Can humanity even know what the fuck is real?
On tapping the potential of societies to spontaneously self-regulate and reach consensual objectivity
Human societies have many efficient emergent processes for self-healing, self-structuring, expanding quality and quantity. Unfortunately those processes get severely disrupted and censored by external bodies interfering in the most valuable, sensitive, essential aspect of humanity.
That aspect is simply the most universal and spontaneous communication method called money. The system involving the exchange of money for goods, or money for other money is the economy.
When the most crucial and sensitive signals of the economy get distorted by the usage of external force and violence, the entire system dumbs down to a more primitive state, so it could deal with the external aggression and deflect it by being more simple, more robust. This is where people loose their money, status, abilities, freedoms, pleasures, basic needs etc.. When signal-to-noise ratio is so severely disrupted, a society can’t learn how to cope, how to manage, how to survive, how to know what the fuck is real.
Today, most states have surpassed this primitive plan of “utterly looting the economy and moving on to the next loot”. Think about the time of Genghis Khan, when his advisor implored him not to destroy the then weaker Chinese empire, so that they can tax them and when the plan totally worked they actually managed to get more money out of it in the long run.
We could see there, up close and personal, the blueprint of reasoning behind taxation and the violent involvement of the state in the peaceful processes of the market, of the economy. Naturally that also happened in many different places throughout history, and even at earlier times. Fortunately today the looting isn’t so destructive in the short term such as it was before the great Khan realised he could sustainably loot instead of absolutely pillaging and devastating people.
It used to be that societies that had relative freedom to settle their own affairs internally, without use of force, had these previously mentioned emergent processes that took care of many big data obstacles that were incalculable individually or as small groups, but totally manageable when the entire society was employed and crowdsourced into offering a plausible solution, or the best way to tackle the problem. This is where objectivity as a group, indirectly and spontaneously developed. Money plays a direct and essential role in the ability for a society to determine what is real, what’s the best way to act, how to overcome problems.
The more money is being interfered with, the more a society becomes blind to macro objectivity.
If we establish the massive potential of society for crowdsourcing, something that essentially decentralised species are really good at, solving international problems and coming to a mutual understanding would be feasible and expected.
Although that is possible only if we’ve reached a kind of a critical mass of objectivity. Without the sensory information coming in, without money, the universal language of objective value, we are left blind, muddling about incoherently, being unable to concretely determine even the most existentially threatening natural events. If there is signals, we will develop eyes to interpret them. It’s that simple, we can grow around data, and consume it as necessary, but it absolutely has to correspond with reality and other signals. If it doesn’t, if it is constantly diffused, it’s as good as noise.
Unfortunately, with the immense involvement of theoretical businessmen without any practical field knowledge, with the aggressive non-consensual distortion of signals in culture, in the market, in science, in society, as a species, we are left deaf, mute, blind, unable to touch, unable to smell nor taste. Imagine what would happen to the body of a single person and his survival chances, if his neurotransmitters were consistently distorted. Let’s tap into the potential of our species and open the valves to human macro-ingenuity.
EDIT: A friend mentioned that I should cover a wider spectrum, not just “money”, so he proposed using “consensus value” instead of money. Replacing that in the text would make the point reach much further. Thanks Maksimilian Sarajlija for the idea tip.