Patri Friedman proposes that just as flora and fauna evolve, so too do human societies.
Just as we evolved from sea to land, he postulates that societies will start to expand out and evolve on the oceans.
What do you think?
Author Archives: stuartcuw
The Maker Movement, 3D Printing, and the Decentralization of the Means of Production
By Stuart C.
In our culture we often think about “technology” and how it will make our lives easier, more fun, or even longer. But rarely do we think about how it will shift and change our cultural structure itself. This post is going to be about how technology, if allowed to advance and permeate through society unhindered, will change societal organization. Whether that is a good or a bad change is up to you.
The maker movement has always been a hotbed of innovation, stemming largely from the necessity of individuals to both create meaning in their lives and to provide for themselves in the most economical way possible. While huge corporations with giant R&D budgets and high-tech testing facilities, or powerful governments with their secretive government contracts, are often credited with inventing amazing new gadgets, they are not the true innovators, but rather rely on artificial monopolies on information granted from patent laws or claims of “top-secret”-ness in the interest of “national security” to be able to innovate faster than individuals in their basements. The meaningful innovation of the maker movement is fueled not by huge budgets, but rather by the same passion and curiosity that drove Orville and Wilbur Wright to Kitty Hawk.
Now the significance of this motivation may seem irrelevant; who cares why someone made your climbing gear so long as it works well, or your new entertainment system as long as it is bigger and better than your neighbors? But this motivation effects much more than just the end product, but also its dissemination into society. If you built a new product because you were passionate about it and didn’t care about making profits on patent-protected goods; you are going to both build a better product, and you are going to want as many people to have access to it, regardless of profit. You also are not going to develop things that offer little to no societal good, such as nuclear weapons or computers that need to be replaced every year. This passion shows through in some larger companies, such as Patagonia, but it is most visible in the maker community where members freely share their plans and processes openly, often taking time to provide detailed tutorials to strangers with no expectation of monetary reward. Rather they are intrinsically motivated by knowing that their knowledge is serving to help other people in the world.
The maker community has long been sharing knowledge within itself, but it is with the advent of cheap communications technology, namely the internet, that the dissemination of useful information has become incredibly prolific. This dissemination of information made many successful small businesses possible, and yet did little to change the structure of manufacturing. But that is soon going to change.
Check out the following video on 3D printing:
3D printing is the next step in this expansion of knowledge and possibility, and the keystone for the next paradigm of social structure. Coupled with the internet, 3D printing has the potential to make every home a production plant; effectively decentralizing the means of production, and really putting it into the hands of the people (something Karl Marx dreamt of, although likely in not such a form as 3D printing). As home 3D printing technology advances, driven by the passion and the economic constraints of the maker community, environmentally-friendly and economical solutions to everyday problems will be created and built upon by other, passionately involved individuals. Consequentially these individually motivated solutions will act to improve the community as a whole.
By empowering individuals to produce their own goods, while accessing the entirety of human knowledge and capabilities (through open source designs and the internet), we will cut down on transportation and transaction costs, disincentivize the pollution of communities through production (as production will happen in the same place as living) and make a better world for ourselves and our children (and their children). Centralized power will crumble and decentralized methods of community organization will replace the current top-down paradigm of organization. Giant stockpiles of capital (which tend to create large negative externalities) will become useless, inefficient, and unable to adapt to a rapidly changing production landscape.
But, it is not all sunshine and rainbows; the empowerment of individuals comes with responsibilities, and risks. Individuals will be given more choices about what they produce and consume. While most may agree that 3D printing an environmentally friendly pair of shoes is a great thing, what about 3D printing of firearms?
Do the positives of personal empowerment and strengthened communities through the decentralization of the means of production outweigh the potential for misuse of this power? What if the current power structure is ineffective at preventing this misuse? What if the current structure is propagating this misuse?
Bitcoin, Cryptography and Trustless Exchange
By Stuart C.
As a disclaimer: I do not use Bitcoin because, as of yet, I do not feel like I understand the financial risks and security flaws enough to mitigate the risks associated with this emerging technology. This post will be more about what change crypto-currencies like Bitcoin (along with cryptography) will bring about in the world, rather than more specific technical specs about the protocols and digital structures behind the blockchain. I will use the term “Bitcoin” as it is the most popular crypto currency, but please note that it may not be the end-all-be-all of digital currencies. If you would like to learn more about the technical side of Bitcoin specifically, Bitcoin.it is a good place to start.
Many wonder what makes Bitcoin so special. How is it different from paying with Paypal, a credit card number or other digital means of exchange? Why do governments want so badly to bring it under regulatory control? What makes it more than just a currency?
To the casual observer, Bitcoin is just another (albeit, currently a more difficult) way to facilitate digital exchange, much like Paypal. But the structure behind it makes it so much more that just a way to trade goods over digital mediums. Bitcoin is not just digital representation of already existing currency, but rather it is a “distributed crypto-currency” in and of itself. Instead of relying on a potentially corruptible centralized authority to issue and insure value of a currency, it relies on decentralized verification system to confirm that users have the value they claim to have, and to reward users for their participation in the verification process. The anonymity of exchange is possible due to powerful and widespread encryption. Encryption that at one point was classified as a cyber weapon by the US government. For more detail about cryptography such as PGP, check out Phil Zimmerman, the Cypherpunks, or just google cryptography. But I digress, a detailed history and explanation of cryptography is not what I am here to provide.
What I am here to discuss is what Bitcoin and cryptography enable: Bitcoin enables trustless two-party exchange, and cryptography keeps that exchange away from prying eyes. This is important because it fundamentally changes the nature of trade.
Traditionally, exchange happens two different ways.
Option 1: Two individuals who have a longstanding relationship, who trust each other to follow through on their promises, make a contract (verbal, written or otherwise), and exchange goods and services. If one person reneges, there are no systemic repercussions or restitution, other than the loss of trust or potential violent retrieval of loses from the other party, and perhaps a loss of reputation in the community. For centuries before organized governments, this was the only option. Transaction and information costs were extremely high, and many people were hesitant to trade with those whom they did not know.
Option 2: Two individuals who have no prior relationship, and perhaps no intention for a further relationship, trade through a trusted 3rd party that insures both parties follow through on the contract. Often this third party is government, but it may also be another independent intermediary (for example, in black markets, it may be a mutual contact that vouches for both parties). In day to day exchanges this becomes somewhat difficult to see, but it happens in every exchange that you make when using government issued currency. The government, through central control of currency, guarantees these exchanges; that your fiat money will be worth something when you want to exchange it in the marketplace for tangible goods or useful services. In the event of a disagreement, judicial systems and courts are used to hash out a solution according to (somewhat) predetermined rules. When compared to option 1, this system drives down both information costs, as you no longer had to do research on who you are trading with to assure yourself that they will provide you what they promise, and transaction costs, by introducing uniform currency as opposed to barter systems that are common in trusted two-party systems.
What Bitcoin does it introduces a new option: exchange that relies on neither trusting the other party, nor a centralized third party. It, like the trusted 3rd party system before it, further decreases transaction costs and information costs. Through transparent exchange verification, digital and contractual escrow capabilities, and other decentralized financial instruments, Bitcoin allows for the positive aspects of a trusted 3rd party, without the drawbacks.
By reducing the need for trusted third parties, trustless two-party exchange decreases the utility of government, and by encrypting this exchange, the ability of government to interfere with the market decreases as well. This is why governments are trying so hard to regulate and control Bitcoin.
But they will not be successful, the key reason being that Bitcoin is decentralized and encrypted. This breaks the government’s monopoly control of capital and allows for previously disenfranchised groups to empower themselves. Governments, with their monopoly on violence, are very good at stamping out organized competitors, otherwise they would not be governments. But, because of encryption, governments will have extreme difficulty in identifying digital signatures of Bitcoin users. And, if they do manage the decryption of any single user (which takes massive amount of time and computing power), they still have no location on which they can focus their regulatory regime, no corporations they can fine, no leaders they can arrest; they have no power to stop the unending tide. As more people choose to use cryptography (PGP is the default option many websites), crypto-currencies, and systems of trustless exchange, the threat to governments will become greater as their ability to counter it diminishes. Eventually peaceful, voluntary and trustless exchange will become the norm, all the while lowering information and transaction costs, and humanity will find new solutions for sustaining prosperity.
Hopefully this post has piqued your interest, if so, here are some videos to watch and sites to explore:
Bitcoin: Bitcoin.it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx9zgZCMqXE (great explanation of Bitcoin, 22 mins), https://darkwallet.unsystem.net/, blockchain.info
Cryptography: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcDVERzMGw (PGP explained simply in 8 mins), http://www.garykessler.net/library/crypto.html (very dense reading)
Keep an eye out for future posts about how this technology can be used not only for currency, but also for voting systems or fact checking.
Anarchy In Somalia.
By Stuart C.
Nobody would be so naïve as to claim that things are “good” in Somalia. But, there is evidence to suggest that things are better without state monopoly on violence. The correlation between an increasing quality of life (life expectancy for example), and an absence of the state, is strong. As anyone who has taken intro to statistics knows, “correlation does not imply causation,” but I will offer some arguments that this absence of state is not only correlated, but also causal in the improving standard of living in Somalia.
To summarize Peter Leeson, in many under-developed states government plays a predatory role, as opposed to a more “benevolent” one in more developed nations. This tips the scale in favor of abolishing government and embracing anarchy (a dirty word, I know..)
“Most depictions of Somalia leading up to the 2006 period grossly exaggerate the extent of Somali violence. In reality, fewer people died from armed conflict in some parts of Somalia than did in neighboring countries that have governments. In these areas security was better than it was under government” –Peter Leeson
http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf
This comparison to the other states in the region, which operated under similar climates and with similar resources to Somalia, is key to proving the causal nature of anarchy in improving quality of life. The Independent institute put it quite plainly after releasing their study on Failed States: “Far from chaos and economic collapse, we found that Somalia is generally doing better than when it had a state… Urban businessmen, international corporations, and rural pastoralists have all functioned in a stateless Somalia, achieving standards of living for the country that are equal or superior to many other African nations.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-17080664
I suggest reading Leeson’s report, it goes into great depth, but if long reports aren’t your thing (lets say you listened to harry potter on tape instead of lugging around a big unwieldy book), you might want to listen to Dr. Ben Powell discuss stateless Somalia; check out this series of videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Zdlv1onlc
Rethinking Prosperity 