Archive | March 2016

(Scarcity vs Abundance) vs Economy

Humans are more impulsive than not… like it or not.

Scarcity:

Though scarcity has an economizing air, such results are not seen. It might seem as though a perception of resources being scarce might cause a tightening of belts; however hoarding is the common occurrence. Humans are predisposed to behaviors that secure sustenance for our inner circles. Hoarding is the natural impulse where resources are perceived to be scarce. As a selection pressure, this also results in aggregation of wealth. The payoff is plenty for ones own, for generations to come.

This thread is woven tightly in our economic systems as the unit currency itself is reliant upon its own rarity for its value. Whether or not the resources that it is a mode of access to is scarce or not the currency is intrinsically scarce with regard to the needs of the collective. This is exacerbated by the natural impulse to hoard. This is probably the engine of disparity.

Abundance:

Humans are also predisposed to take advantage when circumstances permit. In the event that access to resources becomes abundant, it would be perfectly natural for a population increase, for instance. This is also selection pressure with many instances of precedent.

It’s difficult to buy the notion of a society with abundance when our nature is to take advantage of the situation, should it arise. It would stand to reason that without some consideration of the behaviors that are our tendency, the sustainability of abundance is questionable at best. Technology has raised the standard of living in general, however the paradigm has produced disparity and flux for several thousand years in spite. Abundance has always been the promise that we have never delivered due to our own inability to coordinate with not only the systems with which we interact, but also with our own impulses.

Economy:

Our impulses evolved to correspond with the life of a hunter gatherer. We are thus suited to sustaining small groups by employing the skills that our natural diversity endowed us all with. The behavioral axioms that are imperative to this fact are likely the most viable candidates for a foundation for scaling socioeconomics to large states. This is something that we have failed to do as a civilized society and this could mean that we are subject to the less favorable outcome with respect to normalization in the overarching natural systems. The vast majority of the scientific community is showing concern for not only the quality of our future, but also whether or not we have a future. This notion is even imposed upon the Fermi Paradox. Scientists have postulated that the transition from type zero to type one is so difficult that few lifeforms avert extinction and thus intelligent life is rare in the universe. It’s well understood that extinction is by far the norm. Technology is indeed “a double edged sword” as Kurzweil exclaims. We should learn from our lessons when it deflects back at us.

We will progress with technology. Our increased cognitive capacity has been the catalyst and there’s no sign of defeaters. If not taken seriously, consequences are to be our future… as they always have been. The most interesting data point in the analysis is not the actual physical state of our economic systems. It’s the perceptions that drive it. The interesting part of it is, they are not even loosely correlated. Modern economics is quite literally a fantasy.