- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 14:23:33The question might not be: does the world need money? It could instead be: do we need tools to allow the valuing & exchange of stuff?
- This story, from the Guardian recently, got me thinking all over again: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/15/is-ubers-ultimate-goal-the-privatisation-of-city-governance …
- It describes a world where software code, big data, machines and the Internet of Things become far more
prevalentrelevant ways of finding out what people want of their regions, areas and hyperlocals than local politicians could ever hope to be. In the article, its authors conclude that Uber is looking to do far more than subvert taxi-drivers' business models:
- "Uber and other major 'sharing economy' players are not merely gracing us with the innovations they tout. They are playing technological politics to lay the groundwork for new forms of governance.
"While Uber may enjoy positioning itself as apolitical, it is more illuminating to see the company as a harbinger of networked urbanism – where cities are driven by big data analytics and networks controlled in part by machines – which will force us to ask the question: what does it mean to govern?"
- Or, indeed, be a human being ...
- (In truth, I'd thought a few months back that a burgeoning hyperlocal journalism might eventually do exactly the same to local political parties: http://mylocal.wiki/2015/03/27/how-a-campaigning-hyperlocal-could-save-mainstream-media-and-kill-local-politics-in-the-process/:
- "So if people got involved – either in the above ad hoc way or by actively participating around the community hubs that good hyperlocal websites and environments clearly are (dealing effectively and quickly with all the issues that ranged from “dog poo” and licensing applications various (rigged or otherwise) to something as fundamentally serious as the gross mismanagement of local administrations) – what would there be left for local political parties to aggregate their supporters, voters and activists around?")
- Back to informing ourselves via Uber's example, for the purposes now of a quite separate issue:
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 14:25:04Maybe, in much the same way as Uber wants - endgame-wise - to privatise local governance, other tech firms are looking to eliminate banking.
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 14:26:23Eliminate money as the chosen medium of exchange, I mean. If you're not in banking, you can gnaw away at the edges. But it's not the same.
- And when I say it's not the same, I mean that in much the same way as taking over taxi services, while dramatic enough for the taxi-drivers, is obviously small beer for Uber's disruptive intentions, so replacing banks with apps and transnational software of all kinds and trustworthinesses is not really going very far. Much grander would surely be to substitute not the sector but the medium of exchange we call money itself!
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 14:28:09But imagine, if like Uber vs local politics, you could substitute money: offer people a system which out of choice they'd go off & use.
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 14:54:14Let's not call it Uber - let them focus on confusing local politicians - but Under. Not an underbelly but a foundation for new relations.
- My train of thought now begins to get a bit interrupted, and possibly confusing - but I think it bears following, even so ...
- On identifying what money's good at, listing it - and reproducing it ...
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 15:08:23Instead, a way of examining money's +ve functionality; taking that list; & saying how we can organise human relations in money's absence.
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 15:10:29So not substituting money with other money. Substituting with the functionality we've always loved it for. Ethical functionality, mind. :-)
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 15:13:22"Under" (or how to engage with people around you). Two things money does well: 1) value what you do 2) allow you to exchange that value
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 15:16:21What money lets people do badly (like saying people kill people, not guns!): 1) value people unfairly 2) force you to accept unfair value
- A host of examples documented in this post, if interested (and here relating exclusively to social networks!): http://blinkingti.me/2015/01/05/doingstuffforfreefatigue/ …
- The important thing, either way, if we're looking to recreate money's positive functionality, what it's truly constructive and productive at, is to keep ethical considerations upfront.
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 15:18:13"Under" would *have* to include ethical considerations from the start, if it were to create conditions where money's abuses didn't reappear.
- — Mil's Shared Items (@zebrared)Sun, Sep 20 2015 15:19:53I guess you're talking, necessarily, about a community with community mores: discussed, typified & agreed upon (subject to periodic change).
- Money as a community of common interest ...
"Under" (after "Uber", of course ...)
A new way of transacting, valuing and exchanging in human relations
byMils' Life/Work Lab.79 Views