Message 05175 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 21/46 L16 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: The Future of Un-Money // was "Re: There IS such a thing as peer money"



[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
I think the confusion between the two approaches are this:

- like Stefan, I'm happy to see 'non-reciprocal' (this is just an empirical
fact) peer production to take place on the basis of a existing and already
funded general infrastructure and on the 'surpluses' generated by market
society, while seeking to change the latter, so that even more of the former
become possible

- Christian Siefkes seeks for a mechanism whereby the mechanism of peer
production, can also be transferred to physical production

- Marc Fawzi seeks a unified system that can cover all economic activities
both immaterial and material, taking an energy currency as the common
mechanism

The potential danger I see with that approach, and I'm not sure that is the
case as I've not fully read the proposal, is that the reciprocity conditions
would be imposed on non-reciprocal peer production, thereby actually
destroying it and replacing it with another mechanism. Marc: is that the
case?

This being said, I have to disagree with Stefan's point that energy is
practically infinite, and for now, it isn't. so I think we can concentrate
to where the problem really is: in physical production, cost-recovery is
essential,and we need a separate mechanism.

As long as the surpluses of that mechanism can feed peer production, and
peer production's design innovation can strengthen that mechanism, we have a
positive feedback loop.

My take would be that current 'unsustainable' capitalism, is not a good one
(since it destroys the very basis of human and animal life) for that, and
therefore, we need to change that mechanism.

I'm happy however, to let peer production exist on the basis of the
generalized technical infrastructure, while finding a way to fund peer
production in such a way that it becomes sustainable not just for the
projects as such, but for the individuals.

Stefan's point that peer production is sustainable, is only true for the
projects as projects, but for the indvidual, and this is all we are and we
all need to live and eat, this is NOT the case. In present circumstances,
unless we are rentiers, we are not able to consistently engage with peer
production.

Michel

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:

Hi Marc and all!

Sorry for replying to the thread post by post. Bad habit. I reply to
all the remaining posts in this thread in this one.

Last week (8 days ago) marc fawzi wrote:
P2P theories recognize the requirement to keep peer exchange ratios
(inflow/outflow) at near unity (i.e. you get as much as you give) in
order to have a sustainable peer production economy

Well, all I can say that such a P2P theory contradicts observable
reality of peer production (and thus is not a theory worth talking
about). In the contrary the very sustainable economies of Free
Software, Wikipedia and others do *not* require you to give *anything*
to be allowed to take. This applies to the micro perspective as well
as to the macro perspective.

In fact one of the key characteristics of peer production is its
external openness which exactly means "you don't need to give to be
allowed to take".

6 days ago marc fawzi wrote:
Yes, but those processes also have a continuous cost in energy
required to power them (whatever type of energy) and since energy is
finite

Well, on the human scale you can safely assume that energy is
infinite. Converting all matter into energy gives you so much energy
that the universe contracts before this runs out or tears itself away
(depending on which cosmology you prefer).

it has to come from somewhere, which given current technology

In fact technology is an important point here. So if you are haunted
by too little available energy you could probably think of ways of
inventing a technology which solves the problem?

(we don't have zero-cost energy production and distribution, (e.g.
pocket sized nuclear generators that substitute for food,
information, interaction, entertainment, etc, all the things we need
to live which cost energy,) then energy is ultimately taken away from
someone and that someone needs to be compensated in potential energy

If it is excess energy: Why is it necessary to compensate? After all
nobody is taken away something s/he needs.

What you are suggesting is in fact the property model of capitalism:
property as way to exclude others from using something they need. They
are only allowed to use it if they pay you. This is exactly the
abstraction / logic because of which x million children a year suffer
from starvation...


                                               Grüße

                                               Stefan
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de




-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 21/46 L16 [In index]
Message 05175 [Homepage] [Navigation]