[p2p-research] Remote Assembly, Economy, & Work For Its Own Sake

Mon Aug 31 23:26:21 CEST 2009

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Ryan Lanham<rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The obvious model of transition is a hyper-inflation.  Take Zimbabwe or even
> the possibility as it currently exists in the US.  If you created massive
> amounts of government spending...more and more...at some point, in theory,
> the perceived value of the currency unit would fall.  If it falls to
> nothing, you have an abundance of money.

Well, hyper-inflation may be the obvious model.

But, my question to Nathan was:

"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?

I argue that, while it may be an obvious fitting model, hyperinflation
is not a "plausible" way to do this.

"Plausible" comes to me as a language construct from Richard Slaughter
of Swinburne Foresight Institute. Slaughter recommended that when we
talk about alternative futures, that we (eventually) narrow down to
what is plausible.
http://www.amazon.com/Futures-Beyond-Dystopia-Foresight-Education/dp/0415302706
 Plausible meaning likely to happen based on everything we know about
what is happening now, plus what we can reasonably project is emerging
or will emerge. An implausible future is one that is envisioned and
worked towards while ignoring the fact that billions of other people
are already working towards a different envisioned future.

If you are interested in actually seeing change happen, (as opposed to
just talking about what theoretical changes to systems would work
theoretically work best) then I propose that what is most important is
not having the strongest theoretical argument. Instead, what is most
important is to work towards the future that is plausible for you to
actually turn into reality.

Is it plausible that the entire United States, and all of the people
in it, will participate in a process to bring about hyper-inflation,
in order to see the outcome of making money worthless actually happen
by way of this route? I propose that it is not plausible. The theory
is sound, but the idea that people will willingly participate in the
process in reality is not. People cannot start adopting
hyper-inflation right now, today, because hyper-inflation depends on
the US government participating, which does not seem likely to me.

The question again:

"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?

An answer could very well be "we don't transition into a world where
humans operate with no money at all". Although, there are ways that
people can start operating without money, right now today. Anyway, I
will agree with Ryan that the problem is not rooted in money, (or any
medium or technology) but in core beliefs that people follow as they
go about solving their perceived problems of existence.

> The question is value.  The people who wave their hands and
> say we can just throw away carefully worked out ideas are amusing but not
> very helpful.
>
> Value as marginal utility will always reign supreme unless a moral system
> becomes a political system whereby certain identified aims are held as
> self-evidently valuable...e.g. a sustainable planet.
>

This is another way of saying exactly what I am saying, which is that
the type of change that Ryan describes above requires human beings to
accept and believe and operate under the world view he describes. And,
people will only do that if *they* are ready to do it. You can try to
help create conditions where they are more likely to be ready. This is
what I am doing now.

> The problem is moral/political.  It isn't technological or procedural.

Agreed. With humans, the problem is always the world view through
which people are seeing the world. Although, by the same token, one of
the conditions required to see humans change the ways that they solve
their problems of existence is to create "dissonance" within the
system. And, sometimes this dissonance can be fomented by introducing
new technologies, new procedures. But dissonance is not enough on it's
own. I agree with that.

>The reason micro-currencies work is a volunteerism toward a different way of
> being and seeing.

That is exactly right! And this is also why they are tending to emerge
in small niches here and there across the world. Because: those people
who adopt and employ are the  people who are currently ready for that
type of change in the way they solve their problems of existence.

>Until that occurs in large, sensible ways...or is forced
> to occur in large sensible ways,

I can argue that forcing is impossible. People will not change in ways
that they are not ready to change. Especially of the type of change we
talk about has a key component of "volunteerism". But, if the
conditions that make it more likely for people to be ready to accept
change exist, then we can have more faith that change will happen.
Clare W Graves figured all of this out about 50 years ago

> there is no feasible transformation of the
> sort Sam is describing.

I think there was a misunderstanding with what I was
describing/question I was asking. But, in any case Ryan and myself
both agree that the core problem is centered in human belief systems,
and the lenses through which people view the world.

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 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 ).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129500-banking-on-energy-rather-than-currency-or-gold
>> >>  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.
>> >> /::Drift::
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> http://www.clarewgraves.com/neq/neq.html
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> 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
>> > collaboration.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>> 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
>> http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/388
>> 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
>>
>> http://www.cooperationcommons.com/summaries?op0=OR&op1=OR&filter1=&op2=OR&filter2[]=233
>>
>> Strogatz http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/394
>>
>> Hope that helps!
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Sam Rose
>> Social Synergy
>> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
>> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
>> skype: samuelrose
>> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
>> http://socialsynergyweb.com
>> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
>> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
>> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
>> http://localfoodsystems.org
>> http://notanemployee.net
>> http://communitywiki.org
>>
>> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
>> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan