2 ms·
Representing something abstract like value with physical objects like shells, gold, paper, or bits is absolutely a technology. It has caught on to the point whe
by FredPret 3y ago
Representing something abstract like value with physical objects like shells, gold, paper, or bits is absolutely a technology. It has caught on to the point where it's completely assumed, like internet connectivity, but it's not a "social construct" like whatever's in fashion this year. It's part of our technological infrastructure; it's not something that's going to evaporate next year.
None of this means OP has grounds to argue for economic totalitarianism.
- haynow 3y ago[dead]
- quantified 3y agoSocial construct has zero to do with current fashion. Marriage is a social construct and it's pretty solidly entrenched.
- FredPret 3y agoMarriage, language, laws, trade; these are things people do. Money is a technology people use. It has a literal physical presence that was invented and improved over time from rocks to bits. I will concede that it's the wide acceptance of money that gives it it's value. But the same is true for the wifi protocol and a billion other things that are also not a social construct. Either way doesn't matter as far as OP's original argument.
- quantified 3y agoSo here is the interesting part. The physical aspect of money is really just a static representation: a coin or bill, a few coordinated bits. Producing those involves technology, moving them around also. How do you distinguish trade that involves money from the money itself? What is it about money that is a technology? The fact that people give it a certain status is inherently social. It has no utility except in transfer from one person to another, giving it to your pet fish is meaningless to the fish and burning it for fuel utilizes it quite differently.