[p2p-research] Fwd: Follow up

Thu Apr 16 07:19:38 CEST 2009

I think it boils down to flavor and ultimately artistic choice... I prefer a
little more competition in the framework (relative to what I think you've
proposed and hence the comment I made in my previous message) but we're all
aiming for A LOT more cooperation that capitalism affords!! and that's the
common thread.

I don't think we can have a single objective framework, so the more
frameworks that share the general ideals the better the chance that a
framework will emerge from all these efforts that will take us to the next
stage in our evolution.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> I dispute that my approach is purely moral. While I'm certainly not
> knowledgeable enough about natural evolution and complexity theories, it is
> based on scrupulous observation of current evolutionary trends, and I want
> to use human agency to steer these trends in a particular direction.
>
> Human animals are part of nature, but also endowed with intention and the
> capacity to realize social relationships that go beyond that of the animal
> world. If that were not the case, we would fully abandon the old, let people
> with handicaps die, etc.. but we don't, because, despite the many ills of
> our societies, there is a moral agency at work that is specifically human
> (yes, many aspects are shared in part by different animal species, but the
> totality of it is a qualitative change)
>
> The p2p work has been read by people knowledgeable about
> evolution/complexity who told me the p2p approach does not contradict what
> is known about human evolution (see in particular evolution's arrow, the
> book)
>
> Michel
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a moral orientation in all your saying, but it's lacking the
>> evolutionary bias, which is important, IMO.
>>
>> Capitalism is built on a wrong model of evolution. Old thinking. Darwinian
>> in nature.
>>
>> Experimental evidence and new game theory work agrees that there is a lot
>> more cooperation in nature than can be explained by Darwinian theory or
>> capitalism.
>>
>> That's where I want to go, beyond morality vs Darwinism and into how
>> nature actually works (read: more cooperative than Darwinism but with an
>> evolutionary focus) because I think, ultimately, it's pointless to be more
>> fair than nature, or at least that's the struggle I'm going through right
>> now, which I'm sure is shared with many...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I of course agree with your correction for para 2.
>>>
>>> What I would say is that 1) the cost of reproduction is marginal; 2) the
>>> cost of the first copy is variable; 3) the cost for the generalized
>>> infrastructure is socialized and should remain so
>>>
>>> Of course, I often use the simplifying, but ultimately misleading
>>> polarity of immaterial vs. material, to make the important point of
>>> understanding abundance, while in fact scarcity and abundance are polarities
>>> with many intermediate stages, as so well explained in the work of Roberto
>>> Verzola.
>>>
>>> So, the answer is: 1) free sharing as much as possible given the
>>> constraints of first copy cost (moderate forms of IP are okay for me); 2)
>>> continued support for socialized internet infrastructure which allows
>>> abundance to occur in the field of reproduction. Market and other economies
>>> deriving from open design can support the sharing and commons through
>>> benefit sharing; while the partner state can intervene as 'subsidiary'
>>> force, and find a social solution for peer producers sustainability (full
>>> basic income or transitional labour support measures.
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:41 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, both suggestions make a lot of sense.
>>>>
>>>> However, for the second suggestion I have a problem with the definition
>>>> of "non scarce" and "immaterial" and, coincidentally Patrick was asking the
>>>> same question today on Stefan's list, and no one really is giving a
>>>> realistic answer, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Digital and services goods are not immaterial and they have actual costs
>>>> (of R&D, energy and maintenance) associated with the underlying
>>>> infrastructure, so I consider them "non scarce" but still bound to costs and
>>>> subject to some kind of sustainable exchange... So the question is what is
>>>> the most liberal kind of exchange that is still sustainable (given digital
>>>> goods and services do have costs)
>>>>
>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for sharing,
>>>>>
>>>>> concerning your para 1, why not consider 'subsidiarity' as a policy
>>>>> framework, i.e.letting the lowest but most appropriate level do the work and
>>>>> use centralisation as an enabler? in other words, start with household based
>>>>> renewables, complement with neighborhood-based, regional, national,
>>>>> international, each doing what the previous layer can't do on its own
>>>>>
>>>>> concerning para 2, I wonder if exchange or the market is hierarchical
>>>>> by itself, when it involves equivalent exchange, without passing by prior
>>>>> inequality and the forces expropriation of producers that was the condition
>>>>> for capitalist markets?however, you seem to talk about non-scarce resources,
>>>>> so you mean in the immaterial economy, then in that case, markets are
>>>>> unnecessary and only exist because enforced scarcity,
>>>>>
>>>>> Michel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just sharing some notes on the current problems in the P2P Energy
>>>>>> Economy model
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:23 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Follow up
>>>>>> To: James Edwards <bluecollargreenie at gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry to have dropped the ball on our discussion re: energy flow
>>>>>> based currency...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I went to Arizona where we had no Internet and learned all about solar
>>>>>> power
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I became homeless for a while, lost my girlfriend, etc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now I'm back to work thanks to a sudden and unexpected turn of
>>>>>> events
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problems with the P2P Energy Economy as of v3.00.00 boil down to
>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Issue 1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "it's hard to see how individual energy producers would have any
>>>>>> substantial surplus if they had tiny solar generators and it's even harder
>>>>>> to see how there could be a flow of energy from peers with surplus to peers
>>>>>> with deficit if everyone had a surplus. This is the basic and universal
>>>>>> issue (or two issues,) IMO. For each given type of product (e.g. energy,
>>>>>> milk, cars, etc) we can't have everyone be a producer because the "flow of
>>>>>> energy" is the "economy of life" and without a deficit on one side and a
>>>>>> surplus on the other there is no flow (or movement) of energy (and no flow
>>>>>> of energy equal no life, literally.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in order to have both the maximum surplus of the thing being
>>>>>> produced and the maximum flow of that thing from the surplus side to the
>>>>>> deficit side, the production tends towards centralization (within each
>>>>>> geographic or virtual market)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Issue 2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The very act of paying someone (for a non-scarce resource) and
>>>>>> expecting some service back creates a master-slave (or more mildly a
>>>>>> 'customer-server' relationship) relationship... and this is a type of
>>>>>> hierarchy basically. I'm having an issue with the idea of a hierarchy even
>>>>>> though it's established in nature and even if we use the kind of renewable
>>>>>> hierarchies that I describe (in passing) in the P2P Energy Economy. I'm
>>>>>> studying two game theoretical models, the Prisoners Dilemma game and the
>>>>>> Snowdrift (or Hawk-Dove) game in the context of hierarchies, latices with
>>>>>> limited set of neighbor-to-neighbor interactions per element and networks
>>>>>> with random interactions. I haven't had enough time with all that has been
>>>>>> happening to produce any insight as far as the best type of system from a
>>>>>> moral and evolutionary perspective but I know the P2P Energy Economy
>>>>>> sections concerned with organization are lacking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have anything to share on your end, as far as your work goes,
>>>>>> please feel free to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marc Fawzi
>>>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>>
>>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>>>
>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Marc Fawzi
>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>
>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>
>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>
>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Marc Fawzi
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>

-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090415/113fd026/attachment.html>