Some people are lucky enough to get jobs that give them connections and resources to try out crazy ideas in far off lands with wild sciency stuff that they barely understand.
Calling up EPFL right now with my pitch for why they should let me hang out with top research scientists to flesh out a vague idea that blockchain can fix the refugee crisis.
A blockchain system for land ownership records. Now that might actually work. The problem needs an immutable shared ledger that cannot be easily destroyed or tampered with. Transaction volume is low enough for a blockchain system. There are many countries that lack documented land ownership.
One of the World Bank's blogs suggests this, but not much seems to have been done.[1]
How would that handle shared ownership of some of those lands? Will that entail their owners now paying tax on these lands whose ownership is now “recognized”? (a negative for some of the people involved, because at this moment they pay no tax on it). Will this registering of lands “help” them be put on the market? If yes, how can we prohibit the sale of those lands to people outside of the village/county? I.e. how do we stop alienating lands that have been owned by the community for possibly centuries?
And these are just a couple of hard to answer questions, because land “ownership” (for lack of a better word) is really complex and ancient and not easy to put into “organizational boxes” dreamed up by our technocratic society.
>If yes, how can we prohibit the sale of those lands to people outside of the village/county?
This is only a feature in a couple jurisdictions. Not all countries ban the sale of land. You might guess those jurisdictions won't be interested in recording land sales, since land can't be sold.
Would love to connect. I've been thinking about how we can use blockchain for reporting crime/corruption etc. Feel free to email me, or connect on twitter - same handle.
> … the best-educated generation in African history, digitally connected to the rest of the planet, yet the World Bank estimated that seventy-five per cent of sub-Saharan youths would be unable to find a salaried job in the coming years. “They will be easily knocked flat by mishaps or illnesses,” Ledgard continued, and would be prone to recruitment into insurgencies and terrorist groups. It was no coincidence, he thought, that the jihad was most active in the areas already being ravaged by oil extraction and climate change.
Substitute “American” for “African” and some more palatable-to-Americans word for “jihad” and his could be the USA in a decade.
>What if human greed could be harnessed as a kind of natural resource, and redirected to mitigate its own effects?
It's called capitalism. People like to rail against capitalism for rewarding greed, and capitalism does have faults, but they forget that it is the only system (so far) that acknowledges the presence of greed and actively harnesses it for the benefit and advancement of everyone. Some alternative systems are so foolishly idealist that they try to pretend that greed (and the hierarchical systems constructed from it) doesn't exist. And of course it's easy to build those make-believe systems if nobody is actively exploiting it.
Greed would probably be greatly reduced if people could feel safe without significant amounts of money. In a world where you're one accident/illness/firing away from not being able to afford food, accommodation or medicine or even just a good quality of life, people will want to hoard wealth.
I don’t think so, look around any affluent neighbourhood and you will see plenty of well fed people who can’t stop accumulating. Knowing when to say enough is rare.
Capitalism promotes (unrepentant, unrelenting) greed, then it points at the world and goes "look how greedy people are! it's a rule of nature!".
It's all a ruse, a self fulfilling prophecy. The truth is, simply, people will do as the system rewards. In a society where brute force is glorified, people will be brutes and the world will be cruel. In a society where scholars and scientists and artists are valued and rewarded, there will be more scientific progress and cultural output. The humans themselves are the same as they have been for 100,000 years, its just the culture that changed between cavemen, renaissance Italy, Mongol hordes, and modern day growth capitalism.
In a world where greed and individual selfishness is the one metric that is rewarded, guess how most people will behave. That in a system such as ours most people are still good and altruistic and empathetic speaks volumes to how wrong that thesis is.
The question is, why do people do as the system rewards? Why do they strenuously seek out rewards to be gained in any system, to such an extent that they'll change their apparent nature to do it? That sounds like greed to me. The fact that capitalism sets up the reward structure so that if you're really greedy one of the best ways to succeed is make something people really want, or something that increases efficiency, it's a really useful coincidence.
Also, you say humans have been the same for a 100,000 years, which seems to indicate that there is a human nature, and that society hasn't really changed them. Isn't that the opposite of your earlier point? It certainly supports the capitalist point, if you actually examine how people acted in history. Especially if you look at what happens to systems of government and economics that rely on people being altruistic and not greedy (the Church, communism, monarchy to an extent).
Also, I'd like to point out that in any society, but especially in a humanist, free society where being altruistic is a choice and not something forced upon you, there is always a reward for being altruistic, whether it's internal conscience assuaging, or extrnal favor-gaining. Furthermore, it is completely possible to be greedy in the persuits of gaining money, and then altruistic later: the whole point of getting money is not to have it, but to use it they way you want to use it. That can include charity.
>In a world where greed and individual selfishness is the one metric that is rewarded, guess how most people will behave. That in a system such as ours most people are still good and altruistic and empathetic speaks volumes to how wrong that thesis is.
If the current system is based on rewarding greed, and systems like that make "most people" behave greedily, then why are "most people" behaving altruistically? Either our current system is not one that rewards greed, or you have a contradiction. This contradiction reveals a lot about how you view people and the system.
It's not a contradiction. Our system rewards, promotes, glorifies unremitting greed, yet the average person is still not a profit-maximising fiend, with at least some considerations of morality, altruism, etc. This only contradicts the above thesis that humans are inherently greedy and selfish and capitalism merely mirrors (rather than promotes) this.
Only for a very shitty definition of poverty. This form of exploitation stands in the way of the quality of life growth that should follow industrialization and automation—the “decline” you see is artificially stunted and primarily concentrated in already rich nations.
> presence of greed and actively harnesses it for the benefit and advancement of everyone.
This is not what capitalism does. Much of capitalism today and in US history is that of a destructive force that hurts the entire population without consequence, enriching mostly the already wealthy.
The improvements and conveniences of modern society are unevenly distributed and brought to the masses at great cost to our society.
Unchecked global climate change due to infinite-growth-greed-capitalism has dramatically decreased the quality of expected life for much of the world's poor.
Capitalism absolutely does not, in theory or practice, make its benefits available to everyone.
Today's capitalist system is lifting people out of poverty at a pace we couldn't have imagined 200 years ago.
If you really believe that quality of life for the world's poor has decreased in recent years you are living in a bubble and I urge you to leave it.
You are inter-mixing capitalism with the individual actors and humans that participate in it. Even Socialism relies on "idealistic human behaviour" in its more optimal states.
Capitalism with an egalitarian mindset can work wonders. But it requires humans to be egalitarian - which lets be honest - those with drive and real desire to win are rarely egalitarian.
Yes, this is externalized in capitalism to the developing countries which it plunders (and which well into the 60s, most major capitalist forces used to have directly as colonies)...
Colonialism is theft. If they bought land from the natives that would be moral. Native people have all rights to home it has built, the land it has tilled and the livestock it has raised. Nothing to do with capitalism.
Ancient colonialism had different forms (e.g. settlement).
Modern colonialism (Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, England, France, and to a lesser degree US, Italy, and Germany) was a practice of the emerged capitalist states that started and flourished after the historically agreed upon dawn of capitalism (circa late medieval Italian city states and later the rest of Europe), and fed it.
Lots of things prevent someone from doing that, and certainly there's a very good reason why everyone can't do that. I mean why do you think no one is doing that? It can't just be because it painful or unpleasant, lots of people have terrible hobbies.
Try to actually think about what would be required, what resources they would have had available to them, instead of just putting hunter/gatherer in a magic box. There are a bunch of different reasons why you can't do it these days, poaching laws being one of the most obvious.
Who's land are you going to hunt/gather on? I feel like you haven't actually thought about this.
I'm not sure this is a meaningful question to most anti-capitalists who want to move beyond capitalism to a non-exploitative economic system rather than return to some real or imagined historic system.
Honest question: what is the non-capitalist alternative economic system? European socialism and Chinese communism are still very capitalist. I'm always generally confused by these debates.
Capitalism also re-creates subjects that believe they are isolated from others, deserve what they get, and encourages greed. Human nature is not a one way street.
Personally I have conscious hedonism down for the win, and returning to very little activity eventually having to be structured through overt transactions, but we'll see.
Capitalism is too efficient of a system. It doesn't do enough to keep growth in check. We are on a speeding train that is going faster and faster. Any new system that tries to keep capitalism in check will be villainized by those who benefit from the capitalistic system.
> harnesses it for the benefit and advancement of everyone
but resources are limited, and so this model was created in a vacuum. Resources will become constrained and many will die and suffer, and not just humans.
Personally, I think capitalism is great, but maybe technology is causing to become too efficient, and its not a fault of capitalism itself?
So i guess i ended up agreeing with you, capitalism is pretty good, but we need a system to limit efficiency and tools.
When you refer to capitalism, what exactly do you mean? Markets? (Are regulated markets capitalism?) Bottom-up economic control? Wealth accumulation? Property rights?
