If you design a system based on the correct interpretation of valid data, there’s a thing you should experience at some stage, and which validates the development track you’re on, and I have experienced this thing at least a few dozen times … it goes something like this ( to provide the most recent example ):
I was walking home from the local park when a thought occurred to me about a particular aspect of the systems I have conceptually developed. Imagine for a minute – assuming you’ve read enough of the other pages and articles of this site to have a general idea of what I’m on about – that we are in a hypothetical future where my proposals have just started operating, so they exist concurrently with the status quo.
Now in this hypothetical scenario, people are undertaking projects of various kinds, using the framework I’ve developed, and those projects have outputs in terms of goods and services ( amongst other possibilities; such as NFP projects for purely ecological &/or social benefit, without creating any kind of saleable goods or services as per the status quo of capitalism – ie: no commercially “profitable” output in the external economic paradigm ).
So for the people contributing to any project in any way, their motivation in terms of the dominant status quo of capitalism – during transitional arrangements from capitalism to the new paradigm – is to share in the profits of such saleable goods and services ( as normal ) – ie: people don’t actually need to care where all this is headed, nor even necessarily know there’s a bigger vision in play at all … because we can’t change everything overnight EVEN IF the status quo agreed to give up power, and we cannot expect humans to ignore their short term self-interest, even if the entire planet is at stake; which is exactly what is at stake, and as you can already see for yourself, even those whom admit the problems aren’t willing to undergo much ( if any ) personal sacrifice.
Now here’s the realisation I had:
I was reminded of one of the common complaints I hear from people who question my work, which comes roughly in the form:
” … if no one is in charge, what’s to stop people cheating the system? “
– which in general is a valid question, even though I would argue that if they’d really given it much thought, they could have answered the question themselves on the basis of what I’ve already written … but here it is spelled out in detail, if for some reason the answer eludes you, or if you haven’t yet read enough of what I’ve written to see the answer for yourself.
As you should know if you’ve read the most general overviews of this vision, the motivational aspects of this anarchic framework are based around making people personally responsible for the consequences of their actions, as quantified in a non-species-biased approach using the principles of Ecological Systems Modelling & Thermodynamics. Which means:
- You perform an action ( any kind, including thinking );
- That action has consequences ( consequences are measurable );
- Consequences are quantified and recorded in a modified blockchain architecture;
- Your statistics are visible in the blockchain, though some information is private;
- Your personal statistics are like a thermodynamic history of your life – ie: all inputs into you from birth, and all consequences ( outputs ) of every action you’ve ever taken;
- Therefore IF you have less inputs to your life, then you have a greater transformative ratio of consequence per unit of output versus someone who had a great deal of inputs to their life ( ie – there is a balancing naturally occurring between rich and poor from the past momentum of the status quo of capitalism … so if you were born with wealth under the status quo, you should produce more valuable output than someone who was born with less, which means if you’re rich but don’t actually have valuable knowledge or skills, you can only balance this equation by increasing such knowledge and skills, and/or by investing assets gained under the status quo into the ethical investment hedge fund that acts as buffer and bi-directionally translating interface between the status quo and the new paradigm );
- If you want something scarce that someone else produces, they are responsible for the consequences of giving it to you over someone else ( as such an action – of providing resources to you – has consequences of its own ), therefore – as stated many times elsewhere – you’re motivated to have the best statistics possible with respect to your desire for access to scarce resources produced by others;
- AND when you share in the output of a project – with respect to the project’s export earnings from the status quo of capitalism during transition ( ie – while the status quo still exists and remains dominant ) – your share of earnings is impacted by the transformative ratio of your input, which includes yourself as an input – THEREFORE if you are historically poor compared to someone else, then your output ( as status earlier ) is weighted accordingly;
- NOW since the data – and data acquisition algorithms – required to accurately calculate people’s personal emergy history ( embodied energy history – ie: the total thermodynamic input of that person’s life from birth ) is something that will take time to develop and evolve, we begin with a basic averaged algorithm, such that with only a few details, we can provide a roughly accurate average emergy history for a human being based on a particular region of the world … but within each region, there are vast differences between rich and poor, and thus those from a lower socioeconomic background are disadvantaged by the fact that wealthier people raise this average – THEREFORE they ( the relatively poor ) are motivated to more accurately calculate their own emergy history, and as such algorithms become available, those people will be the first to follow the instructions ( or seek help ) to do such a calculation for themselves, so that their input value to any activity more accurately reflects their thermodynamic transformity with respect to the outputs of that project – KEEP IN MIND ALSO that such evolution of algorithms can be retrospectively updated in the blockchain architecture I’ve developed, such as to cause a cascading update throughout the blockchain, which rebalances any past inaccuracy, and this occurs in a minimalist way to conserve the resource requirements of such updates … remembering also this blockchain is not linked to a cryptocurrency, so it is very different from what you may be used to seeing if you’re involved with cryptocurrency;
- Having more accurately calculated the emergy history of the poor, the middle class are now disadvantaged by the wealthy skewing figures upwards, so they too are motivated to more accurately calculate their emergy history, and in doing so, that average shifts ever upward – meaning that even the upper classes are eventually motivated to more accurately calculate theirs in competition with each other, especially as the influence of capitalism wanes over time, because more goods and services become available without cash or trade of any kind, via this ever evolving new paradigm, and all the projects it supports within the framework.
So if you missed the point of it all, what I’m saying is that I never specifically planned or developed these particular aspects of self-balancing and self-evolving within the framework of the vision, but instead they were revealed to me as logical consequences of the fact that I had correctly followed where the data led me ( in an unbiased manner ), instead of trying to make the facts and outcome fit a pre-existing agenda, belief, or expectation.
This is how you recognise great design, because it should provide unexpected benefits, for the simple reason it is congruent with the laws of nature, rather than trying to force anything to behave or characterise itself according to your expectations, and against its own inclinations … which is not to say we should never bend nature, but we should do so only with a gentle appreciation of the value of its existing form, with an appreciation of consequences, and with congruence to the laws of nature, so that we achieve maximum gain from minimum damage, effort, resources, lost opportunity, and lost natural value.
The way of the world at present is one of trying to control, dominate, and force compliance, then destroying or killing anything that refuses to comply … this is wasteful and insane, and yet our entire civilisation is built on it. Those whom agree with and love this status quo are not rational, and arguably shouldn’t ever be given authority over anything, but going to war against them is something no one wants, even though it’s entirely possible that it is necessary.
To avoid conflict if possible, my vision proposes this interaction between the status quo and its replacement, such that with minimal conflict, a new paradigm can arise, and I hope that you will support this work, no matter your personal history.
Also published on Medium.