3 ms·

Currency dependent on power sources?

tomjen3 16y ago
Shouldn't matter - you would be dead within two weeks of a total global loss of power. We simply couldn't produce enough food.
- ars 16y ago
  Two weeks? You are making the common "predict the future" mistake of assuming people will not try to do anything, and will just sit around. In actuality if there was a global loss of power people will figure out many many things to help.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Maybe, but without electricity, how are you going to transport, prepare and store food?
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      Propane. Propane powered vehicles, propane fueled fire, propane refrigeration. ...and there is this (A Solar Ammonia Absorption Icemaker): http://homepower.com/article/?file=HP53_pg20_Vanek http://homepower.com/article/?file=HP53_pg20_Vanek Now all you need is a way to power your currency.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Speak for yourself, fella.
- ajdecon 16y ago
  Who said global? A localized loss of power or connectivity for a substantial time period is not necessarily catastrophic. But there still has to be some exchange of goods and services both within this locality and between it and the outside world. Without some accepted medium of value exchange between an electronically disconnected region and the outside world, it becomes much more difficult to establish or restore connectivity. So the purely cashless system is actually much less robust with respect to physical failures.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Maybe not catastrophic, but personally I can't stay where I live (in the city) with more than about 48hours without power, as I can't safely store food and I can't really get new food (unless the loss of power is only at my place). Anything less than that, you use batteries.
    - ajdecon 16y ago
      I'm guessing you eat a lot of meat and/or fresh produce? There are plenty of foods out there which keep for longer than 48 hours: canned foods, crackers and other dry goods, and so on. They might not be as tasty, but keeping a decent food supply doesn't really require constant refrigeration. The point about cities I'll give you to some extent: a city with very high population density is generally dependent on a much larger total rural area which supplies them in exchange for economic support. If the loss of power also kills all transportation, you're doomed. But our current transport infrastructure generally includes autonomous non-electric options even where public transport is primarily electrical (trains etc). You can pay someone to bring you food from outside the city without needing a network connection. Really this reinforces my point above about currency though: absent an uncompensated intervention (ie government), a city which loses its power and connectivity must have some medium of exchange to pay for its food supply to be transported in, and to get itself back on its feet. Some non-electronic medium (ie cash) is essential in these cases.

Shouldn't matter - you would be dead within two weeks of a total global loss of power. We simply couldn't produce enough food.

ars 16y ago
Two weeks? You are making the common "predict the future" mistake of assuming people will not try to do anything, and will just sit around. In actuality if there was a global loss of power people will figure out many many things to help.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Maybe, but without electricity, how are you going to transport, prepare and store food?
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    Propane. Propane powered vehicles, propane fueled fire, propane refrigeration. ...and there is this (A Solar Ammonia Absorption Icemaker): http://homepower.com/article/?file=HP53_pg20_Vanek http://homepower.com/article/?file=HP53_pg20_Vanek Now all you need is a way to power your currency.
chopsueyar 16y ago
Speak for yourself, fella.
ajdecon 16y ago
Who said global? A localized loss of power or connectivity for a substantial time period is not necessarily catastrophic. But there still has to be some exchange of goods and services both within this locality and between it and the outside world. Without some accepted medium of value exchange between an electronically disconnected region and the outside world, it becomes much more difficult to establish or restore connectivity. So the purely cashless system is actually much less robust with respect to physical failures.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Maybe not catastrophic, but personally I can't stay where I live (in the city) with more than about 48hours without power, as I can't safely store food and I can't really get new food (unless the loss of power is only at my place). Anything less than that, you use batteries.
  - ajdecon 16y ago
    I'm guessing you eat a lot of meat and/or fresh produce? There are plenty of foods out there which keep for longer than 48 hours: canned foods, crackers and other dry goods, and so on. They might not be as tasty, but keeping a decent food supply doesn't really require constant refrigeration. The point about cities I'll give you to some extent: a city with very high population density is generally dependent on a much larger total rural area which supplies them in exchange for economic support. If the loss of power also kills all transportation, you're doomed. But our current transport infrastructure generally includes autonomous non-electric options even where public transport is primarily electrical (trains etc). You can pay someone to bring you food from outside the city without needing a network connection. Really this reinforces my point above about currency though: absent an uncompensated intervention (ie government), a city which loses its power and connectivity must have some medium of exchange to pay for its food supply to be transported in, and to get itself back on its feet. Some non-electronic medium (ie cash) is essential in these cases.