Response to Brian Davey of Feasta: How Immaterial Abundance can assist a Steady State Economy

Michel Bauwens:

Brian Davey has written a very stimulating text, published here yesterday, which warns of equating the abundance of immaterial culture with the abundance of material production.

This is a very important argument, with which we basically agree. Nevertheless, I also believe that Brian Davey fails to see the importance of immaterial abundance in solving the crisis of material scarcity. Let’s quickly review the points with whom I can easily agree.

Yes, we cannot naively hope for the era of material abundance to continue unabated, without recognizing the real material scarcities that are becoming more serious by the day. A serious contraction from the industrial standard of material production is more than likely.

Yes, internet infrastructure is itself a costly material infrastructure.

Yes, we cannot naively assume that ‘abundant’ renewable energy can fully replace, or even substantially replace, the overflow of fossil fuels we got accustomed to. Renewables are not magical solutions and have both absolute limits and real concrete issues of concentration for human need.

So, in conclusion, I agree that it is very dangerous to conflate ‘immaterial abundance’ with material abundance. And this in fact an argument I have been constantly making in my own lecture. That the present system combines pseudo-abundance, a mistaken faith in the infinite abundance of the material world, believing that infinite growth is compatible with a finite planet; with a belief in the necessity of artificial scarcity in the world of immaterial innovation and culture, making it very difficult for humans to freely share and cooperate. I have argued that what I call the successor civilization, centered around the commons and peer to peer dynamics, which subsume both market and state, will overturn that erroneous operating system, into one which recognizes both the real scarcity of the material world, and the abundance of cultural exchange in a digital context.

My key point would be that a successful transition towards a steady state economy, or even de-growth, actually depends on global cooperation and the available network structure.

A few obvious points.

– The internet is a key tool of human cooperation and fast-paced innovation. Humanity will face many challenges, and while local situations are diverse, there are also substantial commonalities, which means that humans can and should learn from each other. That learning, where any potential innovation is instantly available to the rest of humanity, is what the promise of free culture (a misnomer, in the sense that it means the very broad cooperation of humans around a range of issues). Of course, stated in this particular way, there is an exaggerated optimism. Nevertheless, think of how knowledge would be transmitted without the internet, without print, and without writing even. As we face global challenges, many of which will have an urgency, do we have an alternative? Can we afford not to mobilize transnational collective intelligence? Can we afford that localities remain totally isolated? It is not necessary to worship speed, in order to understand that it does have a certain role to play and that isolation through high transaction, communication, and coordination costs, would not be a good thing in then context of urgent problem solving.

– Global open knowledge, code and design communities follow a different logic than capitalist firms. While capitalist innovation designs for large capital intakes (to weed out competition), for centralized production and international value chains, for consumption through planned obsolescence; open design communities design for distributed manufacturing (not just fablabs, but a general re-orientation of production around appropriate technology using open and distributed manufacturing); without planned obsolescence

– Internet is a tool for peer to peer and non-hierarchical socialization. Brian remarks how different the Berlin Commons Conference was, in its open dialogue and tolerance for diversity of opinion, from the old leftist battle for truth he was accustomed to in his youth. But there is a reason for this, namely that the process of socialization amongst peers, in a context of cultural abundance, trains for this kind of cooperation

– Sharing infrastructures, access to common resources, such as say transportation, only work with ubiquitous knowledge sharing at low coordination costs. For example, bike-sharing systematically failed before the advent of digital media, but are now pretty much routine in many cities. There are huge possibilities for building down the need for material production (for individual property), through sharing infrastructures which depend on the internet infrastructure.

– Isolated local communities are dwarfish forms, which, even if they are ecologically lighter, would face the pressure of transnational corporations and competitive nation-states. This is a guarantee for social strife, i.e. possibly violent confrontation over scarce resources. On the other hand, local production that is coupled with open design communities and global knowledge sharing, can easily outcooperate the coordination capabilities of transnational companies, while transnational phyles, i.e. coordinated value networks that are responsible for their own livelihoods, can offer fraternity and solidarity in an era of declining welfare states. Global ‘digitally-enabled’ cooperation opens the possibilities for new global governance networks that can tackle global challenges, in ways that neither local communities or nation-states can.

So, the conclusion is: immaterial abundance is not opposed to sustainable material economies, but a condition for a smoother transition towards such a state of affairs. While we have to acknowledge that such infrastructure is costly, and may not survive a ecological meltdown, it is not something to wish for, but something that should be avoided if possible. Amongst the investment choices of humanity, the possibility of global cooperation and mobilizing transnational collective intelligence, should not be discounted, but would be one of the better choices. This of course doesn’t mean that computing itself could not become a whole deal greener than it is now. It is hard to imagine how a steady-state, degrowth, or cradle to cradle economy could be achieved without blood and tears, without the use of collective intelligence.

The crux of the matter is this: we are undoubtedly facing an end to material abundance through fossil fuels. But this transformation can happen the hard way, i.e. as a terrible and costly reduction leading to new kinds of pathological neotribalism and neofeudalism. This is likely the path if we choose isolated localism, without access to global mutual coordination that is now achievable. It is no use having local organic farming, if one is faced with roving bands of armed men demanding your production .. Or, our society can transform to a higher level of complexity, by achieving a synthesis between a steady state economy, and a very rich global social and cultural life of global mutual coordination on a planetary scale, and a rich relocalized production setting.

The peer to peer vision at least, if achievable, promises this new synthesis, a marriage of the local material and the global immaterial, instead of a return to regressive localism in a context of civil, corporate, and nation-state based strife for scarce material resources.

1 Comment

Chris Cook November 14, 2010 at 1:10 pm

Michel

This is an interesting discussion, where I think that both you and Brian are correct based upon the assumptions you make.

It was also useful to have Arthur Brock’s first-rate ‘Prezi’ to help put things into historic context, and to throw ‘information’ into the Economic pot.

Every economic analysis is based upon fundamental assumptions…as J A Wheeler said:

‘Reality is defined by the questions you put to it”.

My view of an An Economics of Common Sense is also incorporated into this holistic presentation at Strathclyde University on
Economic Systems Thinking

I find the distinction between the material and the immaterial useful, and I will elaborate upon it when developing my thinking in relation to the three ‘Factors of Production’ which in my analysis underpin the Economy.

Firstly, there is Location, as in 3D Space. The greater part of economic value historically has been based upon the value of the exclusive use of Location. For instance, two thirds of dollars in existence came into existence as mortgage loans and I refer to it as ‘deficit-based’ (by credit intermediaries aka banks) but ‘land/location-backed’.

Location is immaterial.

Secondly, there is Energy, which for the purposes of this analysis is the ‘material’ world, although energy may be instantaneously immaterial when in dynamic form it passes through Location.

Finally, and developing at a phenomenal rate, there is ‘Knowledge’.

I see Knowledge as existing in both subjective and objective forms.

Subjective knowledge is essentially what sits between our ears and dies with us: it includes information; common sense; intuition; creativity; experience; contacts; and much else.

It is immaterial, and exists in the bio-chemical/energetic patterns which animate our (material) brains.

In my analysis, the greater part of ‘Labour’ is in fact the use value of subjective Knowledge, while the balance of Labour value comprises what Keynes referred to as ‘unqualified Labour’. I see this ‘manpower’ as Energy.

Objective Knowledge consists of patterns of data which are recorded in one form or another, and include art; software; video; audio and so on. This is ‘immaterial’ although it may be expressed in material form eg sculpture and architecture are valuable data patterns expressed in material form.

This objective Knowledge is – due to direct instantaneous P2P connection – increasing in extent and value at an exponential rate.

I believe that having pretty much reached Peak Stuff – which is Brian’s point – at the zenith (or is it nadir?) of our current centralised but connected Economy 2.0 – we will now be proceeding rapidly into a decentralised but connected Knowledge Economy 3.0.

The fuel for this economy will be what Amory Lovins calls ‘Nega Watts’. ie we will from here on be ‘mining’ energy savings and using better combinations of Knowledge and Location to do so.

Through the optimal use of Location and Knowledge we will aim to transition from our current unsustainable use of non-renewable material energy resources to sustainable use of immaterial energy resources.

I believe that the only way in which this may be achieved is a Commons approach not just to Knowledge, but also to Location and Energy.

In order to achieve this we need new consensual protocols – Legal XML – linking disparate enterprises and jurisdictions in the same way that XML links disparate hardware and software.

Within these frameworks we may directly (without credit interemdiaries) ‘monetise’ the use value of the three factors of production simply through the creation and exchange of Units (undated credits) redeemable in payment for the use of them.

This exchange requires a ‘Unit of Account’ or value standard, by reference to which exchanges may be priced, and in my view this will be an absolute Unit of energy in an amount to which the average person can relate.

Note here that such a standard Unit of measure for Value is not a currency, but is akin to a kilogramme as a standard of measure of length, and a metre as a standard of measure for length. There can be no shortage of a standard, although there can be shortages of currency if based on artificial scarcity – as with the existing financial system, or upon finite resources eg gold or other non-renewables.

1 Comment →

Chris Cook November 14, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Michel
This is an interesting discussion, where I think that both you and Brian are correct based upon the assumptions you make.
It was also useful to have Arthur Brock’s first-rate ‘Prezi’ to help put things into historic context, and to throw ‘information’ into the Economic pot.
Every economic analysis is based upon fundamental assumptions…as J A Wheeler said:
‘Reality is defined by the questions you put to it”.
My view of an An Economics of Common Sense is also incorporated into this holistic presentation at Strathclyde University on
Economic Systems Thinking
I find the distinction between the material and the immaterial useful, and I will elaborate upon it when developing my thinking in relation to the three ‘Factors of Production’ which in my analysis underpin the Economy.
Firstly, there is Location, as in 3D Space. The greater part of economic value historically has been based upon the value of the exclusive use of Location. For instance, two thirds of dollars in existence came into existence as mortgage loans and I refer to it as ‘deficit-based’ (by credit intermediaries aka banks) but ‘land/location-backed’.
Location is immaterial.
Secondly, there is Energy, which for the purposes of this analysis is the ‘material’ world, although energy may be instantaneously immaterial when in dynamic form it passes through Location.
Finally, and developing at a phenomenal rate, there is ‘Knowledge’.
I see Knowledge as existing in both subjective and objective forms.
Subjective knowledge is essentially what sits between our ears and dies with us: it includes information; common sense; intuition; creativity; experience; contacts; and much else.
It is immaterial, and exists in the bio-chemical/energetic patterns which animate our (material) brains.
In my analysis, the greater part of ‘Labour’ is in fact the use value of subjective Knowledge, while the balance of Labour value comprises what Keynes referred to as ‘unqualified Labour’. I see this ‘manpower’ as Energy.
Objective Knowledge consists of patterns of data which are recorded in one form or another, and include art; software; video; audio and so on. This is ‘immaterial’ although it may be expressed in material form eg sculpture and architecture are valuable data patterns expressed in material form.
This objective Knowledge is – due to direct instantaneous P2P connection – increasing in extent and value at an exponential rate.
I believe that having pretty much reached Peak Stuff – which is Brian’s point – at the zenith (or is it nadir?) of our current centralised but connected Economy 2.0 – we will now be proceeding rapidly into a decentralised but connected Knowledge Economy 3.0.
The fuel for this economy will be what Amory Lovins calls ‘Nega Watts’. ie we will from here on be ‘mining’ energy savings and using better combinations of Knowledge and Location to do so.
Through the optimal use of Location and Knowledge we will aim to transition from our current unsustainable use of non-renewable material energy resources to sustainable use of immaterial energy resources.
I believe that the only way in which this may be achieved is a Commons approach not just to Knowledge, but also to Location and Energy.
In order to achieve this we need new consensual protocols – Legal XML – linking disparate enterprises and jurisdictions in the same way that XML links disparate hardware and software.
Within these frameworks we may directly (without credit interemdiaries) ‘monetise’ the use value of the three factors of production simply through the creation and exchange of Units (undated credits) redeemable in payment for the use of them.
This exchange requires a ‘Unit of Account’ or value standard, by reference to which exchanges may be priced, and in my view this will be an absolute Unit of energy in an amount to which the average person can relate.
Note here that such a standard Unit of measure for Value is not a currency, but is akin to a kilogramme as a standard of measure of length, and a metre as a standard of measure for length. There can be no shortage of a standard, although there can be shortages of currency if based on artificial scarcity – as with the existing financial system, or upon finite resources eg gold or other non-renewables.