5 ms·

Like ants? All for the colony. We would already be on Mars if we behaved like ants but what kind of life is that.

fellellor 5y ago
Not ants, rather societies that can agree on long term, as opposed to short term, economic goals and modify them easily when needed. Most individual humans aren’t able to do this. A society able to achieve it would be truly remarkable. Despotic systems like communism on the other hand only reflect the goals of a chosen few. So by human limitation these goals can never adequately represent the complexity of the governed. Such societies will inevitably degenerate and fall behind. While pure market oriented societies can fall into “activity traps” from which it might be hard for them to climb out of.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >Not ants, rather societies that can agree on long term, as opposed to short term, economic goals and modify them easily when needed. Most individual humans aren’t able to do this. A society able to achieve it would be truly remarkable. The fact that it is considered remarkable is absurd. From the perspective of a money system that rewards short term thinking it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that short term thinking is natural. You can also build a money system that rewards long term thinking and then short term thinking becomes remarkable. You can call it an activity trap if you want. What I think is remarkable that there is this idea of "the" free market. There is no such thing. As soon as you mandate any monetary system its properties will permeate throughout the entire market. Consider Say's law. It assumes people do not keep money over the long term and always spend everything they earn. In other words, general gluts and the recessions they cause, are impossible. He simply assumed the properties of money away and treated money equivalent to barter. This alone is enough to blame money. One could now construct a huge barter exchange and solve all money related problems by getting rid of it. Alternatively one could merely do away with the ability to keep money over the long term and force everyone to spend everything they earn. Another extreme proposal but it would work. People will argue, hey but there are lots of debtors promising to pay later so holding onto money will help them do investments. So banks do fulfill an important role and they do offer a reason why people shouldn't spend their money or rather, why they should be allowed to keep it. But then people forget that it is the debtors who are the ones providing the ability to accumulate money. People want savings to drive investments when in reality it is investments that should drive savings. The former position creates the illusion that raising interest rates will drive more investments. It also gives an excuse to always demand at least 0% interest on their unspent money. The latter position shatters that illusion. Rather than letting interest rates be determined by fantasies, the providers of that interest rate have to exist. It means that 0% interest isn't a magic number but rather a distortion of the free market and that is why I have no sympathy for those who cry about inflation. The fact that it is possible to hold onto non degrading money in a world that is degrading all the time is absurd. It's why the deflation money story (gold standard or Bitcoin) is so ridiculous. Money goes up in value, therefore you receive your most valuable income when you are young. Possibly enough to retire by 40. The incentives are clear, earn as much money as quickly as possible, no matter the long term damage. Who cares about reality when the value of your money is going up? Yet the outcome is obvious, reality catches up, your money will be worthless. The boom is followed by a bust, ahem, because the value of that money didn't follow the fundamentals it was based on, a degrading world. Short term thinking was built into money itself. If your money system accounts for degradation of the real world, it will reward people to minimize degradation rather than earn money in a way that accelerates degradation and then use money to extract a growing share out of the degrading world. The idea that you can exist independently of the real world if you have money is an "activity trap".
  - fellellor 5y ago
    I’m not a specialist in these issues, first of all. The value of money goes down because of inflation, which is why you are incentivised to earn more when you’re younger, so after accounting for decay, you have enough saved up for your eventual retirement. But a deflationary system like gold, btc etc. are a tad unfair because the early adopters in the founding generation accumulate “a fortune for generations” for say an x amount of work, whereas an individual born in an established crypto or gold system will only accumulate an exponentially low fortune for a similar kind of effort. So this locks in permanent inequality like in the old days. By activity trap I mean things that - prevent science from moving forward - prevent society from expanding its social space for everyone (ie every society has outcasts who don’t have a place in the current system) - invent activities that keep obsolete arrangements relevant etc Given such a broad definition I admit I’m not in a position to say what is an activity trap and what isn’t. It could all just be necessary drudge work to get to a better situation. But right now it “feels” like an activity trap. Your solution, if I understand correctly, is to have some type of money that decays back into the system, if left accumulated and unspent after some time. But there is still nothing here to stop someone from gathering enough quantum of value to force some sort of gate-keeping type situation. People will always be incentivised to save what they earn. Maybe for tomorrow, a bad season or the next 10 generations. It isn’t people who are thinking short term. People in large groups behave in ways that suggest to the observer that short term benefits trump long term goals. While money seems like a good tool for societies to manage social behaviour perhaps we are looking at it wrong when we think it can easily be used to set the kind of long term goals that can easily avoid activity traps. The obsession with money and monetary system, maybe distracting attention from avenues where much greater improvements can be made.
ChainOfFools 5y ago
If we behaved like ants we'd have no more interest in going to Mars than ants do.
- chii 5y ago
  how would you know ants have no interest in spreading their species to mars, if they could've? If humans behaved like ants, but had the current capabilities, we could colonize mars, at huge cost to many's lives. Essentially, they will be sacrifices for the greater "good", whatever that good means in that context.
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Or this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill
raxxorrax 5y ago
Ants are amazing, had a colony as a child for years. Spend hours watching them. But while it often seems they manage the impossible, I think their way of life is pretty restricted and there is little development. So don't expect them on mars anytime soon.

Not ants, rather societies that can agree on long term, as opposed to short term, economic goals and modify them easily when needed. Most individual humans aren’t able to do this. A society able to achieve it would be truly remarkable. Despotic systems like communism on the other hand only reflect the goals of a chosen few. So by human limitation these goals can never adequately represent the complexity of the governed. Such societies will inevitably degenerate and fall behind. While pure market oriented societies can fall into “activity traps” from which it might be hard for them to climb out of.

imtringued 5y ago
>Not ants, rather societies that can agree on long term, as opposed to short term, economic goals and modify them easily when needed. Most individual humans aren’t able to do this. A society able to achieve it would be truly remarkable. The fact that it is considered remarkable is absurd. From the perspective of a money system that rewards short term thinking it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that short term thinking is natural. You can also build a money system that rewards long term thinking and then short term thinking becomes remarkable. You can call it an activity trap if you want. What I think is remarkable that there is this idea of "the" free market. There is no such thing. As soon as you mandate any monetary system its properties will permeate throughout the entire market. Consider Say's law. It assumes people do not keep money over the long term and always spend everything they earn. In other words, general gluts and the recessions they cause, are impossible. He simply assumed the properties of money away and treated money equivalent to barter. This alone is enough to blame money. One could now construct a huge barter exchange and solve all money related problems by getting rid of it. Alternatively one could merely do away with the ability to keep money over the long term and force everyone to spend everything they earn. Another extreme proposal but it would work. People will argue, hey but there are lots of debtors promising to pay later so holding onto money will help them do investments. So banks do fulfill an important role and they do offer a reason why people shouldn't spend their money or rather, why they should be allowed to keep it. But then people forget that it is the debtors who are the ones providing the ability to accumulate money. People want savings to drive investments when in reality it is investments that should drive savings. The former position creates the illusion that raising interest rates will drive more investments. It also gives an excuse to always demand at least 0% interest on their unspent money. The latter position shatters that illusion. Rather than letting interest rates be determined by fantasies, the providers of that interest rate have to exist. It means that 0% interest isn't a magic number but rather a distortion of the free market and that is why I have no sympathy for those who cry about inflation. The fact that it is possible to hold onto non degrading money in a world that is degrading all the time is absurd. It's why the deflation money story (gold standard or Bitcoin) is so ridiculous. Money goes up in value, therefore you receive your most valuable income when you are young. Possibly enough to retire by 40. The incentives are clear, earn as much money as quickly as possible, no matter the long term damage. Who cares about reality when the value of your money is going up? Yet the outcome is obvious, reality catches up, your money will be worthless. The boom is followed by a bust, ahem, because the value of that money didn't follow the fundamentals it was based on, a degrading world. Short term thinking was built into money itself. If your money system accounts for degradation of the real world, it will reward people to minimize degradation rather than earn money in a way that accelerates degradation and then use money to extract a growing share out of the degrading world. The idea that you can exist independently of the real world if you have money is an "activity trap".
- fellellor 5y ago
  I’m not a specialist in these issues, first of all. The value of money goes down because of inflation, which is why you are incentivised to earn more when you’re younger, so after accounting for decay, you have enough saved up for your eventual retirement. But a deflationary system like gold, btc etc. are a tad unfair because the early adopters in the founding generation accumulate “a fortune for generations” for say an x amount of work, whereas an individual born in an established crypto or gold system will only accumulate an exponentially low fortune for a similar kind of effort. So this locks in permanent inequality like in the old days. By activity trap I mean things that - prevent science from moving forward - prevent society from expanding its social space for everyone (ie every society has outcasts who don’t have a place in the current system) - invent activities that keep obsolete arrangements relevant etc Given such a broad definition I admit I’m not in a position to say what is an activity trap and what isn’t. It could all just be necessary drudge work to get to a better situation. But right now it “feels” like an activity trap. Your solution, if I understand correctly, is to have some type of money that decays back into the system, if left accumulated and unspent after some time. But there is still nothing here to stop someone from gathering enough quantum of value to force some sort of gate-keeping type situation. People will always be incentivised to save what they earn. Maybe for tomorrow, a bad season or the next 10 generations. It isn’t people who are thinking short term. People in large groups behave in ways that suggest to the observer that short term benefits trump long term goals. While money seems like a good tool for societies to manage social behaviour perhaps we are looking at it wrong when we think it can easily be used to set the kind of long term goals that can easily avoid activity traps. The obsession with money and monetary system, maybe distracting attention from avenues where much greater improvements can be made.

ChainOfFools 5y ago

If we behaved like ants we'd have no more interest in going to Mars than ants do.

chii 5y ago
how would you know ants have no interest in spreading their species to mars, if they could've? If humans behaved like ants, but had the current capabilities, we could colonize mars, at huge cost to many's lives. Essentially, they will be sacrifices for the greater "good", whatever that good means in that context.

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

Or this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_mill

raxxorrax 5y ago

Ants are amazing, had a colony as a child for years. Spend hours watching them. But while it often seems they manage the impossible, I think their way of life is pretty restricted and there is little development. So don't expect them on mars anytime soon.