';

Information

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut rhoncus risus mauris, et commodo lectus hendrerit ac. Nam consectetur velit et erat fermentum aliquet. In laoreet, sem sit amet faucibus pulvinar, purus tellus tincidunt ex.

Recent Posts

Conference at the Paris P2P Festival : “The World We Want”
The Man of Understanding
Don’t you just have yet another utopian dream by imagining a post-monetary society? And doesn’t it trigger all the same dangers of dehumanization as all other utopian and social engineering experiments?

Utopian dreams become dangerous when they don’t pass the test of reality principle, in other words when they don’t cope with the laws of the universe (Truth).

Those utopians who wanted to make objects heavier than air fly had to confront the laws of physics. They passed the test, we know what followed.

A typical dangerous utopia arises when someone wants everyone to live in a specific way, to comply to a unique model. It creates an “industrialization” of one’s idea onto everyone else, hence the “-isms” from the industrial era. When we deny the diversity of a living system, we kill it. The famous French poet Boris Vian wrote so rightly: “What interests me is not the happiness of all men; it’s the happiness of each man“.

I do confront myself to the reality principle when I postulate that we can design post-monetary technologies that acknowledge, organize, measure wealth. Wealth technologies stick to the “physics” of living systems. At the biological level, they already exist in our bodies. Therefore I believe  the utopia of a humanity that has upgraded its language of wealth and its related technologies will brightly pass the test of reality principle. Indeed, doesn’t this same reality shows us how the current monetary system doesn’t respect the laws of physics and life? Who dreams here?

An example illustrates this well. If I offer my child a built toy – a medieval castle for instance – it doesn’t mean the same thing whether I offer him wooden blocks or Legos. In the latter case he.she can infinitely create, re-create, evolve, invent more sophisticated things in an infinite way according to his.her own evolution. He.she remains free and sovereign whereas in the first case we imposed a form which he.she can only have a single experience with. Same with wealth technologies versus money. Wealth technologies offer an infinitely composable language while money imposes a unique form of society, the opposite of life.

Comments
Share
jf