[p2p-research] Remote Assembly, Economy, & Work For Its Own Sake
samuel.rose at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 20:12:11 CEST 2009
>> Central banks and governments artificially control money
>> flows via fixing compound interest rates. So, when financial systems
>> take a dive (usually after a false expansion that people start to
>> realize cannot be sustained, which leads to the collapse), lending
>> institutions dam up the flow of money, blocking people from accessing
>> it, which has a domino effect, and those with the least amount of
>> money are forced to struggle even harder to procure the basic amount
>> of money for survival. I propose that we both give people the means of
>> production, to eliminate the need for money, plus we all start using
>> new money systems that are tied to natural forces. People have been
>> calling for this for years. This makes money *self-regulating*. We
>> could prove it with experiments with digital money online. (see this
>> article http://www.energybulletin.net/49740 ).
>> Time banks are an example. I don't think that currency should *only*
>> be based on petro, but any solar-derived energy, or even other energy.
> Wrong. If we back money with anything, that will only work against us, as
> interests will only work to secure that backing whether is it (energy, gold,
> natural forces, ect) is scare or not. Therefore, money must be based on the
> subjectivity of scarcity itself. In other words: only backed by trust that
> an item is scarce and must have something of relative scarce value in
> exchange. That's 'old world' and will soon be difficult to secure such lived
> horrors, however.
I am sure you are right in theory. But, in practice to get to the
transformative outcome of: no one using money/money is worthless,
there is no plausible path except for transitioning towards it.
So, the question in my mind is "how do we transition from a world
dominated by money, to a world where humans operate with no money?"
What is a "plausible" way to do this, that most of the people in the
world can actually start adopting right now, today?
>> Plus, as Nathan continually advocates, it is extremely important in my
>> opinion to diminish the need for money at all.
>> Especially for basic
>> survival needs. We already have enough space, and stored/potentially
>> energy to meet basic survival needs for every person on this planet in
>> totally self-sustaining ways. We're just currently misusing the
>> resources, and I think that is obvious to many people.
> So if a currency were backed by something abundant as you're describing, the
> money would then be worthless...
There are many different types of "worth" assigned to money by human
beings. Some of these types of "worth" are more related to econmic
theory such as what we have been discussing, and some are local to an
individual's mind. So, even if we create mechanisms for valuing money,
we must also create or at least work to increase the likelihood of
conditions that will make it more likely that people will accept the
type of change that we are trying to initiate. So, while it is
interesting for us to discuss which economic theories make the most
sense, in reality we are also dealing with the worldviews of billions
of people, who may or may not readily accept and operate with the type
of change that others propose for them. Clare W. Graves recognized the
conditions that can make it more likely for people to willingly accept
a change that you are attempting to initiate, and to work with the
world view that is inherent in that change. See "The Never Ending
Quest" for a detailed description of that
>> Paul just stated to me that Complex Adaptive systems optimize the flow
>> of energy in emergent ways, they usually do not block, or hoard energy
>> flows in systems when left to evolve and emerge on their own.
>> So, if we take energy that is in the form of matter, shape it into a
>> fast food container, use it once, and then throw it into a hole in the
>> ground, we are blocking the potential for optimized dissipation of
>> that energy. Complex systems theory contains many of the simple
>> rules-based models that we need to start optimizing our energy flows
>> in useful ways.
> Have reading suggestions in this area?
> I've kept notes on all the ones you've previously mentioned on
I would recommend looking at models from Elinor Ostrum ("Governing the
commons"), Peter Kollock http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/390
I'd also recommend looking at Six Degrees by Duncan Watts
Emergence by John Holland (all work by John Holland is useful for
learning about the basics of complex systems theory),
Triple Helix by Richard Lewontin
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/lewontin/tripleh.htm while not
"complex systems theory" explains that the *system* is the mechanism,
not it's components.
All of the work of Robert Axelrod
Hope that helps!
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan
More information about the p2presearch