Difference between revisions of "Talk:RBEM/Strategies for integration with the monetary market"
m (Ziggy moved page Talk:Degree of Openness of RBEM Projects to Talk:RBEM/Strategies for integration with the monetary market: Subpages implementation and a more descriptive page name) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | I started this article, but I don't think captions, terms, etc. are chosen perfectly. Please feel free to improve them instead of discussing them. With this discussion, the text becomes longer without any additional value for the reader. | |
| + | Also, it might be appropriate to integrate the content of "Criticism" into the above text - it's like discussing pros and cons of different ways and then doing the same thing once more. However, the content of "Criticism" does not say much about the degrees of openness anyway - it's valuable information, but it discusses mainly the differences between RBE and other (mainly monetary) systems, not much about interactions between the systems. | ||
| − | + | Actually, this last issue might be a general source of misunderstanding: If money (at least in the current form - the example of the musician is a perfect example for an alternative form in an RBE! Yes, I know - that's not "money" - ahhh terms.) will be used for (inter)actions WITHIN an RBE experiment, it does not make sense to call it an RBE experiment. However, money can still be used for other (inter)actions. People join different "projects" (jobs, hobbies, teams, friends, schools, communities, New Year's resolutions, etc.) and execute millions of different actions, but it seems that so many people still think all aspects of one's life must be controlled by a centralised system (religion, ideology, political party, nationality, economic system) - decentralised decisions alone do not make a decentralised system. I am a big fan of distributed systems (neural networks, ecosystems, etc.) at functional levels (e.g. vision in the brain, gathering food ... managing resources, education, ...). I know this might be hard to understand with our traditional thinking. Maybe some examples will help: | |
| + | * Resource Management Project 1: Methods are developed to provide sustainable resources in abundance. Everyone who contributes to this project with a certain amount of minimum resources (materials, time, know-how, etc.) can use the resources that are available in abundance. | ||
| + | * Resource Management Project 2: Resources are traded using money. | ||
| + | * Education Project 1: Montessori School | ||
| + | * Education Project 2: Traditional School | ||
| + | * Food Project 1: Permaculture | ||
| + | * Food Project 2: Agriculture | ||
| − | + | Of course, in a final RBE, many aspects of life (things I called "projects" here), won't be relevant anymore, not because they are not allowed, but because no one wants them (either because people do not see any advantages, or because there is too much resistance - e.g. they would not get enough resources for their projects, because they can neither buy them, nor are they allocated to them). "Good" projects will evolve like everything else in the universe does. | |
| − | + | Everyone should be able to join any projects they like, even competing projects. For a project to be successful, some (sometimes much) effort must be provided by the participants, but if there are alternatives, I would never join a project that tries to control aspects of my life that have nothing to do with the project. Yes, sometimes there are no alternatives: e.g. I have to follow national laws, not because I think the laws are appropriate, but because I don't want to be restricted in my life. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | I'm open for any arguments that might change my mind. But from my experience, anything "forced" or centralised is NOT SUSTAINABLE. I think, the fear that a project does not work, because it might be neglected, is not justified, if people agree about their contributions in advance (and consequences, if they do not follow the agreements). On the other hand, the fear that too few (skilled) people will join a project was confirmed in many cases when I spoke to people (and also in discussions with - sometimes unfortunately anonymous - people on the Wiki and the Facebook page). | |
| − | + | [[User:Andreas|Andreas]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | [[User: | + | |
Latest revision as of 11:15, 26 February 2013
I started this article, but I don't think captions, terms, etc. are chosen perfectly. Please feel free to improve them instead of discussing them. With this discussion, the text becomes longer without any additional value for the reader. Also, it might be appropriate to integrate the content of "Criticism" into the above text - it's like discussing pros and cons of different ways and then doing the same thing once more. However, the content of "Criticism" does not say much about the degrees of openness anyway - it's valuable information, but it discusses mainly the differences between RBE and other (mainly monetary) systems, not much about interactions between the systems.
Actually, this last issue might be a general source of misunderstanding: If money (at least in the current form - the example of the musician is a perfect example for an alternative form in an RBE! Yes, I know - that's not "money" - ahhh terms.) will be used for (inter)actions WITHIN an RBE experiment, it does not make sense to call it an RBE experiment. However, money can still be used for other (inter)actions. People join different "projects" (jobs, hobbies, teams, friends, schools, communities, New Year's resolutions, etc.) and execute millions of different actions, but it seems that so many people still think all aspects of one's life must be controlled by a centralised system (religion, ideology, political party, nationality, economic system) - decentralised decisions alone do not make a decentralised system. I am a big fan of distributed systems (neural networks, ecosystems, etc.) at functional levels (e.g. vision in the brain, gathering food ... managing resources, education, ...). I know this might be hard to understand with our traditional thinking. Maybe some examples will help:
- Resource Management Project 1: Methods are developed to provide sustainable resources in abundance. Everyone who contributes to this project with a certain amount of minimum resources (materials, time, know-how, etc.) can use the resources that are available in abundance.
- Resource Management Project 2: Resources are traded using money.
- Education Project 1: Montessori School
- Education Project 2: Traditional School
- Food Project 1: Permaculture
- Food Project 2: Agriculture
Of course, in a final RBE, many aspects of life (things I called "projects" here), won't be relevant anymore, not because they are not allowed, but because no one wants them (either because people do not see any advantages, or because there is too much resistance - e.g. they would not get enough resources for their projects, because they can neither buy them, nor are they allocated to them). "Good" projects will evolve like everything else in the universe does.
Everyone should be able to join any projects they like, even competing projects. For a project to be successful, some (sometimes much) effort must be provided by the participants, but if there are alternatives, I would never join a project that tries to control aspects of my life that have nothing to do with the project. Yes, sometimes there are no alternatives: e.g. I have to follow national laws, not because I think the laws are appropriate, but because I don't want to be restricted in my life.
I'm open for any arguments that might change my mind. But from my experience, anything "forced" or centralised is NOT SUSTAINABLE. I think, the fear that a project does not work, because it might be neglected, is not justified, if people agree about their contributions in advance (and consequences, if they do not follow the agreements). On the other hand, the fear that too few (skilled) people will join a project was confirmed in many cases when I spoke to people (and also in discussions with - sometimes unfortunately anonymous - people on the Wiki and the Facebook page).
