Re: [ox-en] There is no such thing like "peer money"
- From: "Samuel Rose" <samuel.rose gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:16:09 -0400
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
Btw. a side remark (also for Sam): money and business are by no means
natural things. They cannot create an "ecolology". This is a myth, but
as Marx had shown, a kind of "real operating myth". We should not
render homage to the fetish.
I think I actually called it a "human ecology" which includes human
creations such as mediums of communication, cities, human technology, etc
Money has been around for at least ten thousand years or more among humans.
Money has naturally emerged among almost every culture that ever existed.
Money does not exist in non-human systems, but money did emerge in human
In my view, human systems *are* ecologies. All systems are ecologies,
healthy or not, pathological or sustainable, good or bad. I see them all
through the lens of complexity theory/complex systems theory. I use the term
"ecology" to describe an emergent system of diverse actors who's actions and
re-actions affect one another in different ways, that creates a web of
I talk about money, because whether you deplore it or not, I believe it's
not going away any time soon. So, how do we deal with it?
I think we actually agree on the above, and I am not sure why you think you
are "schooling" me on what money is, and what it does etc
I definitely know that I am not "paying homage" to a "fetish" whether you
believe that I am or not.
What I am doing is confronting the reality that a huge amount of people out
of the 6.5 plus billion people on the face of this earth WILL continue to
use money for probably hundreds of years to come, if not more. And, their
use of that money WILL have a tremendous effect on you, and on me, and this
*IS* a HUMAN ECOLOGY whether you think it is or not. It is a human system,
and you ARE a part of it.
Do you see what I am saying? You can reply back to me with as many
dismissive, arrogant, one-upping remarks that you'd like to. It's fine with
me if you think that I am full of it. I really don't care. But, my point, my
language and meaning are described above, in my words.
I don't have much interest in discussing ideas that refuse to acknowledge
reality, or in being told that I my thinking is somehow invalid when it's
obvious you have know idea what I am talking about in the first place when I
use terms like "human ecology".
I really don't even understand why you seem to be getting angry at this
exchange of ideas, but I don't really know you, so I can only guess.
Maybe you can help me understand. It's ok if you think I am full of shit.
Just help me understand why you seem to think what I am saying is wrong, I
do not get it.
Contact: projekt oekonux.de