[p2p-research] Snowdrift, Renewable Hierarchies and the Commons

[marc fawzi]

Hi Michel,

That's definitely part of it (as far as renewable hierarchies go) but I'm
leaning toward maximally thin, renewable hierarchies (where not only the
leaders are renewed but all positions) as a way to have both the simplicity
of the hierarchical coordination model as well as the freeing aspects of the
network cooperation model.

Marc

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> are you familiar with the rotating leadership schemes, that were used both
> in ancient and medieval democracies, and were very much discussed by council
> communism before WWII ?
>
> are you familiar with smari's proxy voting concept, which also ensures
> fluid leadership?
>
> some backgroun:
>
> - in http://p2pfoundation.net/File:P2P_Governance_Visualization_2large.png,
> see new mgt. models section, actually including governance models, all of
> them existing as files in our wiki
>
> Michel
>
>
> On 4/21/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Alex
>>
>> The renewable hierarchies concept (which is not a new concept by any means
>> and in fact it was in use at the transitional housing place I was staying at
>> [while officially homeless] where the residents made up the entire
>> management hierarchy) had not been previously related to evolutionary game
>> theory in an explicit way, AFAIK.
>>
>> I was just saying that given my preference for egalitarian cooperation (or
>> "common good" cooperation) vs contingent/selfish cooperation (which is a
>> preference shared with all people who believe in the commons and in
>> generalized exchange) a renewable and flat hierarchy would offer the most
>> number of randomized neighbor-to-neighbor interactions per node (similar to
>> a classical network) and would therefore fare better than a vertical and
>> rigid (or slow changing) hierarchy when it comes to egalitarian cooperation.
>>
>> In addition, no one had explicitly connected the "limited no. of neighbor
>> to neighbor interactions" scenario (from the simulation work in Ref #2
>> below) to "hierarchies" where such a scenario is true (because hierarchies
>> pigeon hole people into roles with limited set of neighbor roles [or
>> interactions]
>>
>> So I doubt that you will find any paper discussing renewable, flat
>> hierarchies
>>
>> In the thread titled Snowdrift Game vs Prisoner's Dilemma, my response to
>> Ryan included these two URLs:
>>
>> 1. this is a good introductory article but is not very precise or thorough
>> in the way it presents the concept and its implications
>>
>>
>> http://www.ts-si.org/evolution/4507-meshing-cooperative-behaviors-with-evolutionary-theory.html
>>
>> 2. the stuff I'm looking at is here:
>>
>> "We demonstrate that spatial structure, implemented by placing individuals
>> on regular lattices with limited interaction ranges, has different effects
>> on the evolution of cooperation in the two simple games. Based on extensions
>> of the Prisoner's Dilemma<http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/#pd>to spatially structured populations it is generally believed that spatial
>> extension promotes cooperation. However, spatial structure fails to
>> similarly favor cooperation under the apparently less stringent conditions
>> of the Snowdrift <http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/#sd> or
>> Hawk-Dove <http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/#hd> game. In
>> fact, in these games spatial structure actually tends to reduce the
>> readiness to cooperate. Thus, our results caution against the established
>> view that spatial structure is necessarily beneficial for cooperation."
>>
>> limited interaction ranges is the case in a hierarchy where the prisoner's
>> dilemma game works well but the snowdrift game does not ... the latter works
>> well in networks with random interactions which is more like the p2p model
>>
>> http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/
>>
>> A very important thing to understand is that these are all numerical
>> results, just the _what happens_ (from a statistical mechanics point of
>> view) and they don't shed any light on the _philosophical why_ or the
>> _deductive how_
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  I applaud the direction of your quick edit on the wiki.
>>>
>>>
>>> Meritocratic renewable heirarchies can operate with many currencies and
>>> acces to means of production is more important than ownership.
>>>
>>>
>>> In my experience we are seeing an emergent neef for roleplay/games typr
>>> handling of roles and and role groups.
>>>
>>>
>>> Smari amd i ciuld not find the original qupte you shared about renewing
>>> hrirarcjies i. The snowdrift paper.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where anfd how did it come about.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2009, at 1:16, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I generally only discuss stuff on the list(s) for common benefit and
>>> maximum feedback.
>>>
>>> I agree that communication through Skype or some audio-only client (as
>>> most people would rather not have the intrusion of video) would be better
>>> but I have not seen an application for audio discussion that records
>>> multi-user sessions (to turn into a podcast.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Alex Rollin < <alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>>> alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can we talk by Skype some time?
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on prototyping some game setups (also know as corporate and
>>>> legal entities and organizations and stakeholder groups) to explore patterns
>>>> in mutual ownership of the means of production.
>>>>
>>>> In many instances it is not, for example, possible to reward remote
>>>> investors with anything but state currency, so, this imperfect variable must
>>>> be watched, yes?
>>>>
>>>> And a focus can be kept on, for example, minimizing profits for those
>>>> who are involved on a sweat equity level, especially locally, so that the
>>>> common good focus maintains primacy and spoils heirarchical context (or the
>>>> power it can have on motive.)
>>>>
>>>> This is all very delicate, of course, but, hey, you brought it up!
>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:53 AM, marc fawzi < <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>>>>>
>>>>> [1 text/plain]
>>>>>
>>>>> Hot or not, the analysis holds up
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/>
>>>>> http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Alex Rollin <<alex.rollin at gmail.com>
>>>>> alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [1 text/plain]
>>>>> > OMG that is SOO HOT
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "any hierarchy, including renewable hierarchies, is a structure that
>>>>> > rewards
>>>>> > "scarcity of unpaid
>>>>> > cooperation"
>>>>> >
>>>>> > OMG
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, marc fawzi < <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>>> marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > [1 text/plain]
>>>>> > > Patrick,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > The corporation as an organizational hierarchy, and I would argue,
>>>>> based
>>>>> > on
>>>>> > > relatively new work in evolutionary game theory (see Snowdrift Game
>>>>> vs
>>>>> > > Prisoner's Dilemma thread on P2P Research), that any hierarchy,
>>>>> including
>>>>> > > renewable hierarchies, is a structure that rewards "scarcity of
>>>>> unpaid
>>>>> > > cooperation" .. This is pretty deep, IMO.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Inspired leaders can say that they want to lead by uniting not
>>>>> dividing
>>>>> > but
>>>>> > > the very structure of governance that subjugates 99% of the
>>>>> planet's
>>>>> > > population, i.e. the hierarchical organization, is designed on the
>>>>> > > principle
>>>>> > > of divide and conquer.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > At the very root of the p2p movement is the idea that unpaid
>>>>> cooperation
>>>>> > is
>>>>> > > rewarded. If we ignore this idea, as I had done with the P2P Energy
>>>>> > > Economy,
>>>>> > > we lose our moral basis in this debate.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > The only viable incentive is the common good.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Thanks for bringing it up.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Marc
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Anderson <<agnucius at gmail.com>
>>>>> agnucius at gmail.com
>>>>> > > >wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > Marc,
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I sent this to p2p-research, but it bounced.  I guess I need to
>>>>> sign-up
>>>>> > > > again.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Could you give me your rough take on my questions at the end?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Thanks,
>>>>> > > > Patrick
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, marc fawzi <<marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>>> marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > /. wrote:
>>>>> > > > >> "Symmetric, 100 Mbps service in Stockholm costs $11/month [in
>>>>> > > > Stockholm.]
>>>>> > > > >> Conditions in every city are different, but part of the
>>>>> explanation
>>>>> > > for
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > >> low cost is that the city owns a municipal fiber network
>>>>> reaching
>>>>> > > every
>>>>> > > > >> block. They lease network access to anyone who would like to
>>>>> offer
>>>>> > > > service.
>>>>> > > > >> The ISPs, including incumbent telephone and cable companies,
>>>>> compete
>>>>> > > on
>>>>> > > > an
>>>>> > > > >> equal footing."
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > If the customers are paying $11/month the ISPs are taking a
>>>>> profit,
>>>>> > > > then it *could* be even cheaper.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Right?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I mean, if the WE (any group with any need) knew how to share,
>>>>> then
>>>>> > > > the WE could pool their resources to lease the line and then
>>>>> share the
>>>>> > > > benefits at cost.  Right?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > And if the WE were even more aggressive, the WE could even
>>>>> purchase
>>>>> > > > and *own* the Material Means of Production (the physical network
>>>>> in
>>>>> > > > this case).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Now the ./ article seems to imply that the WE (in Sweden) own
>>>>> those
>>>>> > > lines.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > But that is not quite true because the supposed WE (the city in
>>>>> this
>>>>> > > > case) will not lease the line directly to customers, but instead
>>>>> > > > require for-profit corporations become the "middle-men" - taking
>>>>> > > > control and value (profit) away from the customers.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > There are more administrative costs if THEY (the city government)
>>>>> were
>>>>> > > > also the ISP layer.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > And the semi-valid argument against such a move is that it
>>>>> creates
>>>>> > > > centralized State Socialism.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > The reason that argument has some validity is because almost all
>>>>> > > > governments are currently under the direction of Capitalist
>>>>> (profit
>>>>> > > > maximizing and therefore scarcity maximizing) corporations.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > ....
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > So we won't be able Govern ourselves effectively until we have
>>>>> control
>>>>> > > > of Production.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > But we can't control Production (can't organize effectively)
>>>>> until we
>>>>> > > > discover how to share the Material Means of Production.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > And sharing Physical Sources for the purpose of maximizing
>>>>> freedom and
>>>>> > > > (secondarily) utilization means we must know how to self-Govern.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > So it seems we may be at an impasse.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > We can't change our current governments directly (voting is
>>>>> theater)
>>>>> > > > because they are controlled by Capitalist Corporations.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > And we can't change how we create *new* Corporations because we
>>>>> do not
>>>>> > > > yet know precisely what is wrong with the current entities.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I mean, sure they're 'evil'.  But what causes them to be such
>>>>> bullies?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Is there any chance it is a structure that rewards scarcity?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > If so, then where is the root of that reward?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Is profit related to scarcity?  If so, then what shall be done
>>>>> with it?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Patrick
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > --
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Marc Fawzi
>>>>> > > Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256>
>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>>>> > > LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi>
>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > [2 text/html]
>>>>> > > _________________________________
>>>>> > > Web-Site: <http://www.oekonux.org/>http://www.oekonux.org/
>>>>> > > Organization: <http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/>
>>>>> http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>>>>> > > Contact: <projekt at oekonux.de>projekt at oekonux.de
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Alex
>>>>> > I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.-
>>>>> Socrates
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [2 text/html]
>>>>> > _________________________________
>>>>> > Web-Site: <http://www.oekonux.org/>http://www.oekonux.org/
>>>>> > Organization: <http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/>
>>>>> http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>>>>> > Contact: <projekt at oekonux.de>projekt at oekonux.de
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Marc Fawzi
>>>>> Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256>
>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>>>> LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi>
>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [2 text/html]
>>>>> _________________________________
>>>>> Web-Site: <http://www.oekonux.org/>http://www.oekonux.org/
>>>>> Organization: <http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/>
>>>>> http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>>>>> Contact: <projekt at oekonux.de>projekt at oekonux.de
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alex
>>>> I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Marc Fawzi
>>> Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256>
>>> http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>> LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi>
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090422/83051e2c/attachment-0001.html>