Author Topic: crypto & blockchain technologies for a post fossil/capitalist sustainable world  (Read 10380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.

Why Coca-Cola?

 :)
Coca-Cola is in my top 10 inventions of all time also. Not #1, as this place must be taken by air-conditioning…
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean - I will take a fishing pole; as books I will take F Nietzsche and… for music I do not know (yet)

I'd cover all my wishes with just my iPad.  It already has every song I know (including all of Cosmos Factory) and every literary work I could hope to read.)

I might also wish for a supertanker full of Coke, since the supertanker would have other obvious uses... like providing a generator for recharging my iPad.

When making wishes, one must carefully engineer them for maximum effectiveness! 

I'm personally thinking one Enterprise-class starship, outfitted with a replicator, would we wise to include on the list - "Tea, Earl Gray, Hot"

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
...
What we have today is better considered "crony capitalism".  Also, the idea of infinite growth is well and good with respect to innovation.  Many of the people today sayjng that the earth cannot provide for all of us not only are introducing dangerous strawmen problems, but also implying only one solution--which has actually worked out FAR worse historically for humanity than the initial "perceived" problems.  Sustainability will not come from a central authority dictating our lives, but from competition to create systems that benefit the largest number of people with the smallest possible input of resources. Let us try not to unnecessarily attribute the the problems that were a byproduct of an outdated paradigm to our inability to sustain "growth".  Rather lets change our conceptualization of what growth is so it does not limit our potential.

The people who drastically change our world for the better are ALWAYS told by the flock that their dreams are impossible.  They manufacture reasons why we cant instead of asking "how can we?"
+5%

I would argue we have never realy experienced true capitalism and that America was the closest we've ever been to it...and even today I do not see innovators from all over the world fleeing to other countries in the hope of giving their impossible dreams a chance to be realized.
Unfortunately at this point many are fleeing the U.S. to pursue their innovative dreams, but I agree that for many years the U.S. was a great environment for innovation.  Now I think it's closer to average, depending on the field.

Sustainability is not the problem...our willingness to discount the power of human ingenuity, given proper motivation is our only problem.  Anyone who says otherwise wants to enslave you to their own, dangerously narrow perception of reality.

People really need to research Enron, "Blood and Gore", and there proposed carbon exchanges...it perfectly sets us up for a better understanding of how Agenda 21 is destroying markets and hurting the world population. From there its just a hop skip and jump to 9/11, the "War on Terror" ( which, ironically only serves to perpetuate it), the 2008 stock market attack (it was economic warfare), the larry summers memos, and the "New World Order".

We have ALL the tools we'll ever need.  The question is: will we let those in power let their myopic fears of losing control frame the debate with Warnings of Impossibility...or will we ask forgivness from the scared sheep AFTER proving the nay-sayers wrong?
I like to say that Prometheus stole fire from the gods for mankind, and carbon taxing is the state-worshipers' attempt to steal it back for their god. :P

Offline fuzzy

oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:

For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing


Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?




Tipon, do you really think you're going to get anywhere around here denouncing capitalism? Have you not noticed that capitalism is a popular word on these forums?

Here's my suggestion: come up with some other word for the evil system you're describing. The word "capitalism" has too many meanings. To you, it means greedy unsustainable growth and development, but to a lot of people around here it means something much less sinister: something like "the concept that people should be able to own things freely without someone else violently taking them away."

I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to help you get your point across better. I hate seeing people shooting themselves in the foot through poor choice of words.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

What we have today is better considered "crony capitalism".  Also, the idea of infinite growth is well and good with respect to innovation.  Many of the people today sayjng that the earth cannot provide for all of us not only are introducing dangerous strawmen problems, but also implying only one solution--which has actually worked out FAR worse historically for humanity than the initial "perceived" problems.  Sustainability will not come from a central authority dictating our lives, but from competition to create systems that benefit the largest number of people with the smallest possible input of resources. Let us try not to unnecessarily attribute the the problems that were a byproduct of an outdated paradigm to our inability to sustain "growth".  Rather lets change our conceptualization of what growth is so it does not limit our potential.

The people who drastically change our world for the better are ALWAYS told by the flock that their dreams are impossible.  They manufacture reasons why we cant instead of asking "how can we?"

I would argue we have never realy experienced true capitalism and that America was the closest we've ever been to it...and even today I do not see innovators from all over the world fleeing to other countries in the hope of giving their impossible dreams a chance to be realized.

Sustainability is not the problem...our willingness to discount the power of human ingenuity, given proper motivation is our only problem.  Anyone who says otherwise wants to enslave you to their own, dangerously narrow perception of reality.

People really need to research Enron, "Blood and Gore", and there proposed carbon exchanges...it perfectly sets us up for a better understanding of how Agenda 21 is destroying markets and hurting the world population. From there its just a hop skip and jump to 9/11, the "War on Terror" ( which, ironically only serves to perpetuate it), the 2008 stock market attack (it was economic warfare), the larry summers memos, and the "New World Order".

We have ALL the tools we'll ever need.  The question is: will we let those in power let their myopic fears of losing control frame the debate with Warnings of Impossibility...or will we ask forgivness from the scared sheep AFTER proving the nay-sayers wrong?
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline amencon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Theres this old darwinian theory that says that evolution is determined by competition.
This theory is incomplete.
Evolution has always be also determined by cooperation.
This idea that we humans are in escence competitive is wrong .
Classical economists used to think that individuals following individual interests  and acting competitive would lead to the satisfaction of the whole society.  These theory is wrong.
In humans history there have been a lot of cultures and civilizations that have existed without competition , cultures that have existed in a sustainable way.
I think competition is not something inherent to human nature that cant be changed.
Collaboration on global scale would need a radical change of paradigms, first all those liberal economic theories based on a reductionistic approach should be proscribed as obsolete.
On an evolutionary scale, cooperation is often performed in order to better compete for various things.  I think you're off-base with your determination that the theory is incomplete.  In fact, why would the cooperation be necessary in the first place if there wasn't competition that drives the need for better performance?

It's also absurd to think there have been entire civilizations where there was no competition to be found.

There are times when competition is advantageous and others when cooperation is, and sometimes they are both desirable at the same time for different groups.  I think the world is a bit too complex to fit in your stated simplistic reductionist theories.

I've been hearing the peak oil drum banging for a long time now and the truth is that there exists plenty of oil on the planet.  Advancing technologies continue to allow us to make what is left go further, grant harvesting of reserves previously uneconomical to tap and is opening doors for future alternate fuel sources.  As reserves dwindle in the future the pressure to explore and implement alternative energy solutions will increase since "necessity is the mother of invention".

"Infinite growth" is theoretically possible without any increase in resource usage as increasing efficiencies are continuously developed.

Interesting to think about the future and what role DACs may play in it though.

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
Theres this old darwinian theory that says that evolution is determined by competition.
This theory is incomplete.
Evolution has always be also determined by cooperation.


You are correct. Slavery used to be 'essential' to the economy. Getting women drunk and raping them used to be called chivalry. Humans are naturally animals, but we've proved that we can do better. And we achieve the most when we act together; isn't that the very essence of civilization?

I don't think capitalism will ever go away. Human nature includes greed, some do not have a strong moral compass, and there will always be weaker people to exploit in some way. But with a culture of cooperation, we can create higher expectations for human behavior. And maybe cooperation becomes a new norm.

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Theres this old darwinian theory that says that evolution is determined by competition.
This theory is incomplete.
Evolution has always be also determined by cooperation.
This idea that we humans are in escence competitive is wrong .
Classical economists used to think that individuals following individual interests  and acting competitive would lead to the satisfaction of the whole society.  These theory is wrong.
In humans history there have been a lot of cultures and civilizations that have existed without competition , cultures that have existed in a sustainable way.
I think competition is not something inherent to human nature that cant be changed.
Collaboration on global scale would need a radical change of paradigms, first all those liberal economic theories based on a reductionistic approach should be proscribed as obsolete.
We need to recognize ourselfs not as separate individuals but as part of a bigger community , not only the nearest communities living around you but the whole planet.
We all act in a shared biosphere and exist in an interdependant relationship with nature. All our actions leaves an ecological footstep that  affect the wellbeing and  lives of others human  and species in the world.

I think the posibilities of technologies as crypto stuff and block chain is that it allows new ways of social collaboration and cooperation that would lead to the construction of a new society with a new economic paradigm based on cooperation.
Capitalists markets are gonna be obsolete.


oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:

For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing


tipon, You can't stop people from being competitive or motivated by self interest and you seem to think this is the root problem that leads to "infinite growth" which is your definition of capitalism.  I don't think the definition makes much sense.  Bytemaster said to define capitalism by the actions that lead to it, so you say the action that leads to it is competition.  Well, competition can't be avoided, people are not inherently altruistic otherwise you might just give away all your money.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 04:10:19 am by tipon »

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:

For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing


tipon, You can't stop people from being competitive or motivated by self interest and you seem to think this is the root problem that leads to "infinite growth" which is your definition of capitalism.  I don't think the definition makes much sense.  Bytemaster said to define capitalism by the actions that lead to it, so you say the action that leads to it is competition.  Well, competition can't be avoided, people are not inherently altruistic otherwise you might just give away all your money.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Capitalism (at least the free market variety) is about competition to arrange the available resources into the most valuable possible configuration without the use of violent coercion.  It doesn't make much sense without scarcity, so I find the suggestion that it's incompatible with limited natural resources rather puzzling.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.

Why Coca-Cola?

 :)
Coca-Cola is in my top 10 inventions of all time also. Not #1, as this place must be taken by air-conditioning…
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean - I will take a fishing pole; as books I will take F Nietzsche and… for music I do not know (yet)

Nietzsche should take care of any urge you might have to sustain yourself in this particular situation. So you won't need the fishing pole.
" After all, we needn't disregard a statement merely because it expresses something false" Nietzsche
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Mrrr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.

Why Coca-Cola?

 :)
Coca-Cola is in my top 10 inventions of all time also. Not #1, as this place must be taken by air-conditioning…
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean - I will take a fishing pole; as books I will take F Nietzsche and… for music I do not know (yet)

Nietzsche should take care of any urge you might have to sustain yourself in this particular situation. So you won't need the fishing pole.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
On a side note BM is already working toward post fossil world (per OP) already...

*Fossils (from Classical Latin fossilis, literally "obtained by digging/mining[1]")
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.

Why Coca-Cola?

 :)
Coca-Cola is in my top 10 inventions of all time also. Not #1, as this place must be taken by air-conditioning…
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean - I will take a fishing pole; as books I will take F Nietzsche and… for music I do not know (yet)
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?

That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.

I suspect a DAC may be able to help fund these things...

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/
See he can only fund them :)
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
I just did, please read my previous posts.




Energy use is related with specific organizations that adopt societies.
Which kind of social organization would allow a sustainable use of energy?
Capitalism tend to centralism, concentration of power, gigantism, and the creation of megalopolies that are not sustainable.

In which way can block chain technologies made it possible to create new types of social organizations?



You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?

That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.

I am sorry, but your definition of Capitalism is interfering with the ability to reason.   You are defining it by 'effects' instead of what it actually is...   You then judge the effects as wrong.   

Please describe capitalism by the actions that create it rather than by the effects.

Offline Mrrr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.

Why Coca-Cola?

 :)

My reasoning was that if I would take a bottle of water I'd perish the same but just one day later. If I'd take a bottle of beer I'd want another one and feel sour, and then perish. While with Coca-Cola I could just sit back and enjoy (or at least that's what it says on the can).

P.S. now that I think of it a bottle of Strychnine would also be a good option, or a bottle with a genie inside.

Offline bytemaster

Energy use is related with specific organizations that adopt societies.
Which kind of social organization would allow a sustainable use of energy?
Capitalism tend to centralism, concentration of power, gigantism, and the creation of megalopolies that are not sustainable.

In which way can block chain technologies made it possible to create new types of social organizations?



You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?

That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.

I am sorry, but your definition of Capitalism is interfering with the ability to reason.   You are defining it by 'effects' instead of what it actually is...   You then judge the effects as wrong.   

Please describe capitalism by the actions that create it rather than by the effects.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Energy use is related with specific organizations that adopt societies.
Which kind of social organization would allow a sustainable use of energy?
Capitalism tend to centralism, concentration of power, gigantism, and the creation of megalopolies that are not sustainable.

In which way can block chain technologies make it possible to create new types of social organizations that can be sustainable?



You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?

That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 02:20:33 am by tipon »

Offline bytemaster

You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?

That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.

I suspect a DAC may be able to help fund these things...

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?

That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself.

The good news is that DPOS with consume far less resources than POW. 

I think the key is that as we learn we move onto greater sources of energy.  Since everything is really just trying to turn into iron anyways, is it really wrong if we speed the process up a bit?


***edit***  Of course there's a very decent chance that eventually everything will turn into iron, or perhaps the atoms in the universe will finally stop vibrating.  Damn you capitalism... Damn you to hell.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 02:15:35 am by puppies »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?

That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Of course not.  Your very definition prevents it.

Quote
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing

I think you guys need to understand that is not possible to make a capitalist ecological sustainable system.
Capitalism is inherently insustainable.

You need always more oil.
Can can we change this using block chain technologies?

The first thing you need to answer is , what does it mean being sustainable?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
The basic problem the OP is addressing (in my opinion) has to do with the over-exploitation of resources. We need an economic system that succeeds while making more efficient use of resources. Ultimately, it needs to be sustainable where our present system is not. I hope that Bitshares, which does not rely on energy-intensive mining techniques and which strips out the wasteful middleman in a corporate structure, can be a leaner, greener (and at the same time, more equitable) way to run businesses using the blockchain.

Of course. Why would anyone assume that we don't want that?

But the reason resources are drained is because of corporations, not capitalism. And the kind of corporations we have are a result of the law calling them persons and giving them special privileges which don't exist in nature, which has nothing to do with capitalism.

This is why I promote the idea of social enterprise, social corporations, because you can put in your charter that the mission and reason for that social corporation to profit is to make and promote the most efficient use of resources. Every ideal you have can be combined with the profit motive to create an self sustaining capitalist machine.

But to get rid of all the tools of capitalism just because some bad people use it? That is a weak argument. Why not get rid of hammers because bad people use them?

I would just seek to get rid of the state and all of its special protections.  Whether I believe them to be just or not.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
I think you guys need to understand that is not possible to make a capitalist ecological sustainable system.
Capitalism is inherently insustainable.

You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?

The first thing you need to answer is , what does it mean being sustainable?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 01:59:30 am by tipon »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.

Why Coca-Cola?

 :)
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 01:51:58 am by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
The basic problem the OP is addressing (in my opinion) has to do with the over-exploitation of resources. We need an economic system that succeeds while making more efficient use of resources. Ultimately, it needs to be sustainable where our present system is not. I hope that Bitshares, which does not rely on energy-intensive mining techniques and which strips out the wasteful middleman in a corporate structure, can be a leaner, greener (and at the same time, more equitable) way to run businesses using the blockchain.

Of course. Why would anyone assume that we don't want that?

But the reason resources are drained is because of corporations, not capitalism. And the kind of corporations we have are a result of the law calling them persons and giving them special privileges which don't exist in nature, which has nothing to do with capitalism.

This is why I promote the idea of social enterprise, social corporations, because you can put in your charter that the mission and reason for that social corporation to profit is to make and promote the most efficient use of resources. Every ideal you have can be combined with the profit motive to create an self sustaining capitalist machine.

But to get rid of all the tools of capitalism just because some bad people use it? That is a weak argument. Why not get rid of hammers because bad people use them?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
You cannot compare a hammer with other technologies.
In the same way as you , i think hammers are neutral technologies.
And you think money isn't because you were taught some political brainwashing from the 1800s? It's not about money, it's about liberty. It's also about creating value and trading it.

You could consider this barter using stocks and that would be more accurate. As long as value is created somewhere in the chain then it's worth it to trade that value. We create value just by existing and contributing to the knowledge pool. Most of the value generated by people on the Internet is unaccounted for, and most people in the world are having their utility wasted because society doesn't know how to account for it.

To say we should not grow value is to exclude billions of people from being able to go online and contribute their time and effort. Bitshares can be used to shape certain things like a mold and because of that it's politically neutral like a hammer which hammers certain things. To be more precise Bitshares is just a sort of digital derivatives / information market. It does not care about the isms of the user.

But take in consideration other types of technologies.
The necessity of growth of the system impulsed the development of a certain type of technology with specific characteristics.
Legacy technologies are a problem but growth isn't the root cause of the disaster. The root cause was that they put it on a treadmill and then sped it up so people would have to run faster and faster to keep up with previous generations. This made people consume more, work longer hours. Credit was then given to make people consume even more and work loner than ever to pay off debts.

None of that has anything to do with capitalism, these are just instruments or tools developed by bankers. These are monetary policies. Capitalism can be redesigned from the ground up in different communities who want to attempt it but to say growth is the problem is a bit bizarre.

When new people are born these people have demands, wants, so to give them what they want there has to be growth. This kind of growth is very nature. But the kind of growth based on credit, longer working hours, and all these other tricks to keep people wanting more, that is part of the problem.

This necessity of growth doesnt only implies the necessity of incrementing productivity but also the necessity of incrementing the mechanisms of social control.
The development of techniques and technologies in capitalism is result of a political process of social forces.
Some techniques or policies may not be good ideas. Inflation is not popular around here because we know that inflation does have the disastrous social effects you are talking about.

The problem is mainstream economists and policy makers think deflation is evil, that inflation is desirable, that mindless consumption is the highest social goal.
Much of the characteristics that tecnology had adopted is not result from a technology that have evolved autonomously independent from a social context.
Some technological tools emerge from stigmergic processes. We will see a lot of that in this space.
Is result of a technology concieved to be used as political weapon.
Technologies are not neutral because it changes the world, it affects individuals. Its not possible to separate a capitalist technology from the use we made of it.
This makes no sense. Technology doesn't force you to use it. It doesn't tell you how to use it. Think like a hacker and you'll find that you can use any technology in ways the developers never intended for it to be used. This applies to anything really.

Capital ideology is incorporated and hidden in technologies.
Give me some examples of this because this is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory.
If capitalist ideology can be embedded then can't you embed your ideology as well and then the technology which wins out is the one which had the better ideology embedded in it?

Why not let the technologies compete and then use the scientific method to evaluate for success or failure? I see no reason to form any emotional or ideological connection to a technology. A capitalist or communist hammer is still just a hammer. In my hands any technology will be used in my way even if I have to jailbreak it.

Now, most of the characteristics that have adopted technologies of information is result of a technology conceived to be used as a mechanism of social control.
Where are you getting this from? Social control by who and what? Are you talking about Apple? Microsoft? Closed source technology is about control.

You cannot think in "growth" as something independant to the natural world.
You cannot have growth for ever, thats the problem .
Tell me why you cannot have growth in intelligence for millions of years? Is there a physical limit to computation? I would say perhaps there is one, but it's unlikely we'd ever exhaust that kind of growth.

So while intelligence isn't infinite, it can accumulate forever. And how would it be bad if we had growth there?




https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Agent86, Economic growth is connected to environmental impact and natural resources consumed.
The problem is that economist dont notice these because all economic theory is wrong.

Growth in our capitalist system is based on fossil energies, particularly oil.
Using oil in agriculture ( as productive insume , for making fertilizers and pesticides)  made it possible to increment radically the production of food available in the planet.
That lead to a radical growth in population.
Oil is not infinite.  And very soon we humanity are arriving to the peak oil.
That would mean a collapse in the agriculture system in the whole world.




We need to construct alternatives to the actual system that is not sustainable in ecologic and energetic terms . The question is , how can we use block chain technologies for this??


I have the intuition that it has to be with creating an architecture that would limit competition and pay for collaboration.
BEcause competition is the escense of the insustainability of the system.






tipon, You seem to be thinking of growth in terms of environmental impact, natural resources consumed etc.

Do you think if people were cooperating in a "non capitalist" way that there won't be growth?  Would there still be population growth?

Maybe what you mean by capitalism causing growth is how others have mentioned that inflation can cause people to spend more recklessly because their money will be worth less tomorrow than it is today so you basically have to spend it now and this might be wasteful.

I think a lot of growth in terms of natural resources consumed is caused by population growth; perhaps this would happen regardless of capitalism.  A lot of other species grow exponentially until they max out their resources, habitat, food sources etc. and then stabilize
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 01:40:54 am by tipon »

Offline Mrrr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Capitalism is a cancer that is destroying the planet.
Thats because its based on infinite growth.
Growth means increasing productivity and increasing the use of natural resources and energies, it also increment the impacts of these processes in nature . These are in contradiction with the limited existence of natural resurces and the physical limits in our planet.
Capitalism is based on growth and thats why it cannot be sustainable ( in an ecological way).
Unsustainability means that its inevitable the collapse of capitalism. Or at least the structure of the actual world and the actual capitalist system is gonna change into something radically differente ( im not sure if calling this capitalism).
Our economic theory (liberal economics) decoupled energy and natural resources from the function of the economy and this mean all the economic theory and mechanisms are wrong and obsolete and we need to create a new economic system and theory.

I see theres a lot of people with interesting ideas trying to innovate with block chains technologies and crypto stuff.
But they are trying to integrate these technologies into the actual capitalist system.
I think the real potential is the opposite: Using these technologies for creating new kind of infrastructures that would allow communities and society to create a new  economic system parallel to capitalism that cannot be integrated to capitalism.
Using these technologies for building alternatives to capitalist system,  for example to create a new sustainable world.


what do you think?

Capitalism is not responsible for turning out planet to shits. It happens again and again that an idea, in essence pure, is grabbed and corrupted. Human greed is the cause of the great smog of china, the extermination of the tuna and the decimation of the rainforest. Not capitalism.

Free enterprise, as just mentioned by our resident Prophet, would imply a capitalist society in which greed is no longer the driving force, and a society in which no man can subject another man by the use of force.

If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.

Martin Luther took the 15 centuries of corrupted Christianity, looked at it, distilled the original and pure idea, and nailed it to the church doors in Wittenberg. The ensuing Iconoclasm made that the cathedral in my home town is now painted white on the inside. With the only detail being a cross on the wall. 

This hasn't happened in the Islamic world. Even though I believe Islam to be, in essence, the foremost tolerant and liberal way of life yet it was hijacked and corrupted in the same fashion. A very dear friend of mine is a devout Muslem and struggles with the fact that the birth grounds of the Prophet Muhammad in Mekka were recently razed to make place for luxury hotels. I told him that the Muslem world needs an Iconoclasm as well. I told him we should raze Mekka as a whole and we should burn the Burj Khalifa to ashes. In the ruins we could then once again find Truth.

It also hasn't happened in capitalist society. Here we sit behind our laptops designing a new world order but whenever I venture outside I see nothing but theft, pain and abuse.

Satoshi nailed his 95 theses on to the church doors of Wall street. Its up to us to smash the idols of capitalism and denounce the false gods. So that we may return to the pure idea.

I realize I took a strange path of reasoning here, and that my analogies are far from perfect. I must also say that I'm not a religious person, but these ideas where formed in deeply religious societies, and I pretty much have to stick by that in order to get my point through. I hope the above makes any sense at all, and I beg you pardon if it doesn't.








Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
I'm trying to stick with you man.  You feel as if technology has been used by the minority to control the masses for the good of the minority, and the detriment of the masses?  I kinda agree, although I think things like the internet and TOR, and the rise of high grade consumer level encryption are exceptions to the rule.  I agree that the bad is there too though.  The NSA and the facebooks and google and the like.  All systems of control, although they serve different masters. 

Thats what attracted me to bitshares in the first place.  We have the ability with this technology to make those assholes irrelevant.  We don't need to fight them.  We can ignore them, and the antiquated world views they promote.   

You cannot compare a hammer with other technologies.
In the same way as you , i think hammers are neutral technologies.
But take in consideration other types of technologies.
The necessity of growth of the system impulsed the development of a certain type of technology with specific characteristics.
This necessity of growth doesnt only implies the necessity of incrementing productivity but also the necessity of incrementing the mechanisms of social control.
The development of techniques and technologies in capitalism
Quote
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
is result of a political process of social forces impulsed by big capitals.
Quote
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
Much of the characteristics that tecnology had adopted is not result from a technology that have evolved autonomously independent from a social context and withouth influence of economic powers.
Is result of a technology concieved to be used as political weapon.
Technologies are not neutral because it changes the world, it affects individuals. Its not possible to separate a capitalist
Quote
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
technology from the use we made of it. Capital
Quote
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
ideology is incorporated and hidden in technologies.
Now, most of the characteristics that have adopted technologies of information is result of a technology conceived to be used as a mechanism of social control.


You cannot think in "growth" as something independant to the natural world.
You cannot have growth for ever, thats the problem .

I would like that our world was infinite and we can have infinite growth, but its not possible.






Are you telling me that is possible to have a capitalist system withouth growth?


I think you are making a big big big mistake interpreting technologies as political neutral.

Technologies are NOT neutral !!!! Neutrality of technologies is part of the ideology of capitalism.

Technology is neutral but you aren't. The hammer doesn't care about any ism. The Internet itself doesn't care what information flows through it, people care. The Internet resulted in economic growth and as a result we are able to communicate right now.

I never said you can have capitalism without growth. I'm saying growth in itself isn't bad. Any social problem you wish to solve requires growth. If you want a better world that also requires growth. You cannot build renewable energy technology, explore space, or do anything without growth.

So growth is important. But it's a matter of whether what is growing at this time is important? Growth in the right areas is what should be encouraged and this is a social decision. If you're advocating an anti-growth stance even if it's positive growth then we are in disagreement. If you're arguing that the current system promotes growth which is counter productive to the future survival of humanity, which is unsustainable, then I will agree and say redirect the growth and make it sustainable.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
The basic problem the OP is addressing (in my opinion) has to do with the over-exploitation of resources. We need an economic system that succeeds while making more efficient use of resources. Ultimately, it needs to be sustainable where our present system is not. I hope that Bitshares, which does not rely on energy-intensive mining techniques and which strips out the wasteful middleman in a corporate structure, can be a leaner, greener (and at the same time, more equitable) way to run businesses using the blockchain.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
tipon, You seem to be thinking of growth in terms of environmental impact, natural resources consumed etc.

Do you think if people were cooperating in a "non capitalist" way that there won't be growth?  Would there still be population growth?

Maybe what you mean by capitalism causing growth is how others have mentioned that inflation can cause people to spend more recklessly because their money will be worth less tomorrow than it is today so you basically have to spend it now and this might be wasteful.

I think a lot of growth in terms of natural resources consumed is caused by population growth; perhaps this would happen regardless of capitalism.  A lot of other species grow exponentially until they max out their resources, habitat, food sources etc. and then stabilize

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
You cannot compare a hammer with other technologies.
In the same way as you , i think hammers are neutral technologies.
But take in consideration other types of technologies.
The necessity of growth of the system impulsed the development of a certain type of technology with specific characteristics.
This necessity of growth doesnt only implies the necessity of incrementing productivity but also the necessity of incrementing the mechanisms of social control.
The development of techniques and technologies in capitalism is result of a political process of social forces impulsed by big capitals.
Much of the characteristics that tecnology had adopted is not result from a technology that have evolved autonomously independent from a social context and withouth influence of economic powers.
Is result of a technology concieved to be used as political weapon.
Technologies are not neutral because it changes the world, it affects individuals. Its not possible to separate a capitalist technology from the use we made of it. Capital ideology is incorporated and hidden in technologies.
Now, most of the characteristics that have adopted technologies of information is result of a technology conceived to be used as a mechanism of social control.


You cannot think in "growth" as something independant to the natural world.
You cannot have growth for ever, thats the problem .

I would like that our world was infinite and we can have infinite growth, but its not possible.

There is no such limit to growth:

Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies

Are you speaking of growth as in an increase in the number next to a ledger balance, or an increase in the use of natural resources. 


This is the most important question asked so far. What kind of growth?

The use of natural resources? Bitshares doesn't have to use any non-renewable resources to grow because it's just information. You need electricity of course, and you need enough resources to transmit data along the electromagnetic spectrum, but this is far more efficient than the way we do businesses today.

We could make the argument that Proof of Work is Proof of Waste but Bitshares does not use Proof of Work.

Exactly.  I'm 100% for growing value.  I think everybody is once they realize that value is subjective.  I'm also for growing productivity (although not at the expense of value)

The fact that I can have this conversation with people half way around the world at such little cost to myself is a testament to the value I derive from the massive increase in productivity.  100 years ago this level of productivity was impossible. 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
You cannot compare a hammer with other technologies.
In the same way as you , i think hammers are neutral technologies.
But take in consideration other types of technologies.
The necessity of growth of the system impulsed the development of a certain type of technology with specific characteristics.
This necessity of growth doesnt only implies the necessity of incrementing productivity but also the necessity of incrementing the mechanisms of social control.
The development of techniques and technologies in capitalism is result of a political process of social forces impulsed by big capitals.
Much of the characteristics that tecnology had adopted is not result from a technology that have evolved autonomously independent from a social context and withouth influence of economic powers.
Is result of a technology concieved to be used as political weapon of economic powers.
Technologies are not neutral because they changes the world, they affect individuals. Its not possible to separate a capitalist technology from the use we made of it. Capital ideology is incorporated and hidden in technologies.
In every information architecture theres always hidden a power structure.
Now, most of the characteristics that have adopted technologies of information is result of a technology conceived to be used as a mechanism of social control.


You cannot think in "growth" as something independant to the natural world.
You cannot have growth for ever, thats the problem .

I would like that our world was infinite and we can have infinite growth, but its not possible.






Are you telling me that is possible to have a capitalist system withouth growth?


I think you are making a big big big mistake interpreting technologies as political neutral.

Technologies are NOT neutral !!!! Neutrality of technologies is part of the ideology of capitalism.

Technology is neutral but you aren't. The hammer doesn't care about any ism. The Internet itself doesn't care what information flows through it, people care. The Internet resulted in economic growth and as a result we are able to communicate right now.

I never said you can have capitalism without growth. I'm saying growth in itself isn't bad. Any social problem you wish to solve requires growth. If you want a better world that also requires growth. You cannot build renewable energy technology, explore space, or do anything without growth.

So growth is important. But it's a matter of whether what is growing at this time is important? Growth in the right areas is what should be encouraged and this is a social decision. If you're advocating an anti-growth stance even if it's positive growth then we are in disagreement. If you're arguing that the current system promotes growth which is counter productive to the future survival of humanity, which is unsustainable, then I will agree and say redirect the growth and make it sustainable.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 01:20:09 am by tipon »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit

Are you speaking of growth as in an increase in the number next to a ledger balance, or an increase in the use of natural resources. 


This is the most important question asked so far. What kind of growth?

The use of natural resources? Bitshares doesn't have to use any non-renewable resources to grow because it's just information. You need electricity of course, and you need enough resources to transmit data along the electromagnetic spectrum, but this is far more efficient than the way we do businesses today.

We could make the argument that Proof of Work is Proof of Waste but Bitshares does not use Proof of Work.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Are you telling me that is possible to have a capitalist system withouth growth?


I think you are making a big big big mistake interpreting technologies as political neutral.

Technologies are NOT neutral !!!! Neutrality of technologies is part of the ideology of capitalism.

Technology is neutral but you aren't. The hammer doesn't care about any ism. The Internet itself doesn't care what information flows through it, people care. The Internet resulted in economic growth and as a result we are able to communicate right now.

I never said you can have capitalism without growth. I'm saying growth in itself isn't bad. Any social problem you wish to solve requires growth. If you want a better world that also requires growth. You cannot build renewable energy technology, explore space, or do anything without growth.

So growth is important. But it's a matter of whether what is growing at this time is important? Growth in the right areas is what should be encouraged and this is a social decision. If you're advocating an anti-growth stance even if it's positive growth then we are in disagreement. If you're arguing that the current system promotes growth which is counter productive to the future survival of humanity, which is unsustainable, then I will agree and say redirect the growth and make it sustainable.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 12:45:01 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
As I've said on this forum in the past, inflation contributes to the thug mentality.

I define the thug mentality as the same sort of mentality you're talking about where people have to compete to survive, where resources are artificially made scarce to force people to compete using the most ruthless means they can, why does this happen?

People say inflation is a good thing because it causes people to spend money. But using inflation to cause people to spend money means people are going to be on a constant treadmill which requires them to earn money as fast (or faster) than they spend it. It makes it so people can only think about short term profits, it provides an incentive for people (corporations) to act psychopathic.

It's not capitalism which is the problem, it's the form of it that we have. And the reason we have this form of capitalism is because it was forced on us all without the option of letting us choose. People don't choose to be born rich or poor, nor do they choose to be desperate, but when people are both poor and desperate they do anything necessary to resolve their conditions.

Rich people who have property/wealth will do anything necessary to protect it. This is why rich people tend to want strong property rights to protect themselves from the have nots who want to either use the government to tax and redistribute the wealth to themselves, or who want to burglarize them.

The problem isn't the "ism", and it's not the people, it's the culture and the system which shapes the behavior. If you have capitalism but only social corporations are allowed to exist then all of the problems you mentioned wouldn't be problems with capitalism.

So my advice to you is to look at Bitshares as a politically neutral technology (just a tool like a hammer). Next look at how that politically neutral technology can help you solve a social problem. Focus on social enterprises, social capitalism, social entrepreneurship, because the Bitshares community is working hard to help empower people who want to use the tools of capitalism to solve the social ills of the world.

In fact, that is why I'm interested in Bitshares. I want to see a better world, and just going with the program set for us by the system is a path to failure for anyone who wants a better world. The system we have now isn't designed for producing a better world and the ism you use is irrelevant. If we used socialism then the socialism under this culture, using this system we have now, would be just as broken.

The reason I make that strong claim is because I think the source of all of these sorts of problems is that most people still are stuck in the industrial age with their thinking, their culture, their systems, institutions, schools, and until they move into the information age there isn't going to be positive change. Decentralized autonomous cooperatives will force the outdated thinking to adapt to the technological innovation and over time thinking will change just as it has with the Internet.

I'm right there with you buddy.  I might put a little more blame on centralized planning. I think it causes moral hazard which tends to cause people to devalue their fellow man.  Well stated post.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing


Your definition is still too close to Marks for me!
 I like growth: - what do you want 90% of the population still needed to produce the food (for much smaller population BTW); 256K ram and 1.25 KHz processors? (‘Why we will ever need more than 256K ram’ as once Bill Gates famously said…
I like competition - what do you want BM seeing the defects of Bitcoin and not trying to improve on it?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 12:37:16 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Shouldn't we all be constantly attempting to grow our true wealth? (that is our subjective value of the things that meet our wants needs and desires)  Do you think this type of growth is wrong?

This is one thing that the Bitshares community seems to understand better than other communities with similar ideals. In order to do good in the world you have to actually generate new wealth. Value has to be created before it can be distributed.

So when people propose we just print unlimited amounts of money this just dilutes and then redistributes. It's the problem with Proof of Work.

Proof of Work once centralized begins to look exactly like what we see with Quantitative Easing. People close to the production of new money are the ones who benefit. Where is that new people going? The dollar gets diluted so that value can be transferred from group A to group B in a sneak manner. Instead of taxing everyone and giving money directly to these people (they couldn't do that due to Occupy protesting), they instead print money and give it to where? Banks?

I see this similar to mining where eventually a point is reached where the average person cannot mine anymore and the few who can still mine eventually act like vampires. The shares held by everyone get diluted as new coins are generated. The people close to the production of new money ultimately get it for a very low cost while everyone else has to buy it from them, earn it, or if they are trying to save money then it's diluted but given to the miners because of changes in the distribution.

If mining were truly decentralized we could tolerate it because it would make the Bitcoin protocol more secure. Mining is not decentralized anymore. This is the primary reason why when discussing airdrops I only want to see airdrops between Proof of Stake coins. Coins which are mined like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, I might like and use these coins but there are a lot of miners who don't have to promote the coin, build anything, buy the coins, work for the coins, or make good trades, they just leave their machine on and pay the electric bill.

So they get way more coins than everyone else. If you do an airdrop with normal proportions you would reward centralization. So this is why I would say if you do airdrops to do it on Proof of Stake coins, and if you must airdrop Proof of Work then find some way to do it so that the people who hold the least proportions get the most rewards (if you can even figure out the proportions people hold).

« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 12:37:43 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Are you telling me that is possible to have a capitalist system withouth growth?


I think you are making a big big big mistake interpreting technologies as political neutral.

Technologies are NOT neutral !!!! Neutrality of technologies is part of the ideology of capitalism.




As I've said on this forum in the past, inflation contributes to the thug mentality.

I define the thug mentality as the same sort of mentality you're talking about where people have to compete to survive, where resources are artificially made scarce to force people to compete using the most ruthless means they can, why does this happen?

People say inflation is a good thing because it causes people to spend money. But using inflation to cause people to spend money means people are going to be on a constant treadmill which requires them to earn money as fast (or faster) than they spend it. It makes it so people can only think about short term profits, it provides an incentive for people (corporations) to act psychopathic.

It's not capitalism which is the problem, it's the form of it that we have. And the reason we have this form of capitalism is because it was forced on us all without the option of letting us choose. People don't choose to be born rich or poor, nor do they choose to be desperate, but when people are both poor and desperate they do anything necessary to resolve their conditions.

Rich people who have property/wealth will do anything necessary to protect it. This is why rich people tend to want strong property rights to protect themselves from the have nots who want to either use the government to tax and redistribute the wealth to themselves, or who want to burglarize them.

The problem isn't the "ism", and it's not the people, it's the culture and the system which shapes the behavior. If you have capitalism but only social corporations are allowed to exist then all of the problems you mentioned wouldn't be problems with capitalism.

So my advice to you is to look at Bitshares as a politically neutral technology (just a tool like a hammer). Next look at how that politically neutral technology can help you solve a social problem. Focus on social enterprises, social capitalism, social entrepreneurship, because the Bitshares community is working hard to help empower people who want to use the tools of capitalism to solve the social ills of the world.

In fact, that is why I'm interested in Bitshares. I want to see a better world, and just going with the program set for us by the system is a path to failure for anyone who wants a better world. The system we have now isn't designed for producing a better world and the ism you use is irrelevant. If we used socialism then the socialism under this culture, using this system we have now, would be just as broken.

The reason I make that strong claim is because I think the source of all of these sorts of problems is that most people still are stuck in the industrial age with their thinking, their culture, their systems, institutions, schools, and until they move into the information age there isn't going to be positive change. Decentralized autonomous cooperatives will force the outdated thinking to adapt to the technological innovation and over time thinking will change just as it has with the Internet.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
As I've said on this forum in the past, inflation contributes to the thug mentality.

I define the thug mentality as the same sort of mentality you're talking about where people have to compete to survive, where resources are artificially made scarce to force people to compete using the most ruthless means they can, why does this happen?

People say inflation is a good thing because it causes people to spend money. But using inflation to cause people to spend money means people are going to be on a constant treadmill which requires them to earn money as fast (or faster) than they spend it. It makes it so people can only think about short term profits, it provides an incentive for people (corporations) to act psychopathic.

It's not capitalism which is the problem, it's the form of it that we have. And the reason we have this form of capitalism is because it was forced on us all without the option of letting us choose. People don't choose to be born rich or poor, nor do they choose to be desperate, but when people are both poor and desperate they do anything necessary to resolve their conditions.

Rich people who have property/wealth will do anything necessary to protect it. This is why rich people tend to want strong property rights to protect themselves from the have nots who want to either use the government to tax and redistribute the wealth to themselves, or who want to burglarize them.

The problem isn't the "ism", and it's not the people, it's the culture and the system which shapes the behavior. If you have capitalism but only social corporations are allowed to exist then all of the problems you mentioned wouldn't be problems with capitalism.

So my advice to you is to look at Bitshares as a politically neutral technology (just a tool like a hammer). Next look at how that politically neutral technology can help you solve a social problem. Focus on social enterprises, social capitalism, social entrepreneurship, because the Bitshares community is working hard to help empower people who want to use the tools of capitalism to solve the social ills of the world.

In fact, that is why I'm interested in Bitshares. I want to see a better world, and just going with the program set for us by the system is a path to failure for anyone who wants a better world. The system we have now isn't designed for producing a better world and the ism you use is irrelevant. If we used socialism then the socialism under this culture, using this system we have now, would be just as broken.

The reason I make that strong claim is because I think the source of all of these sorts of problems is that most people still are stuck in the industrial age with their thinking, their culture, their systems, institutions, schools, and until they move into the information age there isn't going to be positive change. Decentralized autonomous cooperatives will force the outdated thinking to adapt to the technological innovation and over time thinking will change just as it has with the Internet.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 12:23:40 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Yes, instead of a capitalist market based on competition what about a post-capitalist market based on cooperation created using blockchain technologies?

As I said before the actual Economic theory decoupled itself from nature ( thermodynamic processes) .
Since second world war there have been a constant growth of productivity in the world.
This growth implied also a growth of use of energetic and natural resources.
An economy that doesnt grow is an economy on crisis.
Capitalism is the only system in all our history that needs to growth for continuing existing.





oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:

For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing


Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?



I'm all for cooperation.  as long as its the voluntary kind.  I think the idea that capitalism requires constant growth stems from two errors.  First is an inflationary monetary policy, and second is a confusion about what money is.  I would point you to Bastiat's what is money.  It was written in 1849 but still holds true to this day.  Ultimately value is subjective and the issue with capitalism is that it can lead to the erroneous belief that dollars are a measure of value, or that all value can be measured in dollars.  In other words some believe that everything is for sale.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you man. 

I would point further back in time than WWII for a dramatic increase in productivity.  Maybe to the industrial revolution.  Or crop rotation, or even the domestication of animals.  I for one, am very happy to not be enduring the back breaking toil, on the brink of death that has characterized life for the majority of humans that have ever lived. 

When it comes to the use of natural resources, I believe that the biggest problems stem from the lack of protection of private property rights.  Not the opposite.  (not that I am suggesting a mandatory central authority to protect private property rights)

Are you speaking of growth as in an increase in the number next to a ledger balance, or an increase in the use of natural resources. 

Shouldn't we all be constantly attempting to grow our true wealth? (that is our subjective value of the things that meet our wants needs and desires)  Do you think this type of growth is wrong?

Have you ever heard of "I pencil"?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Yes, instead of a capitalist market based on competition what about a post-capitalist market based on cooperation created using blockchain technologies?

As I said before the actual Economic theory decoupled itself from nature ( thermodynamic processes) .
Since second world war there have been a constant growth of productivity in the world.
This growth implied also a growth of use of energetic and natural resources.
An economy that doesnt grow is an economy on crisis.
Capitalism is the only system in all our history that needs to growth for continuing existing.





oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:

For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing


Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?



I'm all for cooperation.  as long as its the voluntary kind.  I think the idea that capitalism requires constant growth stems from two errors.  First is an inflationary monetary policy, and second is a confusion about what money is.  I would point you to Bastiat's what is money.  It was written in 1849 but still holds true to this day.  Ultimately value is subjective and the issue with capitalism is that it can lead to the erroneous belief that dollars are a measure of value, or that all value can be measured in dollars.  In other words some believe that everything is for sale.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 11:52:10 pm by tipon »

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:

For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing


Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?



I'm all for cooperation.  as long as its the voluntary kind.  I think the idea that capitalism requires constant growth stems from two errors.  First is an inflationary monetary policy, and second is a confusion about what money is.  I would point you to Bastiat's what is money.  It was written in 1849 but still holds true to this day.  Ultimately value is subjective and the issue with capitalism is that it can lead to the erroneous belief that dollars are a measure of value, or that all value can be measured in dollars.  In other words some believe that everything is for sale.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

Free enterprise may be a better option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
Tipon, do you really think you're going to get anywhere around here denouncing capitalism? Have you not noticed that capitalism is a popular word on these forums?

Here's my suggestion: come up with some other word for the evil system you're describing. The word "capitalism" has too many meanings. To you, it means greedy unsustainable growth and development, but to a lot of people around here it means something much less sinister: something like "the concept that people should be able to own things freely without someone else violently taking them away."

I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to help you get your point across better. I hate seeing people shooting themselves in the foot through poor choice of words.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

When I feel a debate about capitalism coming, I always try to ask "whats your definition of capitalism?"  I often get "The system by which the rich oppress the poor in perpetual wage slavery"  or some variation.  To which I invariably reply "yeah man, I'm against that too"  I then try to steer the conversation in a more important direction like, When is it okay to use violence against your fellow man?  If i recall correctly Marx coined the term capitalism.  I say let them have their word if its that important to them.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:

For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing


Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?




Tipon, do you really think you're going to get anywhere around here denouncing capitalism? Have you not noticed that capitalism is a popular word on these forums?

Here's my suggestion: come up with some other word for the evil system you're describing. The word "capitalism" has too many meanings. To you, it means greedy unsustainable growth and development, but to a lot of people around here it means something much less sinister: something like "the concept that people should be able to own things freely without someone else violently taking them away."

I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to help you get your point across better. I hate seeing people shooting themselves in the foot through poor choice of words.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 11:29:48 pm by tipon »

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Tipon, do you really think you're going to get anywhere around here denouncing capitalism? Have you not noticed that capitalism is a popular word on these forums?

Here's my suggestion: come up with some other word for the evil system you're describing. The word "capitalism" has too many meanings. To you, it means greedy unsustainable growth and development, but to a lot of people around here it means something much less sinister: something like "the concept that people should be able to own things freely without someone else violently taking them away."

I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to help you get your point across better. I hate seeing people shooting themselves in the foot through poor choice of words.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
why? the speed of use of natural resources in capitalism goes much faster than the speed of regeneration of the earth.
These speed is always increasing.
The planet is not infinite.
Thats a destructive process.
Theres a contradiction between the need of infinite growth with the physical limits of the planet.

Now, how can we use blockchain technologies for fixing these?






Capitalism is a cancer that is destroying the planet.
Thats because its based on infinite growth.



Not big fan of Marks in this regard...
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 11:12:13 pm by tipon »

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Capitalism is a cancer that is destroying the planet.
Thats because its based on infinite growth.



Not big fan of Marks in this regard...
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 11:01:04 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tipon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Capitalism is a cancer that is destroying the planet.
Thats because its based on infinite growth.
Growth means increasing productivity and increasing the use of natural resources and energies, it also increment the impacts of these processes in nature . These are in contradiction with the limited existence of natural resurces and the physical limits in our planet.
Capitalism is based on growth and thats why it cannot be sustainable ( in an ecological way).
Unsustainability means that its inevitable the collapse of capitalism. Or at least the structure of the actual world and the actual capitalist system is gonna change into something radically differente ( im not sure if calling this capitalism).
Our economic theory (liberal economics) decoupled energy and natural resources from the function of the economy and this mean all the economic theory and mechanisms are wrong and obsolete and we need to create a new economic system and theory.

I see theres a lot of people with interesting ideas trying to innovate with block chains technologies and crypto stuff.
But they are trying to integrate these technologies into the actual capitalist system.
I think the real potential is the opposite: Using these technologies for creating new kind of infrastructures that would allow communities and society to create a new  economic system parallel to capitalism that cannot be integrated to capitalism.
Using these technologies for building alternatives to capitalist system,  for example to create a new sustainable world.


what do you think?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 10:50:35 pm by tipon »