Strategic transition vs. uncontrolled collapse

Many people advocate for the immediate collapse of the status quo of capitalism, without regard to the consequences of that collapse, so I want to go over the reasons why this is not a good idea.

In brief: we currently have organisations that are in control of such things as biological, chemical, and nuclear hazards;

— so ask yourself this:

  • IF wages cease being paid tomorrow because capitalism collapses;
  • THEN whom will turn up to work to decommission these hazards?

So we really do have a problem here:

  • imagine all the drums of toxic chemicals sitting unattended, the buildings around them unattended and decaying;
  • imagine the nuclear warheads and missiles in silos, gradually leaking radiation or becoming malfunctional;
  • imagine the biological hazards in laboratories, unattended and eventually escaping;

— we need a definitive and comprehensive plan for transition.

The OEF vision of which I write has several concurrent strategies to deal with this;

— including:

  1. Allowing the status quo to undergo decommissioning events as is;
  2. Motivating additional decommissioning events via interaction between the status quo and the new paradigm during transition;
  3. Allowing existing organisations to morph into bodies of the new paradigm;
  4. Replacing or creating any additional necessary organisations as required to manage these hazards, but with a different economic paradigm motivating their behaviour.

So as long as the status quo exists, it can continue to handle these things ( however ineffectually ), until such time as options 2-4 also become available. Once option 2 is available, people operating within the status quo will be increasingly motivated to adjust an exponentially increasing amount of their personal and professional behaviour, even if such behaviour is more closely associated with the status quo than the new paradigm.

Options 3 & 4 then do the rest of the work, and as the status quo eventually dies, there’s little or nothing left behind that is unhandled, and as time goes on this asymptotes to or actually reaches zero ( nothing unhandled ).

The reason this transition is possible is a consequence of the mechanics of this new paradigm — ie: as more and more projects are conducted under the new paradigm, it can offer more and more incentives to modify behaviour, and it can also increase the sophistication and complexity of incentives offered … and over time, the status quo becomes less and less relevant as a system of social reward, which feeds back into the exponential acceleration of the evolution of the alternative.

The other good thing is this:

  • IF under the status quo you’re responsible for a current hazard;
  • THEN under the new paradigm, your responsibility for it is quantifiably higher;
  • IF you’re not responsible under the status quo, you can still benefit from contributing to the solution, and under the new paradigm they don’t need a budget to hire you to do so, and everyone capable of contributing is motivated to do so, because the consequences of doing so are significant, thus contributing significantly to access to scarce resources;

— thus serious shit gets handled.

Leave a Reply