Message 05179 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 22/46 L17 [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]Michel Wrote:
<<The potential danger I see with that approach, and I'm not sure that is thecase as I've not fully read the proposal, is that the reciprocity conditionswould be imposed on non-reciprocal peer production, thereby actuallydestroying it and replacing it with another mechanism. Marc: is that thecase?>>
I can give away stuff to my heart's content. There is no model that canstifle human generosity.
All I'm doing is providing a bridge from the present to a better future, notdefining the future per se as that can only be decided by what peopleactually do, not what theories they subscribe to, so even if they boughtinto my P2P definition (I don't think I attempt to define it, but I mean theimplied model) or P2P Foundation's explicit definition of P2P or Stefan's oranyone else' they'll still do what they need to do in reality and so allthese models do is provide a conceptual framework for what can be not astrict guide for how things are supposed to be because the latter is notreally enforceable.
I agree with your deeper thoughts but I also see a risk in the potential fordiscounting the continuous cost in energy for digital goods and services (ifyou look at the thermoeconimic section on the wiki I've listed all suchcosts, which are very real energy costs to society as a whole that requireall those costs in energy to be carried by certain peers (or a certain stateactor that funds the infrastructure and humans involved) and then bereplaced through a continuous loop from other peers or other state actors.The key point is that energy must flow through a system in order for thesystem to function; it cannot just flow out of the system but not into thesystem, and that's for any system down to the peer level.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:
[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>

[2 text/html]�������������������������{��0����{������jب���0����{��zK�����#zK����


Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 22/46 L17 [In index]
Message 05179 [Homepage] [Navigation]