The evolution of cooperation (was Re: == Currency Based on ...) - Open Manufacturing

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion The evolution of cooperation (was Re: == Currency Based on ...)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of marc.fa...@gmail.com designates 74.125.46.30 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.46.30;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=CMwuAyyUjUnGxMjQTfO9EGch0Pb3WXUraEpUSPFvyO8LbdcZ44QLKuwlg8g7kCN16l
         WLziHj0t7nNYW5AYRKLMVw12rtolxZeBEg5LJu94Bzc4ebTEYaPgLYL/IxBt43ok0AYU
         stvrYdQI7LBVH7v0Cslu0Qp6Vt0JCAVE8KKH4=
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <875f4a530902171938n35202ffem8491520ee37991b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <499B7F26.6000...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
	 <875f4a530902171938n35202ffem8491520ee3799...@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:39:55 -0800
Message-ID: <875f4a530902171939q359e9926i61a431f78a70c...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Open Manufacturing] The evolution of cooperation (was Re: == 
	Currency Based on ...)
From: marc fawzi <marc.fa...@gmail.com>
To: openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com

"Shat" =3D "What"

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:38 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that's your opinion re: hierarchies.
>
> Mine is different.
>
> Yours says it's always a mix of mesh and hierarchy which is true per
> my observation, too, but it does not make static hierarchies a good
> thing.
>
> I believe that hierarchies should be continuously broken and rebuilt,
> not in a way that wrecks the systems that depend on them but in a way
> that does not create fixed centers of dependency. For example, your
> supplier does not have to be a fixed person. It can be a set of
> criteria that narrows suppliers and then a random pick (like clicking
> on a link in the first three pages of a google search)
>
> Shat does it mean that I ignore a "point" ? What makes your point more
> legitimate than my point or ANY arbitrary point? The logic and
> evidence we provide. So you point to links which may contain evidence
> in them but I don't buy the logic that you quote.
>
> I provide a different argument (see: "increased autonomy through
> increased interdependence" in P2P Energy Economy)
>
> This was stated here as my opinion a couple of times.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Paul D. Fernhout
> <pdfernh...@kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>>
>> marc fawzi wrote:
>>  > The things we learn growing up in a hierarchical society is not to
>>  > upset the hierarchy but the only way for society to reach its full
>>  > potential is to continuously break that hierarchy, so in copying
>>  > multiple lists I am broadcasting to all those who may be interested i=
n
>>  > many hierarchies (each list is a hierarchy of moderators, long time
>>  > users, and new comers) so as not to create dependence on any one of
>>  > those hierarchies, because as I see it no hierarchy is a good
>>  > hierarchy, so any one hierarchy can go bad and try to control its
>>  > environment to stay in place.
>>
>> As has been pointed out before:
>>   "Manuel De Landa on Meshworks, Hierarchies, and Interfaces"
>>   http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
>> "Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villain=
s
>> and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constan=
tly
>> turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures=
 and
>> hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theor=
y
>> alone but demand concrete experimentation. Certain standardizations, say=
, of
>> electric outlet designs or of data-structures traveling through the
>> Internet, may actually turn out to promote heterogenization at another
>> level, in terms of the appliances that may be designed around the standa=
rd
>> outlet, or of the services that a common data-structure may make possibl=
e.
>> On the other hand, the mere presence of increased heterogeneity is no
>> guarantee that a better state for society has been achieved. After all, =
the
>> territory occupied by former Yugoslavia is more heterogeneous now than i=
t
>> was ten years ago, but the lack of uniformity at one level simply hides =
an
>> increase of homogeneity at the level of the warring ethnic communities. =
But
>> even if we managed to promote not only heterogeneity, but diversity
>> articulated into a meshwork, that still would not be a perfect solution.
>> After all, meshworks grow by drift and they may drift to places where we=
 do
>> not want to go. The goal-directedness of hierarchies is the kind of prop=
erty
>> that we may desire to keep at least for certain institutions. Hence,
>> demonizing centralization and glorifying decentralization as the solutio=
n to
>> all our problems would be wrong. An open and experimental attitude towar=
ds
>> the question of different hybrids and mixtures is what the complexity of
>> reality itself seems to call for. To paraphrase Deleuze and Guattari, ne=
ver
>> believe that a meshwork will suffice to save us."
>>
>> But, that has even been pointed out before directly when you raised this
>> anti-hierarchy issue, even on postscarcity Google group.
>>   http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity/msg/608ff730a61f05f2?hl=3D=
en
>> So, it is true you are ignoring a key point.
>>
>> The world is full of both both centralized hierarchies and distributed
>> meshworks, as a duality like Yin and Yang. One may, of course, argue abo=
ut
>> the desirable degree of each in specific circumstances, but setting eith=
er
>> to zero is just not possible in this universe to my understanding. Livin=
g
>> cells, to begin with, need both meshworks in them and hierarchies in the=
m.
>> Organized wars by hierarchical states are awful, but so are eternally
>> running feuds. A lot of historic human wisdom has to do with halting feu=
ds,
>> though unfortunately we've lost much of that as we've come to depend mor=
e on
>> the hierarchies for basic neighborly functions.
>>
>> You are also simultaneously promoting a unified currency system (or vari=
ous
>> spinoffs, I'm not sure what your proposal is at this point, as it has go=
ne
>> through some iterations) that itself will no-doubt contain one or more
>> hierarchical authorities to function in any global way. Otherwise, as Ke=
vin
>> Carson said in reply to your post on the postscarcity list:
>>   http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity/msg/c1203053dde81e5a?hl=3D=
en
>> you can just as well let local system for trading emerge using whatever
>> currency systems they chose within whatever economic framework they adop=
ted.
>> Maybe they will use energy as a currency, or CPU hours, or person-hours,=
 or
>> maybe they will not.
>>
>>  > By broadcasting to all lists, I simply
>>  > spread the risk, so if OM decides that they want to be close minded
>>  > and label agile as spam because they can't understand the thought
>>  > process then let it be. I have no time to start digging out old
>>  > threads from OM and resending them to other lists after the fact. The
>>  > approach of sending to all lists concerned creates more resiliency on
>>  > my end, so again if one list decides to label agile as spam I will
>>  > have lost nothing and my message continues to flow so I can continue
>>  > to receive thoughtful feedback and thoughtful arguments and continue
>>  > the process.
>>
>> On crossposting in general, as is said here:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>> it is true that it makes sense sometimes, so while I find it often
>> questionable (including in this case, as you are getting a bad reception
>> here but not in the other group), I personally am not absolutely opposed=
 to it.
>>
>> Still, you suggest you don't have time to dig out or digest old threads,=
 but
>> on the other hand, you expect others to have time to read your posts and
>> respond to them? Or categorize them twice if they are subscribed to both=
  lists?
>>
>> Personally, I've read lots of flame wars, so they don't especially bothe=
r me
>> in the long term that they are in the archives or that they happen. They=
 no
>> doubt turn newcomers off, but not everything can be about newcomers.
>>
>> What really bothers me most is just not seeing two or more people making=
 a
>> better attempt to get along, even if they disagree. Part of that may be
>> simply that Bryan may feel his and others' "attention" is being unfairly
>> taken away from what he and some others deem more productive uses.
>>
>> See:
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy
>> """
>> Herbert Simon was perhaps the first person to articulate the concept of
>> attention economics when he wrote: "...in an information-rich world, the
>> wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of
>> whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is
>> rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wea=
lth
>> of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate tha=
t
>> attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources tha=
t
>> might consume it"
>> """
>>
>> That's another basis that has been proposed for economies and currencies=
, if
>> one needs them. :-)
>>
>> I know this "crisis" is taking attention away from me programming right =
now.
>>
>> I think it is a valid issue to think about whether this is the right pla=
ce
>> to do extensive "agile development" of ideas on currency if that means
>> repeating a lot of the same stuff, as opposed to setting up a new mailin=
g
>> list, blog, or just posting pointers to a wiki page (like you have). I d=
on't
>> know.
>>
>> Personally, I think people can ignore the stress of stuff they don't lik=
e
>> easier than the stress of the worry they might say something off-topic a=
nd
>> get banned. There isn't some simple solution to censorship or banning.
>> Sometimes a group decides it is needed, but it's more likely to be worth=
 a
>> ban for obviously commercial posts for "wristwatches". Or a ban for
>> persistent uncivil behavior, which unfortunately has been coming recentl=
y
>> from a few people, and would entail banning Bryan too, and maybe some
>> others, to be fair, if it's just about language used recently. If Bryan =
and
>> others had held their keys back on those sorts of comments, then if the
>> uncivilness was one-sided, a ban for incivility would be easier to
>> contemplate if it's all by just one person. But, when it is on various
>> sides, feeding on itself, then any one person has to get a free pass if
>> others do too, IMHO. I guess a one week ban for uncivil behavior for
>> everyone involved might be possible? But it still seems more trouble tha=
n it
>> is worth in the current situation, including then arguing about what is
>> "uncivil" enough to get banned.
>>
>> Some people are obviously frustrated here, so addressing those frustrati=
ons
>> in some positive ways might be valuable and a better idea than censorshi=
p.
>> Whether that solution is new groups, new technology, new statements abou=
t
>> values and goals, or just new ideas, I don't know. This is not just an i=
ssue
>> of one person. I've contributed my own amount of noise relative to some
>> people's definition of signal. Bryan created a new group a while back fo=
r
>> "openmanufacturing-dev" with a narrower charter, so maybe it is time to
>> revisit that as well.
>>
>> In general, the question is, what are the group's goals, as I raised her=
e
>> but without replies, where I said:
>>   http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/4cb2191fd48261b2
>> "Anyway, if Marc's posts are not well received by some here (or even man=
y.
>> or most), I'm just suggesting we take a moment to reflect on what the bi=
gger
>> picture social issue is in terms of group goals and group process, rathe=
r
>> than just single any one person out right now for stepping over some
>> boundary that might (or might not :-) be hazily defined. :-) "
>>
>> But obviously, incivility, whether in retort or not, is stepping over a
>> different hazy line.
>>   "Incivility as a Barometer of Societal Decay"
>>   http://philosophy.ucf.edu/fpr/journals/volume1/issue1/moffat.html
>>
>> Incivility is problematical in part because it creates fear and bad stre=
ss,
>> and fear and bad stress shut down a spirit of play. A spirit of play is
>> essential to a healthy society:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens
>>
>> We're here to develop a system of open manufacturing, right? Maybe we ne=
ed
>> to debate things occasionally, but really, that sort of adversarial conf=
lict
>> is not the main point -- it's more to learn to cooperate on building a n=
ew
>> open future.
>>
>> I can acknowledge that with your open technical proposals you are genuin=
ely
>> trying to do what you see right towards that open future end. So, you've
>> started down the path, great. :-)
>>
>>  > I find that a few people here act like bullying IRC admins (throwing
>>  > out words like "spam" and "bullshit") and lack the ability to reason,
>>  > and like Wikipedia admins if they don't like what they hear regardles=
s
>>  > of the rationality behind it they resort to cursing which invites
>>  > cursing. I admit I have a tit for tat angle when it comes to
>>  > interacting with people who resort to lowest common denominator
>>  > behavior,
>>
>> And as for "tit for tat", see:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye
>> "The vengeance-based non-biblical forms of Lex Talionis have been
>> criticized; its critics maintain that merely limiting vengeance is not
>> enough as even limited retaliation continues a potentially endless cycle=
 of
>> violence. Mahatma Gandhi remarked: "An eye for an eye will make the whol=
e
>> world blind." Even though it may be hard to do in practice, certain beli=
ef
>> systems (such as Christianity) teach individuals to forgive those who wr=
ong
>> them, rather than seek retribution for a wrong. Other belief systems adh=
ere
>> to similar concepts, such as the Taoist wu wei which encourages a wronge=
d
>> individual to simply accept the infraction and to take the least "resist=
ive"
>> action to correct it, if any action need to be taken at all. Buddhism
>> stresses the weight of karma: one can take retributive action, but that
>> retributive action is not without its consequences, and living on a fini=
te
>> planet guarantees that the suffering incurred by a retributive action wi=
ll
>> return to the individual who was wronged (as well as the one who did the
>> wrong-doing). Some subscribe to the Golden Rule of ethics rather than an=
y
>> law of retaliation. It can also be seen as an extension of the informal
>> logical fallacy, two wrongs make a right."
>>
>> Computer simulations are often used to see the consequences of decision
>> theory. They aren't perfect predictors, given humans are still a hard to
>> duplicate run-time phenomenon, but they are a start. One of the pioneers=
 in
>> this is Robert Axelrod.
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Axelrod
>> While it is true that in Robert Axelrod's first book:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
>> he showed that "tit-for-tat" was a good strategy for computer agents in =
an
>> iterated simple "prisoner's dilemma",
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
>> in the sequel, Axelrod says he discovered something else from further
>> simulation. That discovery is described here:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complexity_of_Cooperation
>> "Tit for tat (TFT or T4T) emerged as the most robust strategy in early I=
PD
>> tournaments on computer, combining a willingness to cooperate with a
>> determination to punish non-cooperation. It turns out that under various
>> circumstances such as the possibility of error, strategies that are a li=
ttle
>> more cooperative or a little less punitive do even better than TIT FOR T=
AT.
>> Generous TFT, or GTFT, cooperates a bit more often than TFT, while Contr=
ite
>> TFT or CTFT defects less frequently."
>>
>> Note that was for a simple system. Real life is more complex. So, since
>> Axelrod talked "tit-for-three-tats" being best in general in an iterated
>> Prisoner's Dilemma with noise and error, I'd suggest if people want to d=
o
>> "tit-for-tat" on perceived insults, at least adopt "tit-for-three-tats" =
and
>> everyone will be happier. :-) And part of the reason for that is, given =
the
>> ambiguity of communication, it is never always clear what someone's
>> intention was or what other factors are operating in their lives at the
>> moment. Since email lacks most of the cues humans need to assess intent =
and
>> emotion (facial expression, tone of voice, gestures, body language,
>> pheromones, whatever), I'd suggest, "tit-for-ten-tats" would be an even
>> better strategy for cooperation via email. :-)
>>
>> Also, everyone should remember that when anyone "tats" on someone else o=
n a
>> mailing list, everyone on the list suffers too, to an extent, even as a
>> bystander. So, there are 120 members here, so if one accidental bystande=
r
>> "tat" is worth, say, even one-tenth of a direct "tat" in indirect stress=
,
>> then "tit-for-tat" on a 120 member list would be causing a twelve times
>> increase in stress on every go round (beyond the original), which is lik=
ely
>> to lead to an explosion of the community in some form. So, if, as above,
>> "tit-for-ten-tats" is better on an email list in general, then on a list
>> this size, with a ten times multiplier, it should really be
>> "tit-for-one-hundred-tats". :-)
>>
>> Of course, that ignores stress to non-subscribers reading the archives n=
ow
>> or in the future, whose numbers we don't know, but may be enormous somed=
ay
>> (in our dreams. :-)
>>
>> Or, by that point, it is probably better just to be polite all the time,=
 at
>> least in public email forums. :-)
>>
>> But that's not to argue for no structure or no response to problems. The=
re
>> is still Clay Shirky's point that:
>>   http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
>> "And the worst crisis is the first crisis, because it's not just "We nee=
d to
>> have some rules." It's also "We need to have some rules for making some
>> rules." And this is what we see over and over again in large and long-li=
ved
>> social software systems. Constitutions are a necessary component of larg=
e,
>> long-lived, heterogenous groups. Geoff Cohen has a great observation abo=
ut
>> this. He said "The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually=
 get
>> into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one=
 as
>> time increases." As a group commits to its existence as a group, and beg=
ins
>> to think that the group is good or important, the chance that they will
>> begin to call for additional structure, in order to defend themselves fr=
om
>> themselves, gets very, very high. "
>>
>> Anyway, we've had more name calling on various sides in the thread this
>> comes from (including sexism which was probably not even consciously
>> intended), so how about we all call the previous thread quits, take a de=
ep
>> breath, and start over tomorrow a little calmer? At least that can delay=
 a
>> constitutional crisis for a bit longer. :-)
>>
>>  > so if someone comes and says that this is spam (referring to
>>  > the agile process of release often, release early and high bandwidth
>>  > communication that starts out raw in quality and gets better over
>>  > time) then I think they have no business running a mailing list about
>>  > anything "open" and especially not something as elevated in vision as
>>  > "open production"
>>
>> Well, it's still not clear to me if this particular mailing list is the =
best
>> place to do agile development on currency, given most people disagree wi=
th
>> the basic assumptions you are making and are getting tired of pointing t=
hat
>> out. There is, say, this group (unfortunately named IMHO):
>>   "Post-autistic economics network"
>>   http://www.paecon.net/
>> Or:
>>  "Parecon, or participatory economics"
>>  http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/topics/parecon
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
>>
>> Seriously, you'd probably get much more productive feedback at groups li=
ke
>> that focused on currencies and such.
>>
>> There are some assumptions in what you post here that I'd expect most ot=
her
>> people on this list disagree with to some degree, like:
>> * that an advanced economy will take more than minimal human labor to ke=
ep
>> it going,
>>   Rebuttal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triple_Revolution
>> * that people need to be motivated by otherwise restricting access to go=
ods
>> and services if they do not contribute labor,
>>   Rebuttal: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
>> * that people will demand infinite goods and services if they can (other
>> than ones who are mentally ill or immature in some way),
>>   Rebuttal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living
>> * and probably others, including the circular argument (you need to make
>> money so you can keep making money, even though this list is in part abo=
ut
>> making other stuff than money) which have all been referenced before.
>>
>> In short, they are summed up in Iain Banks' repeated adage in his Cultur=
e
>> novels: "Money is a sign of poverty". :-)
>>   http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/the-culture.html
>> So, what you have been posting is being interpreted as proposing keeping=
 us
>> all poor. :-(
>>
>> Having said that, money in this culture is a tool, and to survive most m=
ay
>> need to use it, and I personally have no objection to thinking about
>> transition strategies. Your posts here don't bother me personally as far=
 as
>> they are technical (ignoring name calling on various sides). There will
>> always be real limits to what a system can produce, like Marshal Brain t=
alks
>> about in the "Australia Project" in Manna:
>>   http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm
>> But those issues have been raised before, and there are various alternat=
ive
>> approaches to organizing a society than currency. For example, you have =
not,
>> to my knowledge, taken up (or rebutted) the idea of a "Basic Income
>> Guarantee" which is at the core of trying to make existing currency syst=
ems
>> more humane:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
>>
>> Or as Frances Moore Lappe says:
>>   http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/lappe
>> "It was thus, very practically, the New Deal that freed me to explore th=
e
>> "big questions." Food, the basis of life, seemed like a smart place to
>> start, so I asked, Why hunger in a world of plenty? Soon it began to daw=
n on
>> me: as long as food is merely a commodity in societies that don't protec=
t
>> people's right to participate in the market, and as long as farming is l=
eft
>> vulnerable to consolidated power off the farm, many will go hungry, farm=
ers
>> among them -- no matter how big the harvests. I might have gotten there
>> quicker if I'd studied Roosevelt's insight that, to serve life, markets =
need
>> help from accountable, democratic government. Against those who saw
>> "economic laws" as "sacred," he argued that "economic laws are not made =
by
>> nature. They are made by human beings.""
>>
>> But I personally think the issues confronting us won't be solved by maki=
ng a
>> new currency at this point, and the more you write on it, the more convi=
nced
>> I become of that. Sorry, but also, thanks. :-)
>>
>> These are more the things I worry about at this point:
>>   "The Machine and the Garden: A Commodity Called Misery"
>>   http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant02102009.html
>> "Given the economic and societal breakdown now underway and accelerating
>> toward completion, ... it's bound to be interesting to see if they can
>> indoctrinate, dope, counsel, and lock up or medicate the dissidence, and
>> perhaps outright resistance that will occur. Whether the final American
>> collapse takes four years or forty years is anybody's guess. But it's go=
nna
>> take a passel of behavioral management experts, whether in psychological
>> institutions, university research centers, or on Madison Avenue, to keep=
 the
>> lid on this puppy when she blows. ..."
>>
>> Or this:
>>   "GOP Conspiracies on Who Crashed America: Economy Without Escape Route=
s:
>>   http://www.counterpunch.org/farago01292009.html
>> "I wonder how many private jets hiding in hangers belong to Republicans.
>> There are no escape routes for 99 percent of Americans from the peril we=
 are
>> in."
>>
>> If it gets that far, with all the nukes and bioweapons around, pretty mu=
ch
>> nobody is going to do well, no matter how much money they have (backed b=
y
>> fiat or whatever), or likely, even if they live in a remote tropical pla=
ce
>> (given airborne weaponized pathogens, nuclear fallout, and tradewinds).
>> See, for example:
>>   http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/bw.htm
>> "At its peak, the former Soviet Union had the world's largest biological
>> warfare program, with somewhere between 25,000 and 32,000 people employe=
d in
>> a network of 20 to 30 military and civilian laboratories and research
>> institutions. Biological agents were developed and stockpiled for delive=
ry
>> by a variety of means, including long-range missiles. Special cooling
>> systems in the warheads protect the biological agents during re-entry.
>> Parachutes slowed the warhead, which at a set altitude dispense over a
>> hundred small bomblets. At least twenty tons of weapons-grade dry smallp=
ox
>> was stockpiled in bunkers for loading into these and other delivery syst=
ems."
>>
>> How much "currency" are people going to have received selling off all th=
at
>> Russian dry smallpox to the highest bidder? :-( :-( :-(
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
>>
>> So, what I'm personally trying to do is, in part, create some alternativ=
es
>> to that situation of people using post-scarcity tools (biotech, nuclear
>> tech, robotics, etc.) but still from a scarcity-oriented world view focu=
sing
>> on conflict.
>>
>> But that's the downside fear. The upside dream is to help more people
>> realize their potential and raise kids in happier and healthier sustaina=
ble
>> communities,
>>   http://www.sustainable.org/
>> without the pain of "work" and boredom of "school",
>>   http://www.whywork.org/
>>   http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/
>> in a world where there are just things to do and people who want to do t=
hem. :-)
>>
>> But, the more I look at it, the less I see a new currency making sense t=
o
>> accomplish that objective of a new post-scarcity vision, even if *part* =
of
>> our current problems are indeed currency related (like from fractional
>> reserve lending leading to bubbles without enough currency to pay the
>> interest).
>>   "Money as debt"
>>   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D-9050474362583451279
>>
>> We didn't need currency the last time most humans lived in relative abun=
dance:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society
>>
>> If in twenty years robots, computers, and other automation can do most o=
f
>> what people can do now,
>>   http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
>> there just is no future for much of humanity without an alternative posi=
tive
>> vision given any currency system based around scarcity assumptions.
>>
>> Even the Amish economy is based on the not-Amish buying their hand craft=
ed
>> items and their farm production (at the very least, to afford to pay tax=
es
>> on their land). So, even the Amish would likely go down through automati=
on,
>> because their land will be seized for non-payment of taxes for the servi=
ces
>> they don't want. So, even the Amish need us to succeed to make a
>> post-scarcity world, if they are to have a future in a world of automati=
on. :-)
>>
>> Fundamentally, the currency proposals you advance ignore all those sorts=
 of
>> issues, because a currency system is ultimately about shaping human beha=
vior
>> in the face of scarcity to do labor (and labor of a sort those who set t=
he
>> system up and hold the most currency deem desirable to be done). If ther=
e is
>> little scarcity, or there is little humans are worth employing to do, th=
en
>> there is little need for currency. If you recast your proposal to being
>> about managing real resources with current limits to meet real current
>> demand (decided on in one of many more-or-less equitable ways, involving
>> currency or not), then you might get a better reception here.
>>
>> Here is a start towards a new way to look at currency issues, from:
>>   http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html
>> """
>> Here is a sample meta-theoretical framework ... economists no doubt coul=
d
>> vastly improve on if they turned their minds to it. Consider three level=
s of
>> nested perspectives on the same economic reality -- physical items, deci=
sion
>> makers, and emergent properties of decision maker interactions. ...
>> * At a first level of perspective, the world we live in at any point in =
time
>> can be considered to have physical content like land or tools or fusion
>> reactors like the sun, energy flows like photons from the sun or electro=
ns
>> from lightning or in circuits, informational patterns like web page cont=
ent
>> or distributed language knowledge, and active regulating processes
>> (including triggers, amplifiers, and feedback loops) built on the previo=
us
>> three types of things (physicality, energy flow, and informational patte=
rns)
>> embodied in living creatures, bi-metallic strip thermostats, or computer
>> programs running on computer hardware.
>> * One can think of a second perspective on the first comprehensive one b=
y
>> picking out only the decision makers like bi-metallic strips in thermost=
ats,
>> computer programs running on computers, and personalities embodied in pe=
ople
>> and maybe someday robots or supercomputers, and looking at their
>> characteristics as individual decision makers.
>> * One can then think of a third level of perspective on the second where
>> decision makers may invent theories about how to control each other usin=
g
>> various approaches like internet communication standards, ration unit to=
kens
>> like fiat dollars, physical kanban tokens, narratives in emails, and so =
on.
>> What the most useful theories are for controlling groups of decision mak=
ers
>> is an interesting question, but I will not explore it in depth.
>> [See, that's what you are exploring with various currency ideas. :-)]
>> But I will point out that complex system dynamics at this third level of
>> perspective can emerge whether control involves fiat dollars, "kanban"
>> tokens, centralized or distributed optimization based on perceived or
>> predicted demand patterns, human-to-human discussions, something else
>> entirely, or a diverse collection of all these things.
>> And I will also point out that one should never confuse the reality of t=
he
>> physical system being controlled for the control signals (money, spoken
>> words, kanban cards, internet packet contents, etc.) being passed around=
 in
>> the control system.
>> """
>>
>> Like most of economics, and like the circular reasoning point above, be
>> careful you don't confuse the reality of the physical system for the
>> coordination tokens being passed around. It's easy to do that. "The Map =
is
>> not the Territory." And "Data is not Reality".
>>   "Data and Reality [Excerpts]"
>>   http://www.bkent.net/Doc/darxrp.htm
>> "Kent attacks the pseudo-exactness of existing data models in a very nea=
t
>> and clear (and often humorous) manner=E2=80=A6 This book is for everyone=
 who thinks
>> about or works on data files and who wants to understand the reasons for=
 his
>> disenchantment."
>>
>> --Paul Fernhout
>> Winston Churchill once said: "You make a living by what you get; you mak=
e a
>> life by what you give."
>>
>> >>
>>
>
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
