Is a society obsessed with solutions much healthier than a society obsessed with money?

I would say yes. In my experience (the geography I'm in and the actual area I'm in), there are more people who are interested in non-material possessions rather than material ones. It speaks more about the evolution (even if it's just the appearance) of values and that solution-seeking mindset is alive and well. There are people who are still more concerned with money, but the majority is concentrating in making a world to be a better place.

If you keep everything else equal than more than likely yes. If you focus on solutions for problems whether health, skills, homelessness, microprocessors, science,etc the money will come on average to people. Plus if the focus is on solutions, people with money can focus on helping those without money. If the focus is obsessed with money, the ramifications can be negative. When people focus solely on money they do whatever to get ahead . Plus many of the most unhappy people are rich and some of the most happy have nothing. There is no correlation between wealth and happiness.

If you speak about solutions that mean we had resolved something.Or wars we didn't expect are still going on! The Roman Empire has been built on the invention of Viaducts but they had a lot of free slaves . And the barbars destroy the http://viaducts.No more Roman advanced civilization .Except for some , we are not obsessed with money , we are obsessed with the lack of opportunities for young one. A majority of person are underemployed: today is not a healthy society. Money is the support never the solution. So , in my opinion , it is impossible to answer this question : you can't subtract the money( as economy system) from a solution for a better society . And please don't you think we have to pay our debt ( trillions)before thinking one second that this society can be healthy!:)

A Haiku of an answer seasonally unaffected. Fee-fi-fo-fum I smell a question that goes on forever. It is not part of the plan to be obsessed with my rhyme it has to ring of copper to bring in our bread or your honey. Meaning the obsession and the means need to harmonize in practice and tone nation to nation, person to person, self to self or in reverse order. So be it. :-)

That's kind of like the Star Trek society, isn't it? Let's take away all money, so people can focus on bettering themselves and the world they live in. Sounds good, but it also creates a whole new set of problems. You see, money is a solution in itself, for the problem of trading. If you strip away money, you have to trade your goods and services for stuff other people can actually use. How would I get a new pair of pants if there was no money? I'd have to look for a tailor and ask him to trade me a pair of pants. Against what? A nice dinner? Then I'd have to find someone who could cook that (I'm not a good cook myself). And then I'd have to figure out what he'd need in order to make the trade. Money solves that problem by abstracting people's needs. If I give someone money in return for goods, that person can use that money to buy goods or services he needs. So money is nothing more than an intermediate. And while it may have way too big an impact on the world, a world without money isn't a good thing either.

Not everyone is good with finding solutions. That's where money comes in. Having money enables one to purchase solutions from those who have it. It makes life much more easier for those who can't find their own solutions and are able to afford buying them. So, in a way, society's obsession with money will stay as long as everyone is not smart enough or is free enough to find their own solution

As Vidyasagar said, some are better at finding solutions than others. The divide in ability will lead to inequality -- a ranking system/class system that will contribute to social stratification.