Money used to be backed by gold and may now be backed by other securities, but I'd like to suggest that the real reason money (or gold itself, or other securities) has value is because it's backed by sex. Maybe it's just the amateur population geneticist in me, but biologically just about everything comes down to sex, even abstract social constructs like money.
Money(/gold/whatever) has value because it can be converted to sex. Money serves a complementary biological purpose for both genders: men want to have sex as much as possible, and women want to have their children protected and provided for -- and money can help them accomplish both. Not directly, of course, unless you're inordinately attracted to portraits of Alexander Hamilton and Adam Weishaupt or can build a shelter out of tiny pieces of paper, but indirectly because people are willing to perform sex-related services (such as getting married) in exchange for wealth and its accoutrements.
Prostitution is often considered "the oldest profession", and it's also the most direct tie between money and sex. Even before there was money, wealthy nobles would send their daughters off to marry the sons of other nobles, trading sex for protection and prosperity. Are many modern marriages much different than long-term prosititution in exchange for food and shelter?
Money is to humans what plumage is to peacocks, and ultimately it's most important purpose is to attract a high-quality mate. As long as it's successful in this it needs no other intrinsic value.
Update:
Part 2 goes into more detail and refutes some criticisms.
I guess I would love to be able to disagree with you, but in many (most) cases, I think you are right. There are exceptions, however. For example, I want to make it in major league baseball as a challenge to myself. It has nothing to do with the money, or sex. Well, not much at least. A side effect of playing baseball is staying active and in shape, which I guess, indirectly I want because of sex.
I do think that many of what people call shallow just happens to be a fact of life. Some might call you shallow for what you have written. I just think you have made a good observation.
Money is nothing more than proof of someone's ability (or inability, in cases where people have no money) to acquire material possessions and/or purchase the services (not necessarily sex-related) of someone else.
You mentioned peacocks. Money is indeed our way of attracting a mate. However, the money itself isn't as important as what having the money means in one's ability to purchase goods and services. In that regard, it's kind of like the chicken and the egg. The money has value, but only because of the stuff it can buy.
People value things other than sex. They may want power, security, prestige, or comfort in any kinds of proportions. People are so interesting and unpredictable precisely because they have multiple competing desires.
It's even unclear whether by "sex" you mean the short-term pleasure of intercourse or the longer-term pleasure of reproduction. People want both, though men and women differ in the proportions.
Regarding goods and services and the link, you miss my point: the only reason most goods and services have value is because they increase the odds of having sex. Beyond the minimal requirements of food, air, water, and some shelter, all the rest is plumage and "keeping up with the Jones'" to compete with them for sex.
BB: Short-term, long-term, they're both sex.
On your theory, Michael, people would stop working if they became infertile and unable to enjoy sex. I've met some pretty happy couples in their eighties, and I don't think they go on living for the sex.
Surely people can pursue things other than sex: beauty, truth, God?
BB: Hm, good point about old people. Most old people don't really do much, though, except interact with their families, which are the products of sex. Old people without families generally don't live long.
I have to agree with Ms. Williams, the refutation of the hypothesis involves a narrowing of the term sex. But taken in its broadest possible light, sex really does make the world go round. Even older people are driven by sex. The power to protect the younger generation to reproduce of the clan is a powerful motivator even after the ability of the matriarch or patriarch to engage in anything that approaches hot monkey love has long since past even if it results in such detestable phenomena as “trust fund kids”.
While the notion needs more fleshing out then a few paragraphs in a blog can deliver I think she is on to something.
Of course that would be Mr. Williams. Why I thought I read Michelle I can't say, first time to the blog.
There was a study in the papers recently (but eh National Bureau of Economic Research) which came to a variety of empirical conclusions on this subject but determined there was no relationship between your income level and the frequency of sex. I think this shoots down your idea that money has value only because its buys you more sex. They found that money increases happiness independently of how sex increases happiness.
Then how come I used to have more sex when I had less money?
Anyway...I'm not sure it makes sense, as Mr. DeMent says, to "broaden" the definition of sex to the entire idea of providing for subsequent generations. After all, any proposition can be said to be "true" if you just redefine all the terms in the proposition...
Is this based on the book Power Money Fame Sex by Gretch Craft Rubin?
L & WM: Quality is more important than quantity.
Cat: Nope.
Readers will probably enjoy this post entitled "Penguins" about how male penguins bring stones to females' nests in return for sexual favors. It is on a blog my students write for my classes.
Regarding goods and services and the link, you miss my point: the only reason most goods and services have value is because they increase the odds of having sex. Beyond the minimal requirements of food, air, water, and some shelter, all the rest is plumage and "keeping up with the Jones'" to compete with them for sex.
This is clearly false. Sex is certainly something a lot of people want, and it is one general use for resources. But saying it is *all* that matters is quite overreaching yourself.
We are not genetically programmed just to seek sex. We are programmed to survive and reproduce. For example, we invest resources in our offspring rather than using them to get laid again. If people cared about sex as much as you say, why do fathers sometimes pay for their kids Ivy League educations instead of buying midlife crisis convertibles to pickup college chicks?
And female behavior fits your model even more poorly. Many women could have vastly more sex, and yet they choose not to. You are ignoring the value system of half the human race.
And what about people who are physically incapable of any kind of sexual gratification? Why do they earn resources? What about old people? Why would they work?
Anyway, its not that sex isn't important and fundamental. It is. But its silly to say everything comes down to it. I think as close as you can get is "Most things that people want resources for have to do with reproductive success".