The Concept of Currency

[Obyron]

Thanks a ton for the pm, B9. Much easier to carry on that discussion in that medium! I replied over there, and from what you said it actually sounds like we agree on a lot of things, it's just that I'm caught up with theorizing about a very very very small detail of the whole.

We cannot be human and not have money,
because having money is what makes us human.

Not at all true. If you use the common definition whereby money means "currency," then your assertion is patently false on its face. The poor are still human.

If you use "money" the way I'm talking about it, it IS possible to not have money. I actually talked about this in my pm with B9. You could be entirely self-sufficient, provide only for your own needs, and never exchange anything with anyone. You would still be human, but you would never have "money" in the sense of a transfer of value.

The one caveat I took care to mention with this though is that you could make the argument that prioritizing your time toward certain ends over others-- since you must be self-sufficient, and there are only so many hours in the day-- you would engage in a system of bartering with yourself and "trading" the only commodity that one can trade with themselves and still be self-sufficient: Time. At that point though, I think you start begging the question, and are pretty much engaging in academic wanking. Or should I say, "I."

It is possible to be human and not have money because:

Money is a consequence of Trade. Trade is a consequence of civilization. All civilizations are made up of humans, but not all humans must be part of civilization. Therefore, some humans do not have money.

Formally:

If T -> M
If C -> T

Therefore, If C -> M. (Chain Rule / Simplification)

C -> M
All C are H
Some H are not C

Therefore, Some H are not M. (Categorical Syllogism)

Q.E.D.

 

[The_Idler]

i was really thinking of civilization (even to the degree of living in huts and trading pelts and arrows) as being humanity.

Of course, some humans are ok with rejecting all civilization, and behaving like animals, but it is a tiny fraction.

For humanity to exist without money, they would all need to have shared the same upbringing/genetics which precipitate such behaviour.

Such a situation would result in "not humanity",
as humanity is a species, the majority of which would very much rather work with tokens of value.
NOT because they are told to, but because they are the ultimate convenience, in most basic matters, relating to being "civilized", ie not an animal, ie what defines us as human.

The majority of humans would like to trade, a lot, even to point of being able to personally construct extremely complex systems, such as PCs.
this is because such technology is extremely useful, and so desirable.
such trade can only be facilitated by tokens of value, UNLESS YOU GOT A BETTER WAY?,
and so the majority of humanity need money.

It is perhaps unfair to say "ALL HUMANITY NEEDS MONEY",
but, generally, it is acceptable to say "HUMANITY NEEDS MONEY".

when i said "we cannot be human"....
i meant "we", not "one".

humanity without money is not humanity.
such a situation, where money would not be desired or created by the majority of people,
would require a fundamental difference in the innate natures of most of our species,
rendering the species as a whole, not human.

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

That was quite a post, Obyron, and I must commend you for your knowledge of economics. However, the situation you describe (I did read it all, and from now on ask to be known as Komrad Peanut ) is still an example of a market economy, and so functions under the monetary system like any other. I understand your points, but they are all presented within the context of the system we are analyzing, so statements about an alternative (or lack thereof) are unfounded. So I hope you got some stimulation out of it, and I really do encourage you to read that article sometime despite its length, it's fascinating.

Here's another, shorter, example: a group of male Lakota hunters go out, bring back a buffalo, and the tribe cooks it up and eats it, skins it, smokes the meat, etc. They also eats some nuts and fruits, collected by the females of the larger community. Where's the money, or even the abstract quantification of value, in that exchange? Obviously I'm simplifying, but hopefully you see my point. While Kommunism doesn't acknowledge private property or personal ownership, it is founded upon principles of property and ownership. A society truly without money would be without these principles as well. Money isn't the physical representation of abstract ownership; it's the abstract representation of physical ownership.

Oh, and Idler, I think you're right that mass production is impossible without money. I just don't think humanity needs mass production, any more than it needs money. We are animals, and the fact that no animal has made use of abstract currency until the last 10,000 years is proof enough for me that humanity and money do not go hand in hand, rather that money is a relatively new (geologically and biologically speaking) construction.

 

[Obyron]

Of course, some humans are ok with rejecting all civilization, and behaving like animals, but it is a tiny fraction.

I don't think that rejecting civilization is behaving like an animal. It depends on your perspective. You don't have to reject all of civilization. I think the urge to socialize and come together is in the core of our being. I mean, even scary loners seek out other scary loners to shoot up the school, you know? It's possible to reject the worst parts of society, to simply refuse to deal with the parts you don't agree with. Look at things like Thoreau isolating himself at Walden Pond-- which is very relevant to the topic at hand-- or Civil Rights leaders who simply refused to be part of a society that would not afford them equal rights, and who by civil disobedience and disruption of civilization as it existed, changed the world. Civilization is not some unchanging monolith, and that's where the hope is. We can keep the best parts, and get rid of the worst parts, and we might disagree on which are which. I happen to think a wholesale collectivization of mankind is not the answer, but even if Komrad Peanut feels differently, we're dreaming the same dream.

For humanity to exist without money, they would all need to have shared the same upbringing/genetics which precipitate such behaviour.

I disagree about upbringing and genetics. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think what you're going for is that they would have to have the same shared values? If that's what you're trying to allude to, I agree. The good news is that our values can change. We can choose to be whoever we want to be whenever the urge strikes us. We're not slaves to our upbringing or our genetics.

as humanity is a species, the majority of which would very much rather work with tokens of value.
NOT because they are told to, but because they are the ultimate convenience, in most basic matters, relating to being "civilized", ie not an animal, ie what defines us as human.

We work with tokens of value because we know no other way. The world is actually moving toward a cashless society, which frightens me, because while I obviously believe cash is irrelevant and that "money" is something larger, I do not trust the current world regime to handle that sort of situation in a responsible way.

I disagree that civilization is what defines humanity.

The majority of humans would like to trade, a lot, even to point of being able to personally construct extremely complex systems, such as PCs.
this is because such technology is extremely useful, and so desirable.
such trade can only be facilitated by tokens of value, UNLESS YOU GOT A BETTER WAY?,
and so the majority of humanity need money.

The majority of humans, I think personally, want to do work that makes them fulfilled. Everyone has a passion or a dream. They want things to occupy them, distract them, and put their mind at ease when they are not working. They want shelter and food, and relative comfort. Soc 101-- Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. A lot of the inventions that trickle down to be PCs and iPods had their genesis in technological revolutions that are supposed to increase productivity and supposedly make our lives easier. I have no problem with material goods. I own an mp3 player, I have an upgraded car stereo, a laptop, a television, guitars and assorted guitar paraphernalia. I don't think these things make me a bad person or a traitor to mankind or something. But these things should not consume you. Blah blah, Tyler Durden, the things you own own you. People do not want these things. They see others wanting these things and emulate that behavior. They are taught by the pervasive All-Seeing Eye of Sauron that is Marketing and Advertising that these things are needful. For a social revolution, that has to go.

It is perhaps unfair to say "ALL HUMANITY NEEDS MONEY",
but, generally, it is acceptable to say "HUMANITY NEEDS MONEY".

I think I've adequately demonstrated my personal theory that money is a side effect of trade. It is intrinsic to all exchange of goods. Saying humanity needs money makes no more sense than saying humanity needs gravity or electromagnetism. They are simply part of the natural order and something we have to deal with.

such a situation, where money would not be desired or created by the majority of people,
would require a fundamental difference in the innate natures of most of our species,
rendering the species as a whole, not human.

I will substitute the word money with wealth, so as to retain your meaning and not confuse anyone with my weirdo definitions. You are saying that wealth is an innate desire. That is simply not true. Komrad Peanut actually showed that with his linked essay on "preconquest" societies that I didn't finish. These people, while they had "money" in the form of a supply/demand commodity imbalance, had no concept of WEALTH. Of an abundance, of having more than you need at the expense of someone else. I would imagine that in such a society wealth and excess could exist, but never before the weakest and poorest in the society also had it. That is an ideal society. It makes its peace with the fact that wealth exists, and uses it to do good. We can learn from that, but we can't put the genie back in the bottle. Money is like the Christian creation myth. Adam and Eve were naked all along, they just didn't realize it. Put differently, it's like 2 girls 1 cup: once seen, it can never be unseen. You just have to deal with it in the best way you can.

As for saying if we change, we are no longer human... I say this gently, and not with the frustration with which it was directed at an earlier poster... check out some history books. We've had a variety of social, industrial, technological, political, and ideological revolutions. The humans who thought the sun revolved around the earth and that disease was caused by bad smells are the same humans that put a man on the moon, eradicated small pox, is working to eradicate malaria, that cast down kings and emperors and replaced them with functioning if imperfect democracies, that went from thinking the lights in the night skies were gods to landing spacecraft on them. All of these are quantum leaps for humanity compared to the relatively simple idea of not being selfish dicks who let our neighbors starve to death rather than give up our third SUV.

Here's another, shorter, example: a group of male Lakota hunters go out, bring back a buffalo, and the tribe cooks it up and eats it, skins it, smokes the meat, etc. They also eats some nuts and fruits, collected by the females of the larger community. Where's the money, or even the abstract quantification of value, in that exchange?

The hunters get to eat the nuts and fruits, the females get to eat the meat. Everyone benefits. The abstract quantification of value is simply in me giving you some of my X for some of your Y, because the sum of that transaction is actually more beneficial to us than either of us could have been alone. Very basic game theory.

Money isn't the physical representation of abstract ownership; it's the abstract representation of physical ownership.

There doesn't even need to be ownership, there just has to be a supply and a demand, and the conversion factor becomes the money. ie: If you can trade 3 apples for one pear, and 1 pear for 2 plums, and 8 plums for a chicken, you can very quickly work out how many apples it takes to get a chicken. That's abstract quantification of value.

I just don't think humanity needs mass production, any more than it needs money.

We need mass production, but we need to do it RIGHT! I'm very fascinated by Post-Scarcity Economics right now. LSD-XTC is right that we need to get in a situation where we can take care of basic needs and free people up, but the way we're going to do that is mass produced, genetically engineered food, not by getting 200 million people to work on farms and get skin cancer.

We are animals, and the fact that no animal has made use of abstract currency until the last 10,000 years is proof enough for me that humanity and money do not go hand in hand

Look at a graph of the growth of the use of abstract currency over time next to a graph of global interconnectedness over time. Abstract money became necessary because, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, it was not practical to carry a ton of gold with you on long journeys so that bandits could steal it. You would deposit it with an office of the Hanseatic League, receive an IOU, and cash out on the other side. It was the first checking account. Abstract money has become necessary because the world is a lot bigger than it was when we were tribal.

 

[neonads]

Komrade Peanut - We need mass production now because we are overpopulated. Like I mentioned before, we could live like your Lakota if we reduce our population from 6 billion down to around 100 million (world population circa 670BC), or to be safe 1 million (circa 10000BC). If suffering is the moral basis for removing money, this solution is counterproductive to say the least.

Neonads, your ideas of conflicting reptilian and mammalian psychology are interesting, but I feel something is missing because it sounds like far too simple an explanation for such a complex idea; could you give me some further information on this theory?

Its about evolutionary brain regions. Read here for more. Basically, the more primitive the brain region, the more autonomic it is and the harder it is to control. Regions that are preverbal cannot be reconciled with thought and reason, they must receive the stimulus they are used to receiving before they will stop. Every higher structure has its roots in a more primitive structure as that is where it evolved from and receives it's 'data' from it so you can trace the conflicts we have today back to their roots. Capitalism is bad because it conflicts with our mammalian (limbic) sense of community, Socialism is bad because it conflicts with our reptilian sense of dominance. So therefore the only lasting solution is one that doesn't systematically conflict with either.

Because the Capitalism conflict is limbic, it is postverbal and can be easily portrayed in words. Arguments for Socialism generally take on a heavily theorised approach using moral values. The Socialism conflict is preverbal so to explain it requires an understanding of ourselves and our primitive urges. Arguments against Socialism thus take on a tone of, "it's unnatural", or, "it's counterintuitive", but leave it at that. I skim-read your link and it bases it's ideas of pre/post-conquest consciousness on purely limbic terms and reads like a typical argument for Socialism.

I think altruism should guide our behavior, including a system for conflict resolution that appeases the dominance dynamic without compromising personal freedom. When we permit dominance to rule, even in personal conflicts, it negates everything we work for, and hate arises as you have said. When our lives are governed by dominance, as it is under capitalism or any economic system based on hierarchy, hate becomes the societal norm. Likewise, if a people whose minds have been conditioned to accept hierarchy, hate, and dominance attempt to change (as in historical communism) without a radical change in psychology, the results are the same. Form determines function.

Here you too write in purely limbic terms and would benefit from going deeper because believe it or not, your Lakota tribespeople imposed their own brand of dominance aswell. The best hunters and the most beautiful women always rose to the top of their respective hierarchies while the most intelligent people became Elders of the tribe. Dominance stems from mate selection, a very complex topic and too large to go into here except that it is seen in all vertebrates and it has it's own internal limits. That is there exists a point for everyone where they lose the 'urge' to dominate another because the contest is already over, the winner and loser decided. This contest between humans often changes to a different topic such as from physical ability to intelligence, or business acumen to charisma, in an effort to find some area we can dominate another in and thus attract mates. This is how personalities develop from infancy, from these interactions with family members (sibling rivalry producing polar opposite personalities among other interactions such as parent-child) and it is how we rationalise imposed dominance. i.e. "Bush may be president, but he's a dumbass", or "All my teachers in high school were stiff-necked and boring".

I can guarantee you that there were always people in your Lakota tribe who thought ill of the best hunters and most beautiful women because they could dominate them in other areas if only the tribe would allow it or if their society thought such a skill was a good thing to be good at. They would bite their tongue because such talk was frowned upon and they knew it would lessen their standing rather than increase it. IMO, a measure of how enlightened a culture is is the number of ways it allows it's members to compete for dominance and thus more fully realise it's members' potentials.

 

[technoHarmony]

Does anyone else here feel petrified at the idea of currency?

Take a $100 bill. This is a lot of money (at least, for most people), right? but the bill's actual worth is no more than a piece of toilet paper. You can't write on it, you can't wrap things with it. Therefore its functional value seems to be limited to asswipe.

Yet, it is worth $100! Holy shit!

I am completely terrified by the fact that the whole world runs (and eternally suffers and fleetingly prospers) on pieces of toilet paper that may or may not represent a certain amount of shiny metal that is supposedly stored somewhere safe (has anyone actually seen it, personally?).

What is even more scary is "digital" money. The number printed on my bank statement represents my theoretical part of the total number of supposedly valuable asswipes that the bank owns.

I don't know, but the fact that the defining aspect of human life is the struggle for an asswipe that represents a supposed piece of shiny metal that one has never personally seen give me little reason to have any faith in humanity...

I'm not an economist by any stretch (being number-dyslexic and all).. in fact I am reading a highschool economy textbook as we speak to edify myself. So can any economically-savvy people here allay my fears?

interesting vid about money and how much gold it really represents (A LOT less than what youd think)

 

[The_Idler]

ahhh money does not represent gold.

money represents the entire productivity of a nation, divided by the total number of units of currency (which is ever increasing, due to the insane scam of enslavement, through money creation, which is how the upper classes (or "elite") own the world, these days).

Saying humanity needs money makes no more sense than saying humanity needs gravity or electromagnetism. They are simply part of the natural order and something we have to deal with.

This was my point.
Originally, I didnt mean to imply that humanity "needs" money,
but that, as humans, we make tokens of value inevitable.

so i am saying "humanity needs money", in the sense that, we could only NOT have money, if we were NOT humanity.

I am not saying that people who do/did not use money are/were not humans,
but they are not representative of humanity.

for a large part of its existence, humanity did not use currency.
for a large part of its existence, humanity did not advance or achieve or produce anything.

Our biology is what makes us human,
our achievements are what makes us humanity.

Humanity landed on the moon.
Societies (sections of humanity) without money, have not been observed to achieve such things.

Civilization is not what makes us human,
but it is what defines humanity (or a considerable part of it).

We could not be civilized without money.
If none of our species were civilized,
we would simply not be the same.

Humans could only exist without money,
if they were, as a group, fundamentally different.

We ARE slaves to our nature and nurture (genetics and upbringing).
Those things define completely who and what we are.

Everyone desires more power (for example trading your tasty potatoes for better arrows. power).
This is an inevitable consequence of the nature of life on Earth.
Genetics, which predispose individuals to acquire greater personal power,
are more successfully propagated throughout the world, due to the individuals bearing them, having greater personal power.
Over 4 billion years, we have ended up with almost exclusively individualistic genetics.

Ants, etc, work together to gain power for shared genetics.

People prioritize empowering themselves, then their family, then their tribe/village/nation/race, then their species.
This is an inevitability of genetics.

And, due to the pervasive nature of genetic empowerment, numerical, relative assignment of value, and so, 'money', is inevitable for any advanced life on Earth.

 

[Obyron]

^^ Not really sure what else to say on that one except that I disagree. You seem to be saying that humans need money, and that if we changed and didn't need money, we'd be different, so we wouldn't be humans. It's like some weird variant of the Anthropic Principle, (We are here because things worked out a certain way. If they hadn't, we wouldn't be here.) which I just dunno about. I think the very simple answer is we'd be different, but we'd still be humans.

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

The abstract quantification of value is simply in me giving you some of my X for some of your Y, because the sum of that transaction is actually more beneficial to us than either of us could have been alone. Very basic game theory.

That's ownership, baby. My example was an illustration of reciprocity, in that it didn't matter how much either side brought to the dinner table. If there was no meat, the men still ate, and vice versa, precisely because they weren't trading resources, they were sharing. I don't know game theory, but if it equates these two methods of exchange, my first impression is that it is flawed in its description of human interaction.


Neonads, I resent you calling them "my" Lakota, as I'm not Lakota, and my knowledge of them comes from others who are and have educated me as such. I also don't see the equivalence of the dominant/submissive dynamic that we engage in on a personal level and the suppression of individual autonomy we see in modern society. While I think the former is unavoidable, I know from research and testimony that the latter is not. I also don't agree that cultural enlightenment is based on competition outlets, which put individual accomplishment above group cohesion; I actually feel the opposite, that the measure is how a culture provides outlets for group connection and intimacy and the security and comfort provided by these, which are severely lacking in modern society. Today we are alienated from each other, united as a group only in the fact that we all compete in the same game, the game of money. Finally, you keep bringing up socialism, when I have never mentioned it, and claim that the article I presented reads like an argument for it, so I would ask that you read it again in full without these preconceptions of socialist propaganda. It goes far beyond socialism.

 

[Obyron]

Ah, okay, I see what you were going for now with that example. If you are going to view the tribe as one collective that owns all things in common, then I could still go by my example-- can't remember if I went into detail on it here, but I know I talked about it with B9-- of someone who is entirely self-sufficient, never engages in trade, etc., and yet their "money" becomes the commodity of time, and how they will consciously choose to emphasize certain tasks (growing food) over other tasks (repairing shelter) on given days due to supply and demand, essentially "buying" an hour to hunt food by "selling" an hour to repair shelter (or grow mushrooms!). Is food more valuable than shelter? Only today, because tomorrow the markets will fluctuate again...

You can see then how this would apply to your Lakota example, with the tribe considered as a collective organism. Instead of 50 citizens trading to maximize their own good, you have the collective allocating resources by need to maximize the group's benefit. This is actually very similar to my communist example, where all things were "owned" in common, and a central committee just moves them around as necessary.

Sharing works because both sides gain by working together more than they would by working apart. Yes, even on days when the hunters catch nothing, they still eat, but in the cold months when there is not as much to forage, the females still eat as well, allowing them to continue trading other commodities (like creating children, to raise new hunters and gatherers who will make the tribe stronger, and increase the collective "trade advantage"). In Game Theory this would be a Nash Equilibrium. Taking into account the decisions of the other players, and knowing that they will not change their decisions, would changing your decision benefit you? If the answer is no, then the system is in Nash Equilibrium. The hunters know the females will always share their foraging, the females know the hunters will always share their catch, neither side stands to gain by changing that policy.

One of the basic, surprising, revolutionary finds of modern economics was the free trade concept-- that you stand to gain more by completely opening your markets and removing trade barriers, because it increases your comparative advantage, and it makes your "tribe" (or nation) a better place to do business, and increases the opportunity cost of NOT doing business with you (ie: If Consumer A does not take advantage of your cheaper goods, their competitor WILL, and would become more profitable as a result). This can be very generally stated as, "we all stand to gain more by sharing than by letting each other starve," and this is the basic concept behind institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. They most definitely have their flaws, and I'm the first one to protest those flaws, but they do some good.

 

[neonads]

Neonads, I resent you calling them "my" Lakota, as I'm not Lakota, and my knowledge of them comes from others who are and have educated me as such.

It's your example that's all.

I also don't see the equivalence of the dominant/submissive dynamic that we engage in on a personal level and the suppression of individual autonomy we see in modern society. While I think the former is unavoidable, I know from research and testimony that the latter is not.

How so?

I also don't agree that cultural enlightenment is based on competition outlets, which put individual accomplishment above group cohesion; I actually feel the opposite, that the measure is how a culture provides outlets for group connection and intimacy and the security and comfort provided by these, which are severely lacking in modern society. Today we are alienated from each other, united as a group only in the fact that we all compete in the same game, the game of money.

It puts individuality above traditionalism. Group cohesion occurs when people feel valued within their group. That even though the person's contribution may be small, it is something very few can do. Do you honestly believe that people should be pressured into roles where they can never excel and feel valuable? Is that your definition of an enlightened culture?

Finally, you keep bringing up socialism, when I have never mentioned it, and claim that the article I presented reads like an argument for it, so I would ask that you read it again in full without these preconceptions of socialist propaganda. It goes far beyond socialism.

Yeah, like I said, it reads like a heavily theorised moral-laden essay that completely disregards the existance of the primitive brain and it's functions - what some refer to as "human nature". Just like a typical argument for Socialism.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Yeah, like I said, it reads like a heavily theorised moral-laden essay that completely disregards the existance of the primitive brain and it's functions - what some refer to as "human nature". Just like a typical argument for Socialism.

What percent of Americans would U say has a "primitive brain"?

IMO: "Human Nature" is shaped by the environment ur brought into plus ur experiences.

In a society without money, ppl could see what really makes ppl happy. Like the happiest children I've seen are in poor countries like Mexico & Thailand.

 

[Obyron]

What percent of Americans would U say has a "primitive brain"?

100%, if I'm correct in assuming that he's referring to the Reptilian Complex. It is the portion of the brain that controls our basic animal instincts.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

^^^ Lol, U sound like my dad. He has a theory he calls "The Maturity Decision," where he explains the need to destroy ur Ego or Reptilian brain.

 

[ebola?]

so everyone felt like ignoring my challenge of explaining exactly how we would achieve all the advanced production, without money?

I guess that means there IS no other way, not that anyone here knows of, anyway.

I have heavy work and school commitments this week, but I will respond to you by this weekend.

ebola

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

Obyron, the only problem I see with the Game Theory analysis you present is that it puts the desire for profit or growth above all other motivators, something I don't think is true for all societies. Free trade is certainly beneficial to the individual, but as the current world markets have proven, is not always most beneficial to the community as a whole or to one's environment, and is therefore to me not always the most desirable outcome. What if your goal is harmony with your surroundings, or Nash Equilibrium; is free trade a good idea then?
EDIT: When I say 'growth ', I mean the growth of an individual's ability to exercise power over others.


Neonads, I thought that's what you might have meant, but at the same time my providing it as an example and me being the only source of the information are two different things. Also, please don't try to put words in my mouth regarding 'enlightened culture'; it was your term in the first place. Obviously my answer to your question is 'no'. However, individual excellence is not the only way to feel valuable. Is your idea of 'enlightened' a culture that says otherwise? I hope not, but that seems to be what you are saying; in short, let's not play word games here. As for the article, all I have left to say is that it's not an argument for any economy, and just because it doesn't prescribe to your example of the reptilian brain doesn't mean it is worthy of casual dismissal. Try evaluating it on its own terms and not on your own preconceptions. As for a reference to the differences in dominance concepts, see any anthropology textbook for examples of societies with the fundamental characteristic of complete individual autonomy (hint: they don't have market economies).


Goddess, your dad sounds like a smart guy. To let the Reptilian Brain take precedence over the Limbic Brain is legitimizing oppression and coercion, regardless of societal complexity.

 

[neonads]

Neonads, I thought that's what you might have meant, but at the same time my providing it as an example and me being the only source of the information are two different things.

I didn't use you as a source of information. The cultural practices of indigenous peoples are common knowledge.

Also, please don't try to put words in my mouth regarding 'enlightened culture'; it was your term in the first place. Obviously my answer to your question is 'no'. However, individual excellence is not the only way to feel valuable. Is your idea of 'enlightened' a culture that says otherwise?

You put your own words there. "the measure is how a culture provides outlets for group connection and intimacy and the security and comfort provided by these, which are severely lacking in modern society."

A culture 'provides' this by expecting it's members to engage in group community, even at the expense of individualistic desires. This will invariably force people to compete in a narrower range of activities. The other way a culture can provide outlets for group connection is to allow individualism, not repress the reptilian brain, and allow people to come together on their own if they so choose. Of course, this is what I proposed and you disagreed so I assume you prefer the former. Are you a big fan of arranged marriages?

As for the article, all I have left to say is that it's not an argument for any economy, and just because it doesn't prescribe to your example of the reptilian brain doesn't mean it is worthy of casual dismissal. Try evaluating it on its own terms and not on your own preconceptions.

The closest it comes to using the reptilian brain is the use of the term "liminal consciousness". However, it ascribes "liminal" to pre-conquest people and "supraliminal" to post-conquest by designating morality as the key difference. He undoes himself by giving the fact that deceit undoes the pre-conquest peoples clearly ascribing morality to them too. He notes the limitations our observations have on pre-conquest people but continues to use them anyway instead of finding a commonality to use (such as psychology).

As for a reference to the differences in dominance concepts, see any anthropology textbook for examples of societies with the fundamental characteristic of complete individual autonomy (hint: they don't have market economies).

Yeah, they're communal because they have rigid societal rules because they live with little technology to aid in their survival because they are typical of human culture before that technology was invented. Is this really "individual autonomy"? The small proto-mammals that hid from the dinosaurs used the same methods but I believe I've already mentioned that.

The domination remains, albeit in another form.

He has a theory he calls "The Maturity Decision," where he explains the need to destroy ur Ego or Reptilian brain.

Oh the irony. Does your dad realise that it is from the reptilian brain that the desire to destroy comes from? Perhaps he meant to destroy the ego is to destroy the counterintuitive habits that we develop during childhood thus reconciling conflicts between 'reptile' and 'mammal' and making you feel more in control of yourself.

 

[Obyron]

Obyron, the only problem I see with the Game Theory analysis you present is that it puts the desire for profit or growth above all other motivators, something I don't think is true for all societies. Free trade is certainly beneficial to the individual, but as the current world markets have proven, is not always most beneficial to the community as a whole or to one's environment, and is therefore to me not always the most desirable outcome. What if your goal is harmony with your surroundings, or Nash Equilibrium; is free trade a good idea then?
EDIT: When I say 'growth ', I mean the growth of an individual's ability to exercise power over others.

We're starting to get to the edges of my depth, or the edges of my willingness to do a bunch more reading to support a position, but...

Game Theory does not put any emphasis on any desire for anything. Game Theory is just a paradigm for viewing all social interactions, and in this case I'm using an economic metaphor. The "players" in the game make their own choices, have their own strategies, and are looking for certain things. Game Theory doesn't dictate anything except as it relates to a system of analyzing decisions, and how you make a decision based on the decisions of the other players. The only things it "defines" are by giving names to certain types of common repeating motifs, etc. It's like looking at chess openings or something. Calling a certain series of moves "The Sicilian Defense" does not imply anything onto the rules of the game itself, it just seeks to analyze how the players are making their decisions... It's really a field that's worth reading about. It's a whole paradigm for studying social interaction, and does not necessarily make any assumptions, but seeks to draw logical conclusions by abstracting behavior.

I would try to use the words "abstract" and "paradigm" one more time in that paragraph, but I don't have a graduate degree, so I'm at my buzzword limit.

As for what if your goal is to seek harmony... That's as valid a goal as any other, and my personally opinion is that it's better than most. ALL systems naturally seek equilibrium, and there are stable and unstable equilibria. Say a system is in Nash Equilibrium, but then something changes to make one player change their decision because they think they'll gain an advantage (toward whatever goal-- they may think it will increase their "advantage" of becoming more in harmony with their surroundings), but they end up being wrong. If, statistically, the player tends to revert their decision back to the previous model, then that model is said to be a stable equilibrium. Nash Equilibrium tends to be very stable. Alternately, if the players will tend to both change their decisions and end up in a different state of equilibrum, the old equilibrium-- that which was broken, and exchanged for the new-- is said to be an unstable equilibrium.

As for Free Trade... It remains to be seen, man. I hold out high hopes for the Fair Trade movement. The current problem with organizations like the WTO is that they're all run by people who tend to gain by supporting the established paradigm at the expense of people like Guatemalan banana farmers and Colombian coffee pickers, et al. The problem with Free Trade right now is that not all parties are on a level playing field. It's kind of like how in America we assume we have a Free Market economy, and gloat about how the market will take care of itself, but in reality there is so much government intervention that the market will not behave in that manner, and the "Free" part is an illusion. We're kind of in that situation with "Free" Trade right now, and we can only wait and see if it gets better.

Unless one of you gets elected President, and would like to appoint me Chairman of the World Bank.

 

[The_Idler]

If there was no meat, the men still ate, and vice versa, precisely because they weren't trading resources, they were sharing. I don't know game theory, but if it equates these two methods of exchange, my first impression is that it is flawed in its description of human interaction.

No, game theory is logically, beautifully perfect.
Read yourself some Selfish Gene, by Dawkins.
If you hadn't already considered those logical models for the analysis of all you encounter, you will learn to analyse this world intelligently.

I think the very simple answer is we'd be different, but we'd still be humans.

but humanity is defined by the collective achievements of humans.
would be too fundamentally different without money.

Obyron, the only problem I see with the Game Theory analysis you present is that it puts the desire for profit or growth above all other motivators, something I don't think is true for all societies.

it is true, for humanity, generally,
therefore precluding the possibility of humanity, without money.

 

[ebola?]

^you pointed out all the problems that would be encountered,
while attempting to construct a PC in a world without money.

now you have acknowledged the problems, which are the obvious logical implications of having no currency,
please explain how these could be overcome, with a system not involving money

A couple issues:
1. I'm not sure what was missing from my explanation that leave particular loose ends for you, nor do I see how an explanation specific to a single example would help.
2. I don't think that drawing up these specific blueprints is particularly externally valid. We'll have to conduct these economic experiments in practice to figure out which problems will be most relevant and how they might be overcome. We will likely be surprised.

I'll give this a try though.

A particular anarcho-communist economy, likely overlapping with the scope of a corresponding anarcho-communist federation, would need to encompass all productive units leading from production of 'raw' materials to consumer. If the economy is more restricted in scope than this, said anarchist federation would need to trade with other societies, likely through currency.

Relevant productive units (eg, coal miners, silicon chip fabricators, speaker manufacturers) will communicate with one another, letting each other know how many units they're going to need to produce, to contribute a given total output of computers (this number determined through a combination of effective demand and logistical concerns). The quantity of workers allocated to each sub-producer will need to be calibrated through processes described in my prior post. In turn, the total quantity of computers being produced will need to be adjusted according to other processes mentioned in the same prior post.

If the effective for demand of computers is pretty low, and there are sufficient people willing to work in the computer-producing industry is sufficient, calibration of production to consumption will be trivial (with efficiency equal to the present price-system). Otherwise, there will need be some process of rationing, and there will need to be job-incentive and/or rationing procedures that I detailed previously. Rationing of computers could take the shape of allocation of one medium-power computer per household, and reservation of high-speed computers for shared institutions.

which would do so more efficiently, than a system based upon currency.

I think that a currency-less economic system would be LESS efficient than capitalist production, sacrificing productive efficiency for enhanced justice.

Please remember to take into account human nature at all times.

I don't really believe in this. I think that a functional anarcho-communist system of production would require a shift in cultural meanings and practices. For example, it will be crucial that the abolition of conditions of vast uncertainty and practical scarcity will extinguish much of the impetus to hoard more goods than one wishes to use. To the extent that we really are hoarding animals with insatiable lust for material consumption, anarcho-communism would not work.

Remember, this system must be simpler than any involving money.

It wouldn't be. I think that there are concerns as or more important than raw simplicity and efficiency.

ebola