Bootstrapper: It is posts like yours which makes PowerSwitch to some inner sanctum of PeakOil. These kinds of posts simply drown at peakoil.com and if they get any attention, the comments dont match the original posts. I will spend due time on your links - thanks!
Quite interestingly, I went a completely different path to arrive at the same place as you. It started already in the late 1970's when I realised that oil was of fossil origin and would run out, but I was carried along in the binge against better knowledge. Somehow I stumbled over Dieoff and got started again. Matt Savinar got me pointed towards money which lead to Silvio Gesell and further to Edwin Riegel. (It is really interesting to note that the people over at Bartercard are running a live Riegel scheme). At a profit. As Riegel prognosthicated. What really connected all the dots at the end of this path was Bernard Lietaer. Bernard left me completely stunned, and I have a feeling that he has done to anthropology what Copernicus did to astronomy.
In order to deal with humans and human psychology, I'm still digesting Susan Blackmore. Memetics is a darn interesting concept and helps to explain quite a lot of phenomena which have evaded understanding. Although he is chronologically ahead of Blackmore, Masanobu Fukoka pick up the thread just about where Blackmore leave it. Although Fukoka has a lot to say about farming, I think his main message is about philosophy. "Small is beautiful" is in the bookshelf and will have to wait until I've finished Ellinor Ostrom.
I have a bunch of other influences also, but those mentioned above were among the most important ones.
building future communities?
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Bootstrapper,
Interesting post
<< If we are to build a sustainable society, It's essential that we recognise that land is the basis of all economic activity and the generation of wealth>>
Yes Although I would say ?balanced? rather than ?sustainable?, but that?s just me.
<< The 'marketplace' is still, IMO the best economic regulating mechanism yet invented.>>
Yes invented? Perhaps. I would also see it as the cause of the current problems. Personally, I think we can do better if we think about it.
<< The problem is that the market is driven by the imperative of unlimited growth>>
Yeap, that?s it
<< What's needed is to restore a balance between the market and the commons>>
A balance yes, I haven?t yet looked through your links but I will briefly mention my idea that it should be production that is balanced with demand and technology with ecology with the goal of maintaining a high standard of living for as long as possible. With that as a goal we could actually reduce the work time and the amount that we produce.
<< At the heart of the market is the 'lubricant' that makes it all work - 'money'>>
Yes, and it is essential for a market based economy but it is not needed for a system of production and demand that is in balance and can be argued that no system that uses money can ever be in balance. I think I should write something on why we should not use money but, again briefly, money can be generated out of nothing (profit, interests, bank loans etc.), it can be saved and exchanged. Money is a certificate of debt. All these characteristics leads to an economy that must grow and therefore, can not be balanced. Hence, any future system can not use money if the goal is to balance it.
<< That translates to: How will it be organised socially, politically and economically? It's essential that you (plan to) avoid the mistakes of previous societies / civilisations, including (especially) the current industrial civilisation.>>
Yeap, I think we are thinking along the same lines. I also think it?s important to explore different alternatives and to simulate possible answers to those questions. I think we are starting well
<< Industrial civilisation is unsustainable on two levels - energy and finance. The two are intimately linked;>>
Yes
<< Man doesn't create things. He converts raw materials into finished goods by applying energy and knowledge. This is the essence of production and the fountainhead of all 'wealth'.>>
Yes, and I think that that is the key to replacing money and to balancing the production with demand.
<< This analogy illustrates one of the root causes of the 'business cycle'.>>
Yes, and gives another reason for not using money.
<< If we're to build a new, just and sustainable society, it would be to everyone's advantage to prevent the rise of a new 'priveleged elite'.>>
I just don?t know what to say
I could have written that!
<< Too Many People.>>
Too many people is a problem but I don?t think we have reach that upper limit yet, I think the problem is more to do with the way we do things, but there will be an upper limit.
<< So far, Mankind has squandered this unique gift (of intelligence and our once-only endowment of high-grade energy) on a drunken orgy of consumption and violence that has no parallel in all history.>>
Yeap, I think that that comes back to how we do things. I would advocate (just in case anyone hasn?t noticed so far) that we actually think about what we do and reason about society in a rational way.
<< I guess Isenhand, this a point on which we'll have to agree-to-disagree.>>
Disagreement is good It gets us thinking (so long as it?s done in the intelligent way that you have.). Very nice post.
Actually, I think we agree more than disagree.
Interesting post
<< If we are to build a sustainable society, It's essential that we recognise that land is the basis of all economic activity and the generation of wealth>>
Yes
Although I would say ?balanced? rather than ?sustainable?, but that?s just me.<< The 'marketplace' is still, IMO the best economic regulating mechanism yet invented.>>
Yes invented? Perhaps. I would also see it as the cause of the current problems. Personally, I think we can do better if we think about it.
<< The problem is that the market is driven by the imperative of unlimited growth>>
Yeap, that?s it
<< What's needed is to restore a balance between the market and the commons>>
A balance yes, I haven?t yet looked through your links but I will briefly mention my idea that it should be production that is balanced with demand and technology with ecology with the goal of maintaining a high standard of living for as long as possible. With that as a goal we could actually reduce the work time and the amount that we produce.
<< At the heart of the market is the 'lubricant' that makes it all work - 'money'>>
Yes, and it is essential for a market based economy but it is not needed for a system of production and demand that is in balance and can be argued that no system that uses money can ever be in balance. I think I should write something on why we should not use money but, again briefly, money can be generated out of nothing (profit, interests, bank loans etc.), it can be saved and exchanged. Money is a certificate of debt. All these characteristics leads to an economy that must grow and therefore, can not be balanced. Hence, any future system can not use money if the goal is to balance it.
<< That translates to: How will it be organised socially, politically and economically? It's essential that you (plan to) avoid the mistakes of previous societies / civilisations, including (especially) the current industrial civilisation.>>
Yeap, I think we are thinking along the same lines. I also think it?s important to explore different alternatives and to simulate possible answers to those questions. I think we are starting well
<< Industrial civilisation is unsustainable on two levels - energy and finance. The two are intimately linked;>>
Yes
<< Man doesn't create things. He converts raw materials into finished goods by applying energy and knowledge. This is the essence of production and the fountainhead of all 'wealth'.>>
Yes, and I think that that is the key to replacing money and to balancing the production with demand.
<< This analogy illustrates one of the root causes of the 'business cycle'.>>
Yes, and gives another reason for not using money.
<< If we're to build a new, just and sustainable society, it would be to everyone's advantage to prevent the rise of a new 'priveleged elite'.>>
I just don?t know what to say
I could have written that!<< Too Many People.>>
Too many people is a problem but I don?t think we have reach that upper limit yet, I think the problem is more to do with the way we do things, but there will be an upper limit.
<< So far, Mankind has squandered this unique gift (of intelligence and our once-only endowment of high-grade energy) on a drunken orgy of consumption and violence that has no parallel in all history.>>
Yeap, I think that that comes back to how we do things. I would advocate (just in case anyone hasn?t noticed so far) that we actually think about what we do and reason about society in a rational way.
<< I guess Isenhand, this a point on which we'll have to agree-to-disagree.>>
Disagreement is good
It gets us thinking (so long as it?s done in the intelligent way that you have.). Very nice post.Actually, I think we agree more than disagree.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
- Adam SmithThe man of system... seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board; he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of
motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it.
-
Bootstrapper
- Posts: 91
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Canberra, Australia
Please don't take the following as criticism. A community or society is a system comprised of many parts, whose interactions can't accurately be predicted. There are no right or wrong answers, only what's possible within the constraints of available resources and the willingness of the participants to reach consensus
I advocate the Market because I'm a 'Liberal' (philosophical, not political!), and this is the only mechanism I know of, that permits the individual to regulate themselves, in their own interest. Any other mechanism requires some form of 'regulation' which is just another way of saying 'administrative overhead'. Creating a production/distribution system that requires some form of 'administration' also creates the opportunity for the unscrupulous to manipulate that system to their advantage. That kind of person is invariably attracted to any position of influence. History shows that power in any form is always abused.
You say the marketplace is the cause of the current problems. I say that the market reflects the symptom of an underlying malaise. Again, you've identified the problem - money. After reading the essays of Greco and Riegel, it dawned on me that money is an information-carrier. However, the information carried by most 'official' (government-issued) money is polluted - by the very institutions that lend it into circulation in the first place!
It's usury (the charging of interest) that drives the 'growth imperative' of the industrial economies of the world. Abolishing money is akin to throwing out the baby, with the bathwater. This is why I advocate local currencies.
The current 'free market' is anything but free. It's the most regulated entity imaginable! Monopolies can't exist where there is no overarching 'authority' to enforce them. Again, it all comes down to 'privelege' and how it's abused by those who have worked themselves (or were born) into it. I advocate that the monopolistic privelege to issue money be revoked, along with the monopolistic privelege to regulate the market through the issue of licences, permits, patents, subsidies, regulations and favourable tax treatment or in any other way.
Following Schumacher's sentiment, the market needs to be reduced to a more human scale; Local production for local consumption, using local currencies wherever possible. Inter-community trade can be facilitated using 'credit clearing' systems. I'm still studying how capital can be accumulated and invested in a non inflationary/deflationary manner.
The population your (ideal balanced) community can sustain depends first on the lifestyle the people desire. It all comes down to energy; The more affluent the lifestyle, the more energy per capita is required to support it. For example, a person in the U.S. consumes about eight thousand barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per year to support their lifestyle while a typical Pakistani consumes around two hundred BOE.
The community first needs to agree on an acceptable standard of living as measured in per-capita energy consumption (in BOE). Then, you need to ascertain the total energy availabile to the community (from all sources). Finally, divide the per-capita energy requirement into the total energy available and you have the population your community can support, at that standard of living.
Like algae in a river polluted with fertilizer runoff, the massive concentration of energy in petroleum and the growth imperative engendered by polluted money has lured the world's human population into massive 'overshoot'. Petroleum supports the current world population and there's no substitute! I wish it were untrue, but when oil production goes onto steep decline and becomes an expensive luxury, so will the human population.
I advocate the Market because I'm a 'Liberal' (philosophical, not political!), and this is the only mechanism I know of, that permits the individual to regulate themselves, in their own interest. Any other mechanism requires some form of 'regulation' which is just another way of saying 'administrative overhead'. Creating a production/distribution system that requires some form of 'administration' also creates the opportunity for the unscrupulous to manipulate that system to their advantage. That kind of person is invariably attracted to any position of influence. History shows that power in any form is always abused.
You say the marketplace is the cause of the current problems. I say that the market reflects the symptom of an underlying malaise. Again, you've identified the problem - money. After reading the essays of Greco and Riegel, it dawned on me that money is an information-carrier. However, the information carried by most 'official' (government-issued) money is polluted - by the very institutions that lend it into circulation in the first place!
It's usury (the charging of interest) that drives the 'growth imperative' of the industrial economies of the world. Abolishing money is akin to throwing out the baby, with the bathwater. This is why I advocate local currencies.
The current 'free market' is anything but free. It's the most regulated entity imaginable! Monopolies can't exist where there is no overarching 'authority' to enforce them. Again, it all comes down to 'privelege' and how it's abused by those who have worked themselves (or were born) into it. I advocate that the monopolistic privelege to issue money be revoked, along with the monopolistic privelege to regulate the market through the issue of licences, permits, patents, subsidies, regulations and favourable tax treatment or in any other way.
Following Schumacher's sentiment, the market needs to be reduced to a more human scale; Local production for local consumption, using local currencies wherever possible. Inter-community trade can be facilitated using 'credit clearing' systems. I'm still studying how capital can be accumulated and invested in a non inflationary/deflationary manner.
The population your (ideal balanced) community can sustain depends first on the lifestyle the people desire. It all comes down to energy; The more affluent the lifestyle, the more energy per capita is required to support it. For example, a person in the U.S. consumes about eight thousand barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per year to support their lifestyle while a typical Pakistani consumes around two hundred BOE.
The community first needs to agree on an acceptable standard of living as measured in per-capita energy consumption (in BOE). Then, you need to ascertain the total energy availabile to the community (from all sources). Finally, divide the per-capita energy requirement into the total energy available and you have the population your community can support, at that standard of living.
Like algae in a river polluted with fertilizer runoff, the massive concentration of energy in petroleum and the growth imperative engendered by polluted money has lured the world's human population into massive 'overshoot'. Petroleum supports the current world population and there's no substitute! I wish it were untrue, but when oil production goes onto steep decline and becomes an expensive luxury, so will the human population.
GovCorp: The disease, masquerading as the cure.
The cure?
http://www.reinventingmoney.com/
http://www.schumachersociety.org/
http://www.henrygeorge.org/chp1.htm
The cure?
http://www.reinventingmoney.com/
http://www.schumachersociety.org/
http://www.henrygeorge.org/chp1.htm
I tend to agree with all of that, bootstrapper.
I'd only argue that regulation of markets might be desireable where otherwise an essential product might become totally unavailable to the poor (be it land, water, energy). This is an 'overhead' for sure, and allows for inefficient use of resources and overpopulation; but the alternative is to sit back and watch people suffer and die because the rich are sitting on all the resources for which they have outbid the rest of the world.
I work directly with the markets and love their efficiencies, but I also feel a need for human-scale balance and ethical compassion. The market is ruthless.
I'd only argue that regulation of markets might be desireable where otherwise an essential product might become totally unavailable to the poor (be it land, water, energy). This is an 'overhead' for sure, and allows for inefficient use of resources and overpopulation; but the alternative is to sit back and watch people suffer and die because the rich are sitting on all the resources for which they have outbid the rest of the world.
I work directly with the markets and love their efficiencies, but I also feel a need for human-scale balance and ethical compassion. The market is ruthless.
Very interesting posts and a lot of food for thought.
I can't contribute much other than to say these ideas for new organisation of society and civilisation on a different basis than previously, sound very good. But to work they require buy-in from the vast majority of people in the communities, towns, cities and countries around the globe.
The homo sapian in a complex animal and has developed levels of individuality, greed, selfishness, competitiveness, materialism, one-upmanship, violence etc, etc, that make it hard for me to see how we might even begin to bring about the changes which may well benefit us all.
If I can make the analogy between the chances of Western/Capitalistic society fully accepting the concept of PO and putting the brakes on hard so as to not run head first over the advancing cliff AND the chances of being able to make changes in society as suggested. That would give a good indication of how likely (at this point in time) I think that we could make wide scale change.
Maybe once a die-off has occurred this is what will make the paradigm shift come about.
Again I would say this is by no means any sort of criticism. I think the level of thought and intellectualism that obviously goes into this area is very impressive.
I just want to introduce a note of concern on how we might even begin to bring it about.
I can't contribute much other than to say these ideas for new organisation of society and civilisation on a different basis than previously, sound very good. But to work they require buy-in from the vast majority of people in the communities, towns, cities and countries around the globe.
The homo sapian in a complex animal and has developed levels of individuality, greed, selfishness, competitiveness, materialism, one-upmanship, violence etc, etc, that make it hard for me to see how we might even begin to bring about the changes which may well benefit us all.
If I can make the analogy between the chances of Western/Capitalistic society fully accepting the concept of PO and putting the brakes on hard so as to not run head first over the advancing cliff AND the chances of being able to make changes in society as suggested. That would give a good indication of how likely (at this point in time) I think that we could make wide scale change.
Maybe once a die-off has occurred this is what will make the paradigm shift come about.
Again I would say this is by no means any sort of criticism. I think the level of thought and intellectualism that obviously goes into this area is very impressive.
I just want to introduce a note of concern on how we might even begin to bring it about.
Real money is gold and silver
-
fishertrop
- Posts: 859
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Sheffield
On the "free market" theme, I think we are all essentially saying the same thing, it's just a term that comes with a lot of bagage today.
It is my view that some form of "free market" is essential for the comunity living we are talking about here to thrive.
But it must be a "free" market system within a specific context, within a framework.
I think that it is also carefully tied in with the way an individual earns "money" through work.
If you have a system whereby you only get paid for the completion of a peice of work, not for just turning up, you immediately remove that great problem that afflicted the Soviet Union and still afflicts UK business today (yes really, a Soviet attrubte in today's britain) - namely being paid the same as your colleagues for doing little or no real work.
If you get paid only on delivery (of acceptable quality) then you stand or fall as an individual "worker". You get paid nothing, a little, some or a lot entirely on how hard you work.
That's a fundamental.
Beyond that, the "freedom" to choose how you spend your "wages" and the freedom to choose the same product from another vendor for more/less/the same money is crucial.
Similarly, the ability to see a product in the market, think you can make it better or for less and to go ahead and do that and take trade from the existing supplier(s) makes for a vibrant and dynamic "economy".
However if you either have ZERO context or are a framework that allows manipulation (for want of a better word) then this goal of a vibrant economy soon goes out of the window.
If you can buy up all the other firms and close them down then you can dictate the price.
If you can buy all the other places-of-work then you dictate terms to employee's.
You can quickly end up back where we are now.
It's my view that you need to define fundamental rules INSIDE WHICH a free market can operate, and that this market should be otherwise genuinely free (I totally agree with Bootstrapper that the current markets are niether free nor fair).
Such "rules" might be regarded as "regulation" or "administrative overhead" but I think that you need some such rules to prevent the rapid distortion of the once-free but now very-unfree system.
If you make the "small business" the only type of company and you strip away all red-tape regulations (one single form of tax might be permissable) then you make a huge leap forward.
If you added, for example, these rules:
1) No company can be bigger than 20 employees
2) No individual can "own" more than one company
3) All employee's are paid on "piece work"
4) Critical busineses (such as food production) are protected from closer
5) Being part of a "price fixing cartel" gets you 10 years hard labour
...refined them a lot and added several more before finally allowing a genuine "free market" to take it course then I think we might actually have taken a step forward, "progress" !
If you also added changes to the education system that meant the whole ethos the whole way through was geared to helping you start your own small firm, giving you lots of skills, motivating you to work as an individual, then I think that would also add real value.
Things like unionised labour would disappear, since they are just symptoms of big-firm slavery.
Lazy individuals with either reform or starve.
The "free market" concept would keep producers on their toes and provide some variety for indivual buyers.
[edited for typos, which I make a lot of....]
It is my view that some form of "free market" is essential for the comunity living we are talking about here to thrive.
But it must be a "free" market system within a specific context, within a framework.
I think that it is also carefully tied in with the way an individual earns "money" through work.
If you have a system whereby you only get paid for the completion of a peice of work, not for just turning up, you immediately remove that great problem that afflicted the Soviet Union and still afflicts UK business today (yes really, a Soviet attrubte in today's britain) - namely being paid the same as your colleagues for doing little or no real work.
If you get paid only on delivery (of acceptable quality) then you stand or fall as an individual "worker". You get paid nothing, a little, some or a lot entirely on how hard you work.
That's a fundamental.
Beyond that, the "freedom" to choose how you spend your "wages" and the freedom to choose the same product from another vendor for more/less/the same money is crucial.
Similarly, the ability to see a product in the market, think you can make it better or for less and to go ahead and do that and take trade from the existing supplier(s) makes for a vibrant and dynamic "economy".
However if you either have ZERO context or are a framework that allows manipulation (for want of a better word) then this goal of a vibrant economy soon goes out of the window.
If you can buy up all the other firms and close them down then you can dictate the price.
If you can buy all the other places-of-work then you dictate terms to employee's.
You can quickly end up back where we are now.
It's my view that you need to define fundamental rules INSIDE WHICH a free market can operate, and that this market should be otherwise genuinely free (I totally agree with Bootstrapper that the current markets are niether free nor fair).
Such "rules" might be regarded as "regulation" or "administrative overhead" but I think that you need some such rules to prevent the rapid distortion of the once-free but now very-unfree system.
If you make the "small business" the only type of company and you strip away all red-tape regulations (one single form of tax might be permissable) then you make a huge leap forward.
If you added, for example, these rules:
1) No company can be bigger than 20 employees
2) No individual can "own" more than one company
3) All employee's are paid on "piece work"
4) Critical busineses (such as food production) are protected from closer
5) Being part of a "price fixing cartel" gets you 10 years hard labour
...refined them a lot and added several more before finally allowing a genuine "free market" to take it course then I think we might actually have taken a step forward, "progress" !
If you also added changes to the education system that meant the whole ethos the whole way through was geared to helping you start your own small firm, giving you lots of skills, motivating you to work as an individual, then I think that would also add real value.
Things like unionised labour would disappear, since they are just symptoms of big-firm slavery.
Lazy individuals with either reform or starve.
The "free market" concept would keep producers on their toes and provide some variety for indivual buyers.
[edited for typos, which I make a lot of....]
Last edited by fishertrop on 30 Aug 2005, 13:24, edited 1 time in total.
Agreed, snow hope.
I'm not giving a thought to trying to convince people to pull back from sailing over the cliff. Some may 'get it' but I believe the numbers will be few until the pain of reality is unavoidable.
I'm more interested in finding the sustainable ways of living that will survive the end of cheap oil. As we know, almost everything uses oil in some sense, so it's very hard to predict which technologies and skills will turn out to be the most time/cost effective in the future.
Underlying that motivation though is my deep desire to live in a way that doesn't do irrevocable or long-term damage to the earth. In many ways, for me peak oil is just the means, or the excuse, to focus on what I feel moved to try to achieve anyway for very personal inner spiritual reasons.
I'm not giving a thought to trying to convince people to pull back from sailing over the cliff. Some may 'get it' but I believe the numbers will be few until the pain of reality is unavoidable.
I'm more interested in finding the sustainable ways of living that will survive the end of cheap oil. As we know, almost everything uses oil in some sense, so it's very hard to predict which technologies and skills will turn out to be the most time/cost effective in the future.
Underlying that motivation though is my deep desire to live in a way that doesn't do irrevocable or long-term damage to the earth. In many ways, for me peak oil is just the means, or the excuse, to focus on what I feel moved to try to achieve anyway for very personal inner spiritual reasons.
<< Please don't take the following as criticism.>>
Criticism? I think its important to explore all kinds of ideas.
<< A community or society is a system comprised of many parts, whose interactions can't accurately be predicted.>>
Yeap, that?s the nature of multi-agent, dynamic systems. I think that that is a very important point and deserves to be underlined. This is also why I would advocate taking a multi-agent approach to the problem (or using holons). It also means that it to analysis the problem requires people from multiple disciplines such as sociology, physiology, behaviour scientist, economics, engineering, as well as AI.
<< There are no right or wrong answers, only what's possible within the constraints of available resources and the willingness of the participants to reach consensus>>
There are some solutions that are better or worse than others depending on your criteria for defining ?better? and ?worse?. It also depends on what you set as the goal. As far as I am aware the only way to ascertain what is the best way is to look at simulations and it will require a lot of simulations and modelling of a number of different alternatives. Then you will have some evidence to give a reasonable indicator of what way is better or worse than another way for a given criteria. It a complex problem with no easy or straight forward way of achieving things but that also makes it an interesting problem to look at.
<< I advocate the Market because I'm a 'Liberal' (philosophical, not political!), and this is the only mechanism I know of, that permits the individual to regulate themselves, in their own interest.>>
Yeap, I can understand that. To me I think the problem is such that it is worth while going beyond what we already do and look at something people have not tried before. I would like this to be a thought experiment with some simulations. In such a project you can explore all kinds of alternatives.
<< You say the marketplace is the cause of the current problems>>
Yes in the sense that the ?free? market is pushing for infinite growth regardless of the destruction that is caused.
<< I say that the market reflects the symptom of an underlying malaise.>>
Ok, you can view it that way as well (actually, the ?real? cause is people, we would not have a PO problem etc. if we did not have people ) To me it?s the way we are doing things that is the problem and the market is part of the way we do things but I have no problem seeing it the way you put it.
<< it dawned on me that money is an information-carrier. However, the information carried by most 'official' (government-issued) money is polluted - by the very institutions that lend it into circulation in the first place!>>
Yes, in fact any action or inaction that we perform is an information carrier. This is also another reason why we can not have money if the goal is to balance production with demand. Money is used as a control mechanism but as you say the information it carries is polluted, hence it does not reflect what is actually going on in the system. To control or balance a system with in accurate information can lead the system to go out of control.
To be able to balance the system you need to know and measure as accurately as possible some variable that reflex what is going on in the system. Such a variable could be energy, for example.
<< Abolishing money is akin to throwing out the baby, with the bathwater. >>
I would disagree. I?m taking a goal of balancing a system with a view of maintaining as high a standard of living as possible and for that goal you don?t need money. In fact I would argue that you can not have money in such a system
<<This is why I advocate local currencies.>>
I think they can be good initially when things are staring up. Say, form example, from now and through a TEC if one was to happen. However, as they are still money the long term aim would be to remove it.
<< Following Schumacher's sentiment, the market needs to be reduced to a more human scale; Local production for local consumption, using local currencies wherever possible.>>
Yeap, a distributed system. I would also say that they should be formed into networks and the networks into network as if they were holons.
<< The population your (ideal balanced) community can sustain depends first on the lifestyle the people desire.>>
I would say the goal would be the highest standard of living that is possible with a balanced system and the technology available.
<< It all comes down to energy;>>
Absolutely, hence the idea of energy credits rather than money
<< The community first needs to agree on an acceptable standard of living as measured in per-capita energy consumption (in BOE).>>
I would say that we need to look at what energy we have available and how much each product cost to produce in energy terms. Then we can allocate each citizen an equable share of the energy to which they allocate to producing certain goods. Such a system would then aim to minimise energy expenditure, which would result in decreasing production, whiles still meeting demand.
Such a system would not work for the idea of forming communities for surviving a TEC and would require that we have plenty of energy to meet the demand. However, such a system would be possible in the long term. For the short term some sort of local trading could be used.
This type of energy accounting is something I would really like to see simulated and to see if it would really work.
Criticism? I think its important to explore all kinds of ideas.
<< A community or society is a system comprised of many parts, whose interactions can't accurately be predicted.>>
Yeap, that?s the nature of multi-agent, dynamic systems. I think that that is a very important point and deserves to be underlined. This is also why I would advocate taking a multi-agent approach to the problem (or using holons). It also means that it to analysis the problem requires people from multiple disciplines such as sociology, physiology, behaviour scientist, economics, engineering, as well as AI.
<< There are no right or wrong answers, only what's possible within the constraints of available resources and the willingness of the participants to reach consensus>>
There are some solutions that are better or worse than others depending on your criteria for defining ?better? and ?worse?. It also depends on what you set as the goal. As far as I am aware the only way to ascertain what is the best way is to look at simulations and it will require a lot of simulations and modelling of a number of different alternatives. Then you will have some evidence to give a reasonable indicator of what way is better or worse than another way for a given criteria. It a complex problem with no easy or straight forward way of achieving things but that also makes it an interesting problem to look at.
<< I advocate the Market because I'm a 'Liberal' (philosophical, not political!), and this is the only mechanism I know of, that permits the individual to regulate themselves, in their own interest.>>
Yeap, I can understand that. To me I think the problem is such that it is worth while going beyond what we already do and look at something people have not tried before. I would like this to be a thought experiment with some simulations. In such a project you can explore all kinds of alternatives.
<< You say the marketplace is the cause of the current problems>>
Yes in the sense that the ?free? market is pushing for infinite growth regardless of the destruction that is caused.
<< I say that the market reflects the symptom of an underlying malaise.>>
Ok, you can view it that way as well (actually, the ?real? cause is people, we would not have a PO problem etc. if we did not have people
) To me it?s the way we are doing things that is the problem and the market is part of the way we do things but I have no problem seeing it the way you put it.<< it dawned on me that money is an information-carrier. However, the information carried by most 'official' (government-issued) money is polluted - by the very institutions that lend it into circulation in the first place!>>
Yes, in fact any action or inaction that we perform is an information carrier. This is also another reason why we can not have money if the goal is to balance production with demand. Money is used as a control mechanism but as you say the information it carries is polluted, hence it does not reflect what is actually going on in the system. To control or balance a system with in accurate information can lead the system to go out of control.
To be able to balance the system you need to know and measure as accurately as possible some variable that reflex what is going on in the system. Such a variable could be energy, for example.
<< Abolishing money is akin to throwing out the baby, with the bathwater. >>
I would disagree. I?m taking a goal of balancing a system with a view of maintaining as high a standard of living as possible and for that goal you don?t need money. In fact I would argue that you can not have money in such a system
<<This is why I advocate local currencies.>>
I think they can be good initially when things are staring up. Say, form example, from now and through a TEC if one was to happen. However, as they are still money the long term aim would be to remove it.
<< Following Schumacher's sentiment, the market needs to be reduced to a more human scale; Local production for local consumption, using local currencies wherever possible.>>
Yeap, a distributed system. I would also say that they should be formed into networks and the networks into network as if they were holons.
<< The population your (ideal balanced) community can sustain depends first on the lifestyle the people desire.>>
I would say the goal would be the highest standard of living that is possible with a balanced system and the technology available.
<< It all comes down to energy;>>
Absolutely, hence the idea of energy credits rather than money
<< The community first needs to agree on an acceptable standard of living as measured in per-capita energy consumption (in BOE).>>
I would say that we need to look at what energy we have available and how much each product cost to produce in energy terms. Then we can allocate each citizen an equable share of the energy to which they allocate to producing certain goods. Such a system would then aim to minimise energy expenditure, which would result in decreasing production, whiles still meeting demand.
Such a system would not work for the idea of forming communities for surviving a TEC and would require that we have plenty of energy to meet the demand. However, such a system would be possible in the long term. For the short term some sort of local trading could be used.
This type of energy accounting is something I would really like to see simulated and to see if it would really work.
Last edited by isenhand on 13 Sep 2005, 07:19, edited 1 time in total.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
-
fishertrop
- Posts: 859
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Sheffield
Why would that prevent you having a computer or a global communications network?beev wrote:How could I have a computer if this was the case?fishertrop wrote:1) No company can be bigger than 20 employees
It doesn't in any way.
It's certainly true that we could do with a lot less of many things and you might no longer value a PC or cheap telephony if it uses your hard-earned electricity to run and mens you have to go without (say) lights.beev wrote:Perhaps we would be better off without these things?
Don't forget that the all things we have now (like PCs) won't just disapear - many existing home computers would likely last a decade with a little TLC and are already over-spec for most tasks.
Redefing the way people live and work, as discussed here, in no way reduces the ability to produce goods, things or even capital projects.
In a less-energy world tho, many things we take for granted today (like say air con) will be less desirable when we have to pay the true cost of running them.
snow hope wrote: I can't contribute much other than to say these ideas for new organisation of society and civilisation on a different basis than previously, sound very good. But to work they require buy-in from the vast majority of people in the communities, towns, cities and countries around the globe.
The homo sapian in a complex animal and has developed levels of individuality, greed, selfishness, competitiveness, materialism, one-upmanship, violence etc, etc, that make it hard for me to see how we might even begin to bring about the changes which may well benefit us all.
I just want to introduce a note of concern on how we might even begin to bring it about.
Ah ? hmm ? well ? I think it was Dilbert who said ?I have worked out what it wrong with the world; its other people?.
I have no idea really how you would go about constructing such a society even if it can be show that it is better than the current system but I do have some thought that might lead to such an adaptation.
I would like to explore the ideas that are possible, and we have quite a few different ideas here. It would be good if we could simulate different communities and see how the would work. Added to that we could also have historical studies etc. That way I think we would get as close a possible to see what could work and what would not. Another thing that could be done at a later date is build a few real communities.
As far as human characteristics are concerned. People are capable of a great variety of behaviors ?individuality, greed, selfishness, competitiveness, materialism, one-upmanship, violence etc? are some of them but there is also cooperation, empathy, concern etc. Which characteristics dominate is often a product of the environment. It is possible to engineer a system that encourages one set of behaviors over another set. At the moment we like in a system that encourages greed and selfishness so that type of behavior we see as dominate.
The only future we have is the one we make!
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Technocracy:
http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.lulu.com/technocracy
http://www.technocracy.tk/
Which computers have been developed/manufactured/distributed by companies with fewer than 20 employees?fishertrop wrote:Why would that prevent you having a computer or a global communications network?beev wrote:How could I have a computer if this was the case?fishertrop wrote:1) No company can be bigger than 20 employees
It doesn't in any way.
My computer uses very little energy. You can keep your lightbulbs, I'd rather be in touch with the rest of the world. I would never support any measures that would prevent companies from being big enough to develop, produce and distribute these kinds of revolutionary technologies to ordinary people like myself.It's certainly true that we could do with a lot less of many things and you might no longer value a PC or cheap telephony if it uses your hard-earned electricity to run and mens you have to go without (say) lights.beev wrote:Perhaps we would be better off without these things?
Don't forget that the all things we have now (like PCs) won't just disapear - many existing home computers would likely last a decade with a little TLC and are already over-spec for most tasks.
Redefing the way people live and work, as discussed here, in no way reduces the ability to produce goods, things or even capital projects.
In a less-energy world tho, many things we take for granted today (like say air con) will be less desirable when we have to pay the true cost of running them.
Isenhand said,
"As far as human characteristics are concerned. People are capable of a great variety of behaviors ?individuality, greed, selfishness, competitiveness, materialism, one-upmanship, violence etc? are some of them but there is also cooperation, empathy, concern etc. Which characteristics dominate is often a product of the environment. It is possible to engineer a system that encourages one set of behaviors over another set. At the moment we like in a system that encourages greed and selfishness so that type of behavior we see as dominate."
What a fantastic answer! Agree completely that it is largely a function of the environment. Thank you.
"As far as human characteristics are concerned. People are capable of a great variety of behaviors ?individuality, greed, selfishness, competitiveness, materialism, one-upmanship, violence etc? are some of them but there is also cooperation, empathy, concern etc. Which characteristics dominate is often a product of the environment. It is possible to engineer a system that encourages one set of behaviors over another set. At the moment we like in a system that encourages greed and selfishness so that type of behavior we see as dominate."
What a fantastic answer! Agree completely that it is largely a function of the environment. Thank you.
Real money is gold and silver
-
Bootstrapper
- Posts: 91
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Canberra, Australia
I think what I'm groping toward, is a set of underlying principles around which any society may be organised. I've found it instructive to examine the civilisations and societies that have collapsed to see what factors they had in common;
Priveleged Elites: Perhaps they are inescapable, an inevitable outcome of civilisation itself, but every civilisation in which they were present has collapsed. Societies without priveleged elites can, and have endured for millenia. Although their decisions affect the lives of thousands (or millions) of people, members of priveleged elites rarely (the French Revolution being a notable exception) suffer the consequences (poverty, wars, famines, depressions) if their decisions prove to be bad. They have no incentive to use their privelege to maximise the benefits of society to everyone.
Polluted Money: "The pinnacle of power in today's world is the power to issue money." -- Thomas H. Greco, Jr. Not just today's world. The priveleged elites in all societies have siezed the monopoly to issue money. It's their most cherished possession and one they'll fight to retain 'by any means'. This monopoly has always been abused.
Speculation: As I mentioned in an earlier post, wealth is created by the productive process where raw materials and energy are used to make physical goods of greater value than the sum of the inputs used to make them. Speculation is (ultimately) a way of 'parasiting' this wealth into the pockets of a non-productive priveleged elite. Speculation is made possible by the monopoly to issue money.
Uncontrolled Population Growth: As I said in an earlier post, "Homo Sapiens is the only species on this planet that regards the ability to breed as a God-given right. For every other species, it's a privelege that must be earned, every time it's exercised." Immune from the personal consequences of this policy, this attitude is encouraged by the priveleged elites because it benefits them, at the expense of everyone else.
Outstriping the Resource Base: This is closely allied to the last item. Pre-Petroleum societies relied primarily on wood and charcoal (made from wood) as their primary energy source. Once the forests were gone, so was the civilisation. (Given time, the forests will re-grow. The oil won't.) The Japanese are one society that took effective action to manage their timber resources in a sustainable manner, before it was too late. They learned to live within their (resource) means. See Jared Diamond's Collapse!.
Loss of Cultural Identity: What defines a nation is a common race, language, culture, heritage, and religion. ?A multicultural world is a wonderful, fascinating place. A multicultural nation is an oxymoron. A nation is not defined or strengthened by cultural (or ethnic or linguistic or racial) diversity, but by cultural homogeneity.? -- Joseph George Caldwell. The Japanese, Chinese and Koreans know this. The Romans forgot it.
Uncontrolled Technology: This relates specifically to Industrial Civilisation. We don't (as a society) drive our technology, it drives us. Vast resources are wasted doing and making things, not because we need to or because they'll make society a 'better' place, but because 'we can'. The technology revolution started with need - the need to replace labour decimated by the Plague in the Middle Ages. It didn't stop when the population recovered.
Loss of Purpose: To keep it dynamic, a society needs a purpose - some great goal to strive toward. If it looks like being achieved, then a new goal must be found or society will slide into decadence and rot away from the inside.
There are probably others that I haven't thought of, but these will do, for a start.
Paul
Priveleged Elites: Perhaps they are inescapable, an inevitable outcome of civilisation itself, but every civilisation in which they were present has collapsed. Societies without priveleged elites can, and have endured for millenia. Although their decisions affect the lives of thousands (or millions) of people, members of priveleged elites rarely (the French Revolution being a notable exception) suffer the consequences (poverty, wars, famines, depressions) if their decisions prove to be bad. They have no incentive to use their privelege to maximise the benefits of society to everyone.
Polluted Money: "The pinnacle of power in today's world is the power to issue money." -- Thomas H. Greco, Jr. Not just today's world. The priveleged elites in all societies have siezed the monopoly to issue money. It's their most cherished possession and one they'll fight to retain 'by any means'. This monopoly has always been abused.
Speculation: As I mentioned in an earlier post, wealth is created by the productive process where raw materials and energy are used to make physical goods of greater value than the sum of the inputs used to make them. Speculation is (ultimately) a way of 'parasiting' this wealth into the pockets of a non-productive priveleged elite. Speculation is made possible by the monopoly to issue money.
Uncontrolled Population Growth: As I said in an earlier post, "Homo Sapiens is the only species on this planet that regards the ability to breed as a God-given right. For every other species, it's a privelege that must be earned, every time it's exercised." Immune from the personal consequences of this policy, this attitude is encouraged by the priveleged elites because it benefits them, at the expense of everyone else.
Outstriping the Resource Base: This is closely allied to the last item. Pre-Petroleum societies relied primarily on wood and charcoal (made from wood) as their primary energy source. Once the forests were gone, so was the civilisation. (Given time, the forests will re-grow. The oil won't.) The Japanese are one society that took effective action to manage their timber resources in a sustainable manner, before it was too late. They learned to live within their (resource) means. See Jared Diamond's Collapse!.
Loss of Cultural Identity: What defines a nation is a common race, language, culture, heritage, and religion. ?A multicultural world is a wonderful, fascinating place. A multicultural nation is an oxymoron. A nation is not defined or strengthened by cultural (or ethnic or linguistic or racial) diversity, but by cultural homogeneity.? -- Joseph George Caldwell. The Japanese, Chinese and Koreans know this. The Romans forgot it.
Uncontrolled Technology: This relates specifically to Industrial Civilisation. We don't (as a society) drive our technology, it drives us. Vast resources are wasted doing and making things, not because we need to or because they'll make society a 'better' place, but because 'we can'. The technology revolution started with need - the need to replace labour decimated by the Plague in the Middle Ages. It didn't stop when the population recovered.
Loss of Purpose: To keep it dynamic, a society needs a purpose - some great goal to strive toward. If it looks like being achieved, then a new goal must be found or society will slide into decadence and rot away from the inside.
There are probably others that I haven't thought of, but these will do, for a start.
Paul
GovCorp: The disease, masquerading as the cure.
The cure?
http://www.reinventingmoney.com/
http://www.schumachersociety.org/
http://www.henrygeorge.org/chp1.htm
The cure?
http://www.reinventingmoney.com/
http://www.schumachersociety.org/
http://www.henrygeorge.org/chp1.htm