gain dignity and profit, so there is a possibility that anyone can be happy. I think that the good thing about capitalism is that it provides opportunities.
God seems to believe that both extremes are undesirable, and that a fusion of capitalism and a community-oriented system would be ideal.
Looking at the world, I think that only Japan, as a country, has the potential to achieve this. That is where the hope lies. While some people, such as indigenous peoples, may have ideas of sharing and fulfilling obligations, I think that only Japan, as a country, has the potential to realize this. Although Japan is not entirely unified, there is a foundation for understanding such concepts.
If the idea that "money is all that matters" becomes the mainstream, as in other countries, it will lead to a perpetual state of "not having enough money" due to Keynesian equilibrium. People will continue to learn through the constraints of "money" for what seems like an eternity. In reality, some people need to learn this, and therefore, they can become "good people."
That may be a necessary learning experience for those people, but I think that a certain number of people have reached the point where they need to graduate from that learning.
In the past, even in Japan, some people experienced difficult and restrictive situations within a community-oriented system. Therefore, it may be that even for Japanese people, it is better to experience the learning of becoming a "good person" through money. For example, even in Japan, there have been problems with "arrogant public servants," but there are many examples of how privatization has improved services. For example, JR used to have abusive employees, but the service has improved. Also, service areas on highways used to be terrible, but they have improved. Even though the government service used to be bad, the service has improved to some extent even with the same public servants. In other words, I think that over the past 100 years or so, people have generally gone through this kind of learning. If we continue this for much longer, it will lead to the introduction of money-oriented and absurd ideas from overseas. Therefore, this is probably the right time to change.
Since Japan has the potential to build a new social system as a pioneer based on its experience with a community-oriented system, it would be ideal if Japan could transition to a new system and then other countries could follow suit, learning from Japan's experience.