An approach to a more practical economic system would seem to be the more common one. This would include the economic models used in businesses and even homes. Our economic system however doesn’t work with that practical application. The reason appears to be associated with the political implications. Modern politics is often impractical and therefor often a poor choice for such a measurable endeavor as economics. This would seem to be the domain of a more scientific approach.
The topic of economics is usually centered around the works of Adam Smith and the counters of Karl Marx. From a systems perspective however this approach is truncated in a small percentage of the relevant factors. This is a political framework for economics as the political issues are the primary axioms that are influencing the system. This isn’t necessarily an obstacle to practical application of economics however real world, scientific issues often have difficulty becoming political issues due to feedback from well established, economic entities within the system. This is nothing new. As a matter of fact it is a function of this age old crisis cycle.
The very purpose of an economic system is to sustain a system with the practical application of its acquisitions. This is achieved by a disciplined practice of usage of said acquisitions to that end. Problems arise when the accounts are either out of balance or neglectful of certain aspects of the system. For this reason it is important to be mindful of all of the overhead and make it priority.
Sustaining a System
I) Resource Acquisition
We have acquired resources longer than we have recorded our history. This makes it difficult to achieve an accurate account of our economic history. There have been however, encounters with existing hunter, gatherer societies even after the rise of civilization. Since this is the subject that we are interested in, it will suffice.
As hunter, gatherers we would spend our days hunting, collecting naturally occurring food stuffs, stones and firewood, fishing and, eventually trapping. This was a naturalized form of resource acquisition by definition because it was a naturally emergent one. This was a long tested approach that was geared at seeing to the basic needs of small groups of our ancestors. This responsibility was likely distributed among the adult members of the social group. It’s contextually important to remember that this was a collective effort where individuals had specialized skills that served the needs of the collective. All acquisitions were likely divided among the individuals. It was a simple system that employed the specialized skills in an efficient manner. The specialized skill deployment of the individuals was organized however the manner in which the duties were distributed was to some degree autonomous. The individuals were essentially contributing to the system with the best of themselves. This made them essential and therefor important members of the system.
Through the course of several thousand years, we have developed a vast tool set for acquiring necessities. Many of the more traditional methods still persist however the details have been refined, scaled, and even automated. Additional resources had been discovered that resulted in more rigid hand tools and eventually machinery. Minerals and metals were mined, plants and animals were reared, seafood items were caught and reared, stone was quarried and cut, and wood was cut and processed with increasingly sophisticated methods. Naturalized methods were responsible for this innovation of the processes. It was essential to understand the natural properties of the systems that were being taken advantage of in order to reap their benefits.
The emergence of civilization impacted human existence significantly. The increase in resources enabled a population explosion. As innovation and the spoils that it produced accelerated, the population grew accordingly. The effect of this rapid growth has been the increased usage of natural resources. This has persisted in spite of the efficiencies that innovation has brought about.
Accurate depictions of the future have become increasingly difficult due to the acceleration of our advancement. Extrapolation beyond the near term is not humanly probable as the rate of innovation seems to be approaching the rate at which its underlying, collective, creative processes propagate. It can however be approximated into a few decades and vaguely reckoned into several.
The space race has brought about possible solutions for some resources for the future. Asteroid and other worldly mining of elements could help supply our growing population with materials for a myriad of applications. This would of course be more likely with automation as it would be more economically viable and safe. Mining is already being automated here on Earth for the same reasons.
Automation seems to be a growing imperative in resource acquisition and there doesn’t seem to be a defeater to this trend. The economic implications, the growing needs and the accelerated increases in innovation all point to this as a probable outcome for the foreseeable future. As our technology becomes more sophisticated it displaces the humans that were once employed in those endeavors. It would stand to reason that a decrease in human employment in this area would persist throughout.
Another likely aspect of future resource acquisition is a fundamental difference in the resources being acquired. As our technology becomes more sophisticated, the resources that are sought are more fundamental forms. The increased understanding of the natural processes that resources emerge from will likely be mirrored in the technology that we develop and thus allow us to develop the more complex forms on our own. Current trends in this transition would include but not be limited to smelting, chemistry, GMO, material science and even nano-tech. There seems to be no scientific reason why the basic elements could not be the natural resources of the future including for the purpose of food production.
II) Resource Distribution
Distribution in the stone age was likely a fairly simple process. Since there tended to be small groups, large feasts were probably common. Our early ancestors were likely somewhat nomadic and therefor kept their lives simple and portable. This isn’t entirely unlike that of other animals where kills are shared in short order, by means of a pecking order. Differences did exist however concerning technology such as tools and clothing.
There are instances that are possibly contrary to this general rule. Gobekli Tepe for instance, is thought to be in an area that would have been rich in the resources that humans would have been seeking at the time. It being a more sophisticated settlement may indicate a more sophisticated resource distribution system. This is likely because of the added usage of resources in settlements; for instance building materials, and tools and materials for crafting. The settlement would also likely be partitioned creating separate spaces for families. This emergent organization could influence the distribution system as well. There may have even been an expectation that families be somewhat self sustaining. This might not be a great expectation in an area where resources were abundant. This is all of course speculation about a civilization that hasn’t been fully excavated and studied yet but as a thought experiment, it illustrates some of the economic concerns that such a civilization might have. This is important for having a basic, practical understanding of economics.
In modern times, much of the economic influence is from political aspiration. This seems to have happened early on as disparity is essentially as old as civilization. From civilization a class system quickly emerged. This likely occurred as a product of the technologies that brought about civilization. Agrarian technologies and storage not only supported larger settlements but also created cashes that individuals would have been employed to protect. Animals and outside groups of humans would have likely been apt to take advantage of the stored resources if not for their protectors. These individuals would have been extremely important members of society. It would have likely been their job to see to much of the accounting for and distribution of these resources. The holding back of the resources upon the completion of some form of laborious contribution was the emergence of coercion that later became a form of governance. This is likely where the system began to complicate.
Resources in large settlements probably began being rationed as fairness of the distribution would be a likely concern. Conservation would have also been a probable solution to lean periods. Accounting would have been a necessity for such occurrences. This would have been a great deal of responsibility for the individuals that were employed to the task. The settlements existence was essentially entrusted to them. This wasn’t likely a practical model for larger settlements. At some point the work load and responsibility would have to have been distributed as these individuals would have been greatly outnumbered and overwhelmed. A lasting solution would have been distribution of the workload through somewhat self sustaining, specialized centers or, in more common terms markets and shops. There was now a hierarchical system that developed more rapidly than the solutions associated with ecological impact. This fundamentally changed the course of economic advancement. More localized political influence had been established.
Now resources are numerous and complex. They include but are not limited to food, housing, transportation, healthcare, infrastructure, schooling, clothing, insurance, employment, banking and financing. This came about through legislation that addressed the issues through legal processes. This is the domain of politicians as most have their degrees in law. It stands to reason that legislation would be the tool of choice for someone with legal expertise. I’m not going to try to explain it because it is convoluted to the point that it is no longer interesting through a naturalistic or even a systemic lens. Most remarks made would in essence be criticisms and effectively Marxian.
There are current trends in resource distribution that may suggest a significant amount of change in the future. Since it can occur in grass roots movements without lobbying legislation, it may not be intrinsically limited in a meaningful way. Social experiments with more naturalistic approaches are having some success not only in the current marketplace along side the mature, modern models but are also creating new marketplaces with more naturalistic frameworks.
Most are variations of preexisting economic models that are amended to accommodate some of the characteristics of some of the more modern products and services; such as digital media, program code and digital message boards. Aspects of these new models are being adopted across the board resulting in a statistically significant innovation of the general economic paradigm.
The difficulties with the current, growth based models will likely continue to adopt aspects of these new or renewed economic algorithms in a “path of least resistance” capacity. Modern telecommunication technologies and increased numbers of economic analysts are developing not only the public awareness and understanding of the crisis cycle and its causal components, but also possible solutions to the emerging issues. Much of the Capitalist paradigm is likely to be subject to change as modern products, services and markets are demanding it.
I) Definition and Explanation
It’s important to remember that our economic system is a part of a natural ecological system as business models are a part of our economic system. This hierarchical structure can be helpful in building models that are efficient and sustainable. By considering how policy may effect another policy or natural property within a tier or within another tier of the hierarchy, a more viable model may be created. This is possible because the resulting normative behaviors are less likely to produce entropy. This is essentially the process in which novelty is created in nature.
A) Human Understanding of Natural Systems
Our initial economic system was a product of interaction with the natural environment exclusively. As a consequence, it was a very naturalized system. Though we don’t have records from the stone age, we do have encounters with first nations peoples and modern hunter gatherers to draw from. It would stand to reason that the similar problems would result in similar solutions.
Tribal Economics was likely a niche’ that the early, modern humans had settled into in order to sustain their numbers. They employed policies such as efficient resource acquisition practices, maximized usage of resources acquired and nomadic tendencies to allow regional ecologies to recover from being harvested. This was probably central to their social heuristics and likely influenced aspects of the social system including politics, health care and belief systems. Observations and experiences with the natural surroundings was likely internalized in a spiritual context. The supposition that the natural systems were viewed as living systems and higher beings is common among researchers. These spiritual views seem to have persisted into civilization and modern hunter gatherer societies.
Counting, measuring and mathematics appears to have emerged in the stone age. This would have likely enriched the collective understanding with specificity and diversity. This would have opened new pathways to contribution to not only the economic system but also to the understanding of systems in general. As civilization developed, the lack of connection to and direct interaction with the ecology caused a separation of the social heuristic from naturalized behaviors. The artificial environment that was created to house civilized society appears to be the causal mechanism. Interacting primarily within the human built settlements brought about solutions specific to the settlements.
In medieval times human civilizations were voraciously consuming natural resources for sustenance and growth. Waste was common and ecologically viable practices were not a part of the economic paradigm. Spirituality and social growth were centered around the disparity that likely resulted from the division of labor that was implemented in the earlier models.
Natural Philosophy emerged in the 16th century and began reconnecting humans to a more generalized understanding of nature. Science emerged in the 19th century as a methodology for producing more empirical, evidence based information for human understanding. This led to more consideration of natural processes and eventually concerns about our economic behaviors. Though slowly, ecologically viable policies are becoming more prevalent in modern times. Populations have grown to a point that approaches humans being a significant contributor to environmental factors. This has resulted in growing concerns and a modern will for better understanding.
Technological advancement is likely to have a large impact on our understanding of natural systems. Computational systems are allowing us to build larger and more accurate models of systems such as climate, ocean currents, solar systems etc.. This gives us the ability to consider them outside of real time, to observe how systems influence each other and be capable of making more accurate predictions. Observatory technologies such as probes, telescopes and particle accelerators are bound to lead to new discoveries that could solve existing problems, create new ones, birth new theories or even change existing paradigms. Exploratory technologies like rockets, marine vessels and rovers will increase our footprint into space, the oceans and other heavenly bodies. This will likely lead us to interesting new systems, lifeforms and maybe even solutions to difficult problems. Almost all of the changes that have occurred with respect to our understanding of nature since the dawn of civilization has been attributed to emergent technologies in some way. It would be a pretty safe bet that advancement will aid in our understanding in the coming decades.
Existing Forms of Economic Systems
Gift Economics is a term for a reciprocal economic system where the individual contributes to the collective in a specific manner. Since the other individuals are also providing to the collective it isn’t exactly gift based. This definition comes from the specialized interest and aptitude that the individual contributes to the benefit of others. They are effectively giving their natural gifts to the sustenance of the group. This is a natural behavior known as symbiosis.
Gift Economics is the economic system that emerged naturally and is still in use by hunter gatherers. The distribution of labor associated with it can bring about a wide variety of resources and services as the diverse skill sets among the individuals can be employed. This helped our tribal ancestors to survive in an environment that they had little influence over. Again, since there were such small groups; distribution was likely a straight forward division of resources among the individuals. The pliability of Gift Economics wasn’t used as padding for innovation in those times as little was happening. Rather the nomadic behavior may have required a certain degree of adaptability when moving to other ecologies.
Gift Economics didn’t play much of a roll in the development of civilization until recently. Crowdsourcing and crowdfunding emerged toward the end of the 20th century as a solution for modern issues with product development and resource distribution. Due to the extreme cost effectiveness of digital and virtual products, sharing has also become a 21st century form of distribution. The crowd has been nothing less than a disruptive technology that has increased the standard of living across the board. Without the naturalized principles of Gift Economics the internet itself would not have been feasible. This is because it is required that it be a singular, public, space. Many of the new business models are employing aspects of Gift Economics and effectively becoming more naturalized.
It would stand to reason that the current trends would persist into the coming decades. One could expect that crowdsourced technologies would even become the norm. The very physical state of some products and resources for distribution has changed. This has brought about an increase in access that will in itself have an impact on society. Educational resources of all levels including higher education can now be accessed for free. This alone could create a great deal of change as there could emerge a large contribution force that is well educated. This would not be a bad foundation for a high tech society.
Crowdfunding resources could solve a number of issues with the markets in general. The direct connections that are established between the producer and consumer can be an environment of cooperation. Rather than having several institutions in place to facilitate marketing for a closed model, direct negotiation with the consumer could be more efficient and effective. Consumers might have a great deal more influence in production and distribution. This could also help to level the playing field with respect to balance of power as banking and venture capitalism might not be the most prevalent form of funding. The emergence of more agile models is likely with the adaptable, naturalized aspects of Gift Economics.
Barter is a distribution system in which a portion of the goods or resources that the individual has acquired of their own volition and with their own specialized skill set, are traded with other individuals for a portion of the goods or resources that they themselves have acquired. This has always been a practical approach to distribution to some degree. It is thought that there has always been personal possessions that might have been traded between individuals throughout the history of modern humans.
After the birth of civilization, barter was a more prevalent method of distribution. There was a great deal more goods and resources to distribute to a great deal more individuals. It was essentially a distribution of distributors. By then shops were emerging and a new problem likely arose. Individuals didn’t always have items for mutual trade. There were likely several trades involved in trying to acquire one item at times. The unit currency solved this issue in ancient markets. When an item was needed it could just be traded for it’s value in currency.
With the rise of the agrarian society in medieval times, came the political influence of Feudalism. The term “land lord” was coined as land was owned only by nobles. Many families could live on and work the land however, there was an agreement that they would work the land of the land lord. With the rebirth of Democracy and the liberty for individuals to own land, agriculture boomed and slavery became a prevalent aspect. The efforts toward abolition in the 19th century coincided with advancements in mechanical technologies. This evolved more modernly into the Industrial Revolution. Business owners had workers that would then work for a portion of the profit. This was the birth of the working class.
The rise of Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution brought about a generally high standard of living. Almost all of the liberties that were only afforded to nobles in the old world were now the domain of the average individual. This allowed societies to acquire and distribute with even a broader and more skilled contribution force. This was achieved through resources for upward mobility. This resulted in the acceleration of technological advancement that compounded the effects on the standard of living.
Slavery still exists in the form of human trafficing. This is mainly isolated to women in the “sex trade” however a comparable percentage of the population is being enslaved. This is a problem that just keeps resurfacing in one form or another.
More modernly, technological progress has become the new revolution. The advent and distribution of computational systems has also increased the standard of living and has also paved the way for more resources for upward mobility. This has also resulted in a decrease of capitalistic solutions; though one could argue that the more modern solutions were not necessarily capitalistic. It appears that certain products and services just aren’t feasible with capitalistic models for reasons pertaining to their physical form, cost of reproduction, and emerging social paradigms.
I personally don’t think that trade systems are robust enough to endure the path that the Technological Revolution is laying out. So many technologies are being distributed to the individual that could lead to relative self sufficiency that our ideas about economics may change dramatically. For me they already have.
Overhead is the basic costs of operating a system. This term is normally associated with the intrinsic costs of business operation however it will scale for an economic system as well.
A) Systemic Inclusion
Humans have a new perspective on our place in the universe. This is because of our awareness of the underlying and overarching systems that we exist within. Our understanding of these systems has improved in modernity in spite of our control over our immediate surroundings. This has happened due to the advent of the scientific method and the increase in educational resources. With this information we can better coordinate our economic efforts with the systemic hierarchy. Again, this would likely improve economic outcomes as normative behaviors are less likely to produce entropy. This is likely to increase our economic efficiency as a result. This would be a practical approach to another increase in the standard of living.
1) Sustaining a Population
To have a practical understanding of economics, one needs a perspective that is independent of specific economic and social systems. This is important because it reduces resource acquisition and distribution into practical fundamentals. We have adopted economic systems that have probably been insufficient for sustaining the populations that we have produced. There has been intrinsic scarcity due to the need for rarity with respect to unit currency. Considering this, we have been inadvertently creating scarcity in our economic paradigms, to the disadvantage of a portion of our population. Again disparity is essentially as old as civilization and no older. This appears to be a consequence of monetary systems as it is the common denominator in all of the previous systems in which poverty was a factor. This is somewhat subjective however, because one might think of modern tribal societies as impoverished. The obvious difference however is the lack of disparity in such societies.
What is needed is an effective approach to sustaining the whole of the population. This would probably require a multi-disciplinary study and model for any amount of success.
a) Basic Needs
Basics are of course food, shelter, health care, education etc. These are the basic necessities that one requires to be alive, productive and healthy. There is likely more to it though. We also have needs that are unrelated to our physical being. Modern understanding of humanity has changed our models of ourselves and of the human race. The basic needs of a society is pretty straight forward for the most part however; various scientific disciplines, philosophers and theologians might have additions to what we normally consider to be necessities. The structuring of systems for instance, could have a great deal of impact on the success of the models. This could easily be considered necessary.
A naturalized system might be considered a systemic dictatorship in that the system would be designed to thwart the gaming that results in entropy and disparity. Psychology for instance, might be used to design a system that is intrinsically a positive environment for the human psyche as opposed to coercing consumers to buy products that they might not otherwise buy. Positive Psychology is an emerging discipline that might be employed toward that end.
Business models are changing. Adaptation to our current situation is bringing about the basis of fundamental economic change. This happens with the emergence of new technologies and the increased entropy of mature ones. For example, factory farming is beginning to create issues with our health and the environment. One instance is the increased usage of pesticides, herbicides and antibiotics is resulting in increased resistance to them by insects, weeds and microbes. This has been addressed by increased usage of all three. Now traces can be found in our food even after shipping. To some degree, pesticides and herbicides can be aired off after harvesting. We are now approaching what is beyond that degree. The amount of arable land used in farming not only to supply our produce but also to feed the livestock is becoming concerning. It has been suggested that vertical farming might be a solution to this issue. If the airspace were used in the manor that it is used in housing and office space, it might mitigate our footprint in that respect. It might also create a more closed system in which herbicides and pesticides are not necessary. This would of course upset the balance in a monetary based system as companies would lose profits in the process. This is part of the entropy that is intrinsic to the system. All technologies are subject to maturity and replacement. It would stand to reason that facilitating this would enable a more robust system.
To prevent the issues that have arisen in the past with the coercion that has existed since remote antiquity, basic needs being granted unconditionally might be an effective solution. Some of the current trends that will be addressed in “Employment” may also indicate its’ necessity. Slavery could be effectively addressed as well without economic gain playing a role in its’ persistence.
Employment isn’t as straight forward as one might think. Even the CEOs of megacorporations are employed in an economic sense. There is also the issue of “Technological Unemployment” to consider. As automation increases at an accelerated rate, human resources are being displaced. Many of our most talented minds have put this to mind and some of the responses are bleak where as others are essentially Utopian. It seems clear though that the current paradigm may not be sufficient for the coming decades. Modern, automated technologies however also seem to have the potential to displace many of the markets that currently exist. 3D printing for example is making possible the distribution of the manufacturing of a wide variety of goods. Now that DARPA is investing resources into Drexlerian Nano-Tech, nano assembly may be a technology that could eventually be accessible to the common individual as most do. It would be difficult to say where the future will lead however it is not necessarily required to address these issues.
The will to contribute is ubiquitous where individual issues are not present. If the system were designed to enable and empower the individuals abilities as opposed to coercing them into specific tasks that they might not otherwise have interest and aptitude for, the productivity of individuals might be liberated to flourish in novel ways. This could also be a liberating aspect that could increase interest in various educational resources and in effect innovation. Some of the trends that occurred in the previous Revolutions could translate to the current one due to the distribution of technologies to the general public that tends to occur. Facilitating the ability for the individual to contribute with the best of themselves seems to be an effective axiom for naturalization as it mirrors the situation that modern humans emerged within.
For a society to advance, innovation is a must. There has been success in the more open models. This allows for the free sharing of ideas and technologies. Distributed systems seem to have an advantage over centralized systems as resources including human resources are generally more attainable. This has become more feasible in the past few decades as the internet, croudsourcing and croudfunding resources are permissive. There are now so many technologies that are accessible to the general public that serious projects are not out of the average persons reach. Many would agree that innovation requires casting a large net. Distributing that work load just makes good sense. This would seem to be an efficient usage of human resources.
The monetary system has been a hurdle to innovation at times as the displacement of mature technologies has an adverse effect on monetary economic systems. This effect however isn’t actually an effect on the economy per say. The effect is upon the unit of measure and extrapolation. The effect does however influence the economy as the unit of measure is used as a resource credit. This is likely systemic entropy. With modern technologies; there is no reason why accounts could not be created that would monitor the system with a great deal more efficiency. Though it might seem a great deal of expenditure the entropy that would have otherwise accrued is removed from the equation.
Investments are intrinsically risky even in the best of immediate circumstances. This is because circumstances may change and one cannot control that fact. Equity is essentially local resources that are kept available in anticipation of changing circumstances. The definition would be assets that are paid off and / or owned. For practical purposes however, equity would play the role of the proverbial nest egg.
The nomadic nature of our ancestors provided equity in the regional ecosystems that they visited and then allowed to recover. This was distributed equity that afforded options in case of adverse natural circumstances or disasters. This isn’t necessarily scaling in modern economics as short term gains are the common solution for long term growth. This however results in the approaching of fiscal ceilings or the reaching of a growth maximum of the business model. This tends to be addressed with gaming of the systems or anticompetitive behaviors. There is an issue with the economic model concerning the competitive nature of the markets in which one entity choosing to game the system to get an advantage results in other entities making the same choice to compete. At some point competition is no longer that of the Smithian type but more sociopathic. Aggregation of not only wealth but also of markets decreases the overall equity of the economic system. This results in smaller numbers of influential entities that in effect have more influence. This is the engine of “too big to fail”. Consumers could also be considered equity and aggregation of wealth reduces the funding for consumption.
Open models could be much more sustainable in that they are not growth based models. There is no need to maximize profits and since the general resources are essentially shared, the competition is free to revolve around the vision of the product or service. This could also aid in mitigating the adverse effects on the economic system.
Surplus is uncommon in modern economics in general. It does occur however not for long. There are many convoluted excuses for reasons but none with any economic merit. It could be thought of as an indication of efficiency that could be invested back into the natural systems that sustain us.
We exist in a debt based economy as well as it being growth based. It is obviously for the purposes of coercion though the justifications are many. This is for control of individual motivations. This is something that should be considered in modeling an economic system however a more positive approach would not only be the ethical choice but probably the more effective approach. The fact that the system is truncated in judicial policies is the reason that there is a forceful overtone to the environment. It may be true that volition is an attractive force but need it be such a negative one? Using Behavioral Science to create situations that attract productivity as opposed to coercing it would likely produce a stronger example of the desired outcome as the environment itself would be conducive to that outcome. It would also be more likely to result in surplus.
The common manner of attempting to effect change is through political engagement. The rationale is to influence those who have the most influence. This however isn’t an effective method. It being the common method would also suggest that there would be many others with opposing designs. The environment is extremely competitive and essentially hostile to change.
It seems the more effective way to effect economic change would be to create and implement new business models for a more hands on approach. This has many advantages. With a working business model in place, a functioning test case is available for proof of concept. As opposed to having an idea that really couldn’t be effectively promoted through legislation, an actual working concept exists that could be shared and therefor be a base for a grass roots movement. This may seem unlikely however examples exist, such as Kickstarter, Sourceforge and The Linux Foundation.
A hard transition isn’t as necessary as one might think. All of the more open business models are functioning within the current economic system and are probably quite capable of adapting to a naturalized economic system. The method by which it might happen is by the adoption of the models to critical mass. Our history however is full of crises that ended in revolt. This of course resulted in hard transitions with high costs. This method of change would be more likely to prevent such occurrences.
Now that educational resources are more openly accessible, the collective wisdom of various scientific disciplines is available for use in creating new business models. Some of the worlds most prestigious colleges have video lectures with some of the finest professors on the planet. There are many resources where quality information can be found. This is in no way a scarce resource and the trend of increased accessibility seems to persist. This is an extremely important resource for naturalization for obvious reasons.
Sharing of information and technology with other projects seems to be essential. This aids in the overall health of the economic system. It may prevent many of the anticompetitive behaviors that lead to aggregation and the many issues that result. It pools general resources thus distributing strengths. It may have originated in the scientific community and then was adopted by open models via higher education. It also may have been behaviors of natural systems being implemented in modern models. The result in either case has been partial naturalization of systems.
Though I am a fan of the principles of Open Access as institutions such as The Venus Project have advocated, designing a system first, and them implementing it is not naturalistic or practical. Natural systems are complex, self organizing systems, thus the naturalized manner of designing a system would be distributed, self organization. This would seem to be the more effective and efficient manor of implementation as it would come more naturally to the populous. The bonding behavior would be key in this approach as the resulting solidarity would help promote its persistence. This isn’t unlike socially unifying phenomena such as patriotism however each individual has their own method of contributing to certain aspects of the greater model with specific ideas. The distribution of the work load is a fundamental and essential principle. Many of the social issues with economic systems might be mitigated with the understanding that all of the individuals within the system could be essential to its optimizing functions. The class system itself seems to be rooted in the lack of understanding of natural systems. Though it is natural to invest ones interests in strong, charismatic leadership, the related, human designed systemic implements are artificial by definition and have historically produced disparity. For a truly naturalized economic system that is robust with respect to changing circumstances the approach would likely be one that is open ended. The future is indeed open.