Urgent Evoke

A crash course in changing the world.

This is partly a response to a comment by Ezra in my blog "Money is information, but does it want to be free?" in which I asked that question, and this blog will provide my answer. Part of Ezra's argument regarding money is in "An Irrelevant Problem in a Resource-based Economy"

If I understand correctly, Ezra claimed that money was invented to provide a monetary incentive for people to work, paying them to extract resources for the purpose of manufacturing. I talked about why I believe we started to use money, arguing that it was a matter of being more convenient than trading products or services directly. I believe the use of money evolved gradually over many thousands of years, more from the bottom up as people needed it, rather than from the top down as the "owners" wanted it.

So I don't believe there was some plan by the creators of money who did it simply because they needed to pay humans to extract resources. And I don't believe money was used to create the illusion of scarcity because up until fairly recently, we have been under the illusion that we had unlimited resources, all but free to exploit to the maximum. I don't have historical evidence either way about what really happened, however, so I am curious if you know of something that would prove your case.

You might argue that in the past, the scarcity was artificially contrived for the purpose of gaining more profit. We know that that kind of thing does happen, but in contrast, in the near future, scarcity will be a fact, and careful accounting of all our time and energy will be a necessity so we have a chance of squeezing through the dire straights of cataclysm.

But even without money, the illusion of scarcity can be created merely by controlling and withholding the valuable resources, whether it is fuel and minerals or food and water. Money is not the cause of the problems, but control of power is.

The real problem of money

The problem with the monetary system, in my opinion, is not that we use money to represent value, or that different skills have different values, but that we now have a gross inequity between the richest and the poorest among us, with a million to one ratio between them. Actually, that's just a symptom. The real problem is that the system is rigged in so many ways to favor the rich and powerful, such that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This can't go on much longer. Those rich people are not a million times "better" than the poor by any measure other than having more money and power, and in many ways, they are far worse.

We have to find ways to reverse this trend, to make it *much* more difficult for the rich to gain even more wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. I don't believe we should just eliminate the ability to acquire wealth, because it is one of the incentives to work harder or smarter, to advance your situation to the level you are comfortable with, as long as it is done fairly and in proportion to the effort expended. It should come at a cost, however, such as a tax, that makes it increasingly difficult to gain even more. We should treat excessively wealthy people like we treat monopolies, since they essentially have a monopoly on money when 20% of the people control 85% of the money. (see Who Rules America)

By the way, we need to restrain the power of corporations even more than that of individuals for the same reason, and because corporations are not people but they can amass power even more quickly.


Automation Reduces Cost

Regarding the cost of products getting increasingly cheaper due to automation, we agree on that much, but I think you would be going too far to leap all the way to zero. "Information wants to be free" doesn't mean it will ever get what it wants. It is probably more like falling into a black h***, in which you would be forever falling, and the closer you get, the more time expands. So the future of money will probably look pretty much how it does now in terms of having products and services with different values relative to each other. It is just that we should all be able to afford a much higher standard of living, just as most of us are now doing much better than our ancestors were just 50 or 100 years ago.

The trend of products getting cheaper because of automation really means that they cost less in terms of the amount of energy and time required to produce them. But this does not mean that the cost ever actually reaches zero, or even that everything will cost so little that we can just as well forget about the cost. Rather, there will always be a range of choices of different things we can do at any one time, and some choices will be less expensive than others. Understanding production cost as a fact of physics, in terms of energy and time, makes it clear that we do not a choice about eliminating cost entirely.


Possible Futures

Now one possible future, assuming we solve all the critical problems and stabilize on a sustainable process, is where we do in fact automate almost everything. We can build the robots that build robots, and they can even evolve on their own to improve over time. I believe this is possible, and because it is possible, and there are benefits, it is likely to happen eventually. But I believe that if we do that, and if we are not continuing to evolve ourselves, that will be the end of us. It could be like Wall-E world where we would have nothing to do ourselves but order the robots around and enjoy life, doing as little as possible.

In contrast to that Dystopian picture of everyone doing less and less because they don't have to do much of anything, Ezra presents the opposite Utopian perspective, arguing that once we have satisfied everyone's basic needs, then mankind will have the opportunity to pursue intellectual, scientific or artistic endeavors. I would agree that, compared to our current pressures to survive, an environment that successfully satisfies everyone's basic needs will encourage many more people to spend their time pursuing knowledge and personal growth. But I think it would be overly optimistic to expect that everyone will do so.

While both extremes are possible futures, I believe it is very unlikely we will go to either extreme. The extremely pessimistic belief that no one will do anything if they don't have to, and the extremely optimistic belief that everyone will do the right thing if they can are both extremes that ignore human nature. The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle. The main reason is there will always be at least a few people, but not everyone, who will strive to do better, whether that is better than others, or just better than what they have previously done themselves. What they achieve may or may not be more valued by others, but that basic urge to do better means we are off the the races again.

In addition to people with the strongest urge to do better, there is everyone else, and among them are
some number of people who are least motivated to do much of anything. These people need to be supported by civilization as well, but we have to be careful not to merely reward living off of the work of others because there is a risk of turning into a welfare state, but instead, we need help everyone find opportunities to increase their value and contribute as much as they can. If we do it right, I don't believe the number of people near the low end would be the vast majority of people but a vanishingly small minority. Most people will be somewhere closer to the middle.

I am not saying that people will only do things for money; I agree that we will increasingly do things for rewards other than money. But just as the cost of products will never reach zero, the relative value of different services and achievements created by people will never be completely irrelevant either.

In summary, money being a measure of value is not the problem, but how the power of money is abused is the problem. Even without money, the abuse of power acc**ulated by other means would still occur, so it is excessive power that we have to constrain. As we advance our civilization to put priorities on real inherent value, money will likely be less important, though it is not likely to ever disappear. If we set up a system that, while providing incentives for everyone to advance, also does not leave any people behind, then we can all advance together. Again, I agree that we will use money less and less as the incentive for people to advance, but it will still be there, fading into the background.

Views: 42

Comment by Patricio Buenrostro-Gilhuys on April 7, 2010 at 4:50am
I agree with you in the sense that money is not only acc**ulated but owned by a monopoly. The federal Reserve is a private institution, as Federal as Federal Express. Another problem is Money is a process of abstraction and the symbolic exchange forgets about the environment, people and reality http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/learn5-money-and-how-the
Comment by Patricio Buenrostro-Gilhuys on April 7, 2010 at 4:53am
Please Ignore the first sentence. I was trying to say that I agree with you in the sense that money is abused and it´s a reflection of how power is acc**ulated.
Comment by Daniel LaLiberte on April 7, 2010 at 5:06am
I fully agree with you that privately owned monopolies of our money supply are a bad idea, just as all monopolies are, because being controlled by very few self-interested people, they so easily get out of control and the benefit to our civilization is corrupted and lost.

Similarly, all the major financial institutions that are too big to fail (without causing economic catastrophe) are just too big. It is another form of monopoly to have all that wealth concentrated in so few institutions.
Comment by Ezra Ho on April 7, 2010 at 11:25am
The question of where and why money developed is irrelevant for our discussion. It's pointless to compare such different social contexts, separated by hundreds of years in time period.

I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that in the past (I can only assume pre-industrial?), scarcity was artificially generated. I disagree with that. Before the Industrial Revolutions, real scarcity existed in that the production of goods were largely driven by human labour creating a limitation to the amount that could be produced. Moreover, the amount of technology then did little to increase the amount of resources, either by means of extraction (oil exploration to renewable energy systems), or by the taken for granted tools of information communications. Only at present do we have these tools of unprecedented capabilities made available by technology.

Instead, it is only at present when we have the capability to create abundance, but our outdated social system operating on principles on inefficiency and scarcity have hindered our social progress. Because survival in today's world is synonymous with profit-making, anything that gets in the way of making a profit, like abundance and efficiency would be destroyed. In other words, the system is designed to promote and perpetuate scarcity and inefficiency because they are enemies of profit. An example would be how diamonds, in reality abundant in the mines ...

As Bernard Lietaer, designer of the EU currency system pointed out:

“Greed and Competition are not the result of immutable human temperament…greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using…We can produce more than enough food to feed everybody…but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. The scarcity is in our national currencies. In fact, the job of the central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. The direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive.”



To further drive home the point, consider the words of a group of Citibank analysts in "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances":

"Society and governments need to be amenable to disproportionately allow/encourage the few to retain that fatter profit share. The Managerial Aristocracy, like in the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, and the thriving nineties, needs to commandeer a vast chunk of that rising profit share, either through capital income, or simply paying itself a lot.

[AND WHY?]

The behaviour of the exceptionally rich drives the national numbers...."

Besides the twisted implications of the report, this is clearly a system that is not DESIGNED to achieve social justice, ecological balance, human progress but profits, economic 'growth' above everything else. When governments are dependent on these huge corporations for economic 'growth', whose interests would they look out for? The rest of the population, whose desires they satisfy every election? Or the corporations on whom they depend for billions of dollars in taxes and exports? Politics obey Money. This is more evident when the US Supreme Court recently overturned the ban of direct corporate influence on elections, though the only difference is that now it is legal. Everything that the monetary system influences is inherently corrupt.

It's not a question of whether automation will bring costs to zero. The question is whether we want to abolish the monetary system, moving Humanity forward, and in the process getting rid of the notion of monetary costs.

Finally, the idea that people will get lazy or that they will lose motivation in a TVP world is more of a projection of current values and trends into a world that has radically different social institutions.

As Jacque Fresco wrote in "The Best that Money Can't Buy":

"To prepare for the future we must be willing to test new concepts. This means we must acquire enough information to evaluate these concepts, and not be like travelers in a foreign land who compare everything with their own hometown. To understand people of another place, we must set aside our usual expectations of behaviour, and not judge by the values to which we are accustomed.
...
Many of our dominant values shaping our present society are medieval. The idea that we live in an enlightened age, or an age of reason, has little basis in fact. We are overwhelmed with valid information concerning ourselves and our planet, but have no inkling of how to apply it. Most of our customs and modes of behaviour have been handed down to us from the Dark Ages."



Because it's difficult to critique a TVP through words alone since our mental frame of reference is so limited, I really urge you to watch Zeitgeist Addendum and then consider the society of TVP.

Comment

You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!

Join Urgent Evoke

Latest Activity

N updated their profile
Sep 25, 2020
Sophie C. commented on Asger Jon Vistisen's blog post Stinging Nettle
"I love that you've brought this to attention. An extensive database of uncommon but resistant and hardy plants/foods could be developed and organized by climate. Ease of growth and processing should also be taken in to account. I will try to…"
Aug 19, 2020
Meghan Mulvey posted a blog post

Fourth of July on the Lake

This past weekend was the annual celebration at the lake house in Connecticut. It is amazing that the lake is still so clear and beautiful after all these years. The watershed association has done a wonderful job protecting these waters from the damaging effects of development.The wood grill was finally ready to cook on, so we didn't miss the propane tank fueled grill anymore. The food actually tasted fresher than in the past and was easy to keep fueled.Dad was very proud of the solar hybrid…See More
Jul 6, 2020
Asger Jon Vistisen posted a blog post

Stinging Nettle

In this blog post I will focus on a plant that is abundant in our nature, and which is immensely nutritious. It's of course the Stinging Nettle. Let's start with the chemical constituents of this plant:37 % Non-Nitrogen-Extracts19 - 29 % Ash9 - 21 % Fiber4 % Fat22 % ProteinOnce the leaves are drid, their protein content can reach an astounding 40 %, which is much higher than beef, which even under the best of circ**stances can never exceed 31 % protein. In addition the Stinging Nettle consists…See More
Apr 13, 2020
Jonathon McCallum posted a blog post

The meal

It is 7'oclock, I was late home from work due to an assignment that i wanted to get ahead on. By the time I get home I am feeling extremley tired and I cannot be bothered to make a proper meal. I walk to the fridge and open it to see what there is for me to eat. All of the out of date foodstuffs have been automaticaly thrown away by the fridge, they will be recycled tomorrow as animal feed or something. I see i have organic local eggs and some local cheese. Foods are vacc** sealded for easy…See More
Mar 10, 2020
Jean Paul Galea shared a profile on Facebook
Mar 1, 2020
Kevin posted a blog post

Future

FutureToday is 2020/1/1. It is just like yesterday. The war is still continuing. It has started since 2010. In 2010, that year was a horrible year. Almost every energy ran out. Every country’s governments were crushed down at the same time. There were riots everywhere. All of the big company’s bosses were killed xdeadx in the riots. Troops fought each other everywhere. Food was bought up xawayx at once. There were no more food supplies in any shops. The economy was all crushed down. All the…See More
Jan 1, 2020
Namwaka Mooto posted blog posts
Jan 13, 2016
T D updated their profile
Sep 3, 2015
Brook Warner posted blog posts
Aug 25, 2015
Santiago Vega posted blog posts
May 5, 2015
Santiago Vega commented on Santiago Vega's blog post Act 8
May 5, 2015
Santiago Vega posted photos
May 5, 2015
Rico Angel Rodriguez posted blog posts
May 2, 2015
Rico Angel Rodriguez posted a photo

public servants

The exchange works directly for state and public workers and servants. It gives them credit in exchange for the amount of public work they contribute to the community. The more constructive they are based off a base rate the more credit they recieve.
May 2, 2015
Brian Hurley posted blog posts
May 2, 2015

Follow EVOKE on Twitter




Official EVOKE Facebook Page




EVOKE RSS Activity Feed










© 2022   Created by Alchemy.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service