Talk:P2P and Human Evolution Ch 6
6.1.A
--Poor Richard (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with most of this very important an useful essay, but I disagree with two points near the end of this section:
1. "Peer to peer produces for use value, not exchange value."
IMO p2p produces for both as appropriate. The difference between p2p and classical, neoclassical, and neoliberal economic frameworks is that biological and psychological well-being (and use value) are not externalities--they are central and foremost.
2. "Peer to peer is therefore also a process of social recognition and valuation, that replaces or complements money as a token of social recognition."
I think this glosses too lightly over a huge distinction between "replaces" and "complements" and thereby exaggerates the prospect of replacing money. IMO p2p gives greater recognition to but doesn't much change the amount or the role of intrinsic motivation in production from what it always has been. The role of money in motivation has always been greatly (often intentionally) exaggerated. But money (or more generally accounting) has lots of other valid uses. So I see cases in which p2p can or should replace money as secondary to the variety of ways in which p2p ideas can guide our understandings and modifications of the tokens and technologies of money and accounting to help maximize collective well-being--rather than externalize and subordinate that as the 1% would always have us do. Examples are value accounting, crowdfunding, p2p lending, and brokerless micro-transactions.--Poor Richard (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
6.1.C
--Poor Richard (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Dualistic distinctions between natural and "supernatural" are rooted in limitations of human understanding rather than in reality.--Poor Richard (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
6.1.D
--Poor Richard (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with the thesis here and I think it supports a non-dual view of mankind and the cosmos in which distinctions between natural and "supernatural" are rooted in limitations of human understanding rather than in reality. --Poor Richard (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)