My response to John Wang on a comment about RBE
Resourced Based Economy (RBE) isn’t scam entirely, and nor is it entirely honest.
There are real issues with money as an idea.
Yes it is a representation of value in a sense, and the sort of value it represents is very important to understand.
Money is a market representation of value.
Markets measure two aspects of value simultaneously, how much you need something vs how much of it there is. Thus things that are scarce have high value, while more common things have lower value.
A limiting case is air.
Air contains oxygen, which is arguably the single most valuable commodity for every human being, yet air is, under normal circumstances, universally abundant and therefore has zero value in a market.
When you consider that in terms of money as a distribution tool, it makes perfect sense, as there is no need to distribute air, as air is already there.
The issue comes when you use money as a proxy for value in a planning sense.
It makes no sense to plan for zero value, yet we need to plan for abundant air.
So money and markets fail in that sense, of being a useful measure of value for planning, yet it is the measure we use in most instances.
That wasn’t an issue when the class of things that could be universally abundant was small.
Now that we have the ability to produce fully automated systems, we have the ability to produce a large and exponentially expanding set of goods and services in universal abundance.
Money fails in several different ways in this context.
In one way, it can never make sense in terms of money to deliver universal abundance of anything, as it has no profit – no monetary value.
In another way, it will always be profitable to destroy any universal abundance that emerges, to create a marketable scarcity.
Arguable that is exactly what the concept of “Intellectual Property” does – it creates a barrier to universal abundance that produces profit, and it does so by denying resources that could be easily available to all, to the majority. In this sense, poverty is structural to any market based system.
In another way, the classical idea of people participating in markets to deliver value is now failing. When the physical power of a human being can now be delivered by 2 square meters of solar cells, it is far cheaper to automate any process than to grow and train a human to do it.
Human brains are still far more energy efficient than any computational system yet developed, and the intersection of that curve isn’t that far away – a little over a decade.
So we have some very deep, systemic issues, that we need to address and resolve very soon.
Appealing to history doesn’t help much, except by double abstract analogy, as we are riding a set of double exponential curves, which are made up from sets of concatenated sigmoid curves.
It is a very complex situation, physically, computationally, strategically, and (for want of a better term) “spiritually”.
A very strong case can now be made, in terms of evolutionary theory and games theory (as a subset of evolutionary theory) that the very concept of money now poses the single greatest existential risk to humanity – because it is fundamentally based in scarcity and is therefore fundamentally a competitive system.
There is an alternative set of non-competitive games that can approximate stability, and can contain competitive subsystems, and at the highest levels they are fundamentally cooperative.
Creating a stable base for such a system requires having an agreed minimum set of values.
The smallest possible set that seems capable of delivering stability long term seems to be 2:
1/ Universal respect for the life of sapient individuals (human and non-human, biological and non-biological); and
2/ Universal respect for the liberty of all such sapient individuals, where such liberty does not pose unreasonable risk to the lives or liberty of other individuals.
From those values, one derives the necessity of responsible action in both social and ecological contexts.
Existence in such a complex and indefinitely expanding set of instantiated possibilities requires ongoing conversations involving the negotiation of agreed boundary conditions (in terms of space, time, strategies and technologies).
Existing RBE schemes like the Venus Project or the Zeitgeist movement both attempt centralised approaches to the issues identified.
Centralised systems deliver high risk in two very distinct ways:
They provide a single point of capture for “cheating” strategies.
They provide a single point for technological failure.
Thus they fail the test of long term stability and freedom.
Risk mitigation demands distributed and decentralised systems. That is what biology has done at all levels.
Arguably, in one sense, both the concept of nations and the concept of corporations, both provided a certain level of decentralisation, and both have proven vulnerable and dangerous in a deeper sense.
And we are right now inside a very complex set of systems, with many dimensions to it (in any sense you wish to look at it, physical, biological, political, psycho-social, technological, economic, strategic, philosophical, “spiritual”).
One important step in the process is raising awareness that evolution can just as easily be about cooperation as it can competition. It all depends on context. Is the greatest source of risk from others like yourself (leading to competitive outcomes) or from external factors (leading to cooperative outcomes)?
In every case, new levels of complexity in evolved systems are more about cooperation than they are competition.
And raw cooperation is always vulnerable to cheats, it requires attendant strategies for stability, which is fine, as we now know that infinite classes of such things can be instantiated, and we have large catalogs of successfully tested sets.
So we face a choice.
Wake up. Face reality, and learn to cooperate.
Or stay with historical competitive dogma, and compete ourselves to extinction.
It really is getting very close to being exactly that simple.