crypto & blockchain technologies for a post fossil/capitalist sustainable world

[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.   

[tipon]

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.

[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/

[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.

[tonyk]

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.

[puppies]

Of course not.  Your very definition prevents it.

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?

[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.

[tipon]

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?

[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?

 

[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?

[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?

[tipon]

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

[Mrrr]

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.

[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

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.

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

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

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.

[donkeypong]

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.