P2P Foundation

Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices


Admin


Featured Book

The Neighborhood in the Internet


Open Calls


Mailing List

Subscribe

Translate

  • Recent Comments:

    • Tom Crowl: This is great stuff! It might be assumed that I “LOVE” money in politics… (since I’m advocating more people...

    • Tom Crowl: Let me confront an obvious question (to me anyway)… since I’m zealously advocating the political micro-contribution as...

    • Jaap: You are spot on. Hierarchies are outdated and do not work any more. The Dilbert (model for modern knowledge worker) and his boss show that...

    • David de Ugarte: Thanks a lot Michel!! It is an honor to be quoted here!

    • Matthew Slater: I congratulate #Occupy for distilling such a coherent statement from such a cacophony of opinions. However as one of the citizens...

How to achieve sustainable monetary systems?

photo of Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens
27th January 2011


Excerpted from a longer and illustrated article by Paul Hartzog:

“In “Options for Managing a Systemic Bank Crisis”, Bernard Lietaer continues his interest in sustainable monetary systems. This time around he make a tie to complex systems and makes an important contrast between “efficiency” and “resilience”.

Lietaer and I have been on the same page at least as far back as Douglas Rushkoff and I started discussingopen source currency

In this case, though, his language is a little weak, and so I’d like to recast it in complex systems terms here. First, “efficiency” is a useless term because it is always a ratio with an all-too-often unmentioned denominator, i.e. efficiency of what with respect to what? In other words, what are you saving? Time? Money? Hassle? Second, “resilience” suffers the same problem: resilience with respect to what? Systems that exhibit “robustness” or “highly optimized tolerance” are robust only to certain kinds of perturbations, and, by definition, not to others. For example some kinds of networks (ecologies, communications, etc.) are robust in the face of random failures, while others are robust in the face of targeted attacks. The topologies of these networks can, and do, differ greatly.

What I think Lietaer is trying to say is useful, however, and at its essence is this:

A finely tuned system exhibits efficiencies because 1) all of its parts are tightly coupled, and 2) it is tightly coupled with its environment.

By contrast, an adaptable, robust system is loosely coupled to itself and to its environment. While it is certainly the case that this adaptability carries a cost in terms of some efficiencies, it makes up for this by gaining other efficiencies. For example, when a cave fish evolves to work exceptionally well in that environment, it cannot function in other environments. Conversely, a chimpanzee can function in a wide variety of environments, but not as well in a dark cave as the cave fish. Adaptation is always potentially mal-adaptation. In addition, adaptation of any kind assumes that the environment remains remains relatively static and predictable. This leads us to an important maxim:

When the environment is static, the advantages tightly coupled adaptation outweigh the advantages of loosely coupled flexibility, but when the environment is variable and unpredictable, the advantages of loose coupling and flexibility outweigh the advantages of highly efficient tightly-coupled adaptations.

This is, of course, particularly true in the global economy.”

Share

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>