[p2p-research] Building Alliances (basic income and entrepreneurship)

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Wow, great summary.

And now that you are talking about scarcity vs. abundance ideology, I see my 
evil work is done here for now. :-)

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/


Michel Bauwens wrote:
> I think Andrew states his position very clear, and this is really what the
> political and social battles in the future will be about.
> 
> One view is the scarcity view, that only very few people in the world are
> talented, and that concentrations of capital and power are needed, and
> winner take all systems that motivate the privileged few, and this is
> getting worse and worse, so we need more and more of it.
> 
> Another view is that talent is distributed in many ways, and so our systems
> need to be more distributed to capture that innovation and contribution, as
> that is not sufficiently done at present.
> 
> So to challenge Andrew's very clear metaphysics:
> 
> 1) people can get smarter, and in many ways are getting smarter, through
> smart educational and social policies
> 
> 2) the intelligence we have is increasing in value, the more so if we
> interconnected people and their contributions in collective intelligence
> systems; there is a network effect to human intelligence deployed in this
> social and distributed way
> 
> 3) intelligence is incredibly addictive, all human knowledge builds on
> previous one, and recombines in myriad ways to create more and more
> additional intelligence
> 
> So, shall we evolve even more into a winner take all world, devoted to the
> privileged few, or develop policies that enhance and empower the
> contribution of more and more people. My take on history is that those who
> have chosen scarcity over abundance in the field of knowledge and
> innovation, have not fared well.
> 
> The magic of Silicon Valley is not just VC money, but a dense network of
> highly intelligent people who have learned to network together and
> cross-fertilize each other and they rely on an excellent educational
> infrastructure (which the effects of the neoliberal meltdown are now
> unfortunately deconstructing).
> 
> I also note that in a world where myriad social problems are showing up and
> increasing, the system you propose, in your own words, is incapable of
> investing in it.
> 
> Time to move on then perhaps, and let others take over the work of investing
> in the common good? The good news is that for people who are willing to
> invest in the social good, it is not actually a hard problem, and
> opportunities abound. This is why there is now a thriving field of social
> enterpreneurship, blended capital, and social venture investing, while the
> VC world is in crisis.
> 
> Michel
> 
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM, J. Andrew Rogers
> <reality.miner at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Now you are on the key point.  There are few economic investments to be
>>> made.  Here's the rub: Why is that?
>>
>> The really short answer:  the amount of well-applied intelligence
>> required to do something that creates significant value has been
>> increasing every year for a long time.  People aren't getting smarter,
>> the intelligence we have is decreasing in value, and intelligence is
>> not meaningfully additive.
>>
>> If you are an investor trying to get a certain return on investment,
>> that means the pool of people that can deliver the required value is
>> shrinking.
>>
>> It is a very hard problem.
>>
>> --
>> J. Andrew Rogers
>> realityminer.blogspot.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org