Message 05567 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 49/96 L15 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion



[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Google ads only can feed a very low minority of projects, it cannot be seen
as a support infrastructure for most of the free content available,

Michel

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:13 PM, CTVN <coreteam vodes.net> wrote:

hi Stefan,

 > So the challenge is _not_ to compete on the same old playground,
but to create a new playground where the "old players" can't
compete on sucessfully. Look at Free Software or Wikipedia: They
created a new playground free from exchange and money (in its core
logic) and they are out-cooperating its proprietary opponents.

i disagree. first, running wikipedia costs lots of money and there
are therefore often calls for money by the foundation. closely
related, lots of hardware are donated by capitalistic corporations.


Of course! But this money was not earned by selling their products (this
would be the old playground).


i think advertising funding (coupled with the fair trade concept) is a
more promising
and realistic way to ensure a maximum of high quality output while
ensuring open (sometimes also free) access to code, services and products.
pretty much what google is doing. im defenitely not advocating a grossly
exaggerated reward scheme where founders get billions (on the other hand,
id be really interested to see statistics which compare the amount of
charity donations of the gates' and buffets of the world with the
donations made by the working class as a whole), but what google is
producing often is working very well and free to use/improve.

 second, wikipedia is very young (though its results and usefulness
are very impressive). but before i dare to say it "out-cooperates" (i
assume you mean that it outcompetes britcannica)


No, Wikipedia did not _out-compete_ Britannica (old playground), it
_out-cooperated_ Britannica (new playground). Britannica could not
follow on the playground of cooperation.


i meant outcompete in relation to britannica (both of which dont like each
other). for serious research one cant cherry pick what
supports your theory (contributions are written for no compensation, but
the hardware infrastructure needs money). who would use wikipedia if it
was running on slow, outdated donated infrastructure and you would need to
wait 5 minutes to
read and edit an article?

 third, what os software is out-coperating
proprietary software? linux (with a market share of less than 3%),
openoffice, the gimp? even firefox (to my knowledge the most
successful os application) has a market share of 30% (and the mozilla
foundation is an economic subsidiary of google). as i said, my
personal obsveration is quite to the contrary in that commerically
backed os software (openoffice) outcompetes os software that is not
commercially backed (who is using abiword?).


In the server field free software is really successful, the internet
would not exist without free software.


but what about the corporate interests/investments behind the success on
the server
level? open source code is the product, but it doesnt say anything about
its creation and who contributed financially and otherwise.  Michel made a
posting here a while ago about corporate
contributions to (server) linux code. again, i dont believe that os
software can justify any new production mode theory, imv, because
commercial incentives are just too important for its creation.

 On the desktop, you are right,
the breakthrough did not happen yet. IMHO the main reason was, that free
software came to late. Microsoft already established a defacto standard
(especially in document formats), which is proprietary. So a replacement
is much harder, out-cooperation is not so easy here.


agree - network effects on the operating system layer are very difficult
to surpass. but this doesnt explain why mozilla and firefox by far are
more succesful than all other OS volunteer browser projects. i believe
money and exchange are the main reason for this.


why do you want to eradictae an effective extrinsic incentive? it
helps a society to function effectively and jumps in when intrinsic
motivation aint there (who wants to do bookkeeping or cleaning?)


Because I believe in freedom and free will, which is not compatible with
coercion. And in the end motivated action is the most effective one. I
say "motivated", because "extrinsic forcing" (directly or indirectly) is
not motivating. Motivaton is always "intrinsic" and can never come from
outside. On the other hand, outside coercion can be internalized and
transformed into "intrinsic coersion". Thus the opposite of "intrinsic
motivation" is not "extrinsic motivation", but "intrinsic coercion".

 > But don't confuse the today *germforms*
living in a hostile environment with its "unfold" derivatives
existing in an environment strongly rewarding behavior of
individual selbstentfaltung, which is the condition of the
selbstentfaltung of all people and vice versa (network effect in
free society).

people are the way they are and
money causes them to do things that are needed.

... and they would otherwise not do. This is a coercive system. A
free society can only be a non-coersive system.

there is also coercion in Siefke's model


True, and this is the point where I criticize the model.

 that seems to be one of the
front runners here. irrespective of that, i just dont believe a
non-coercise system is possible because humans are prone to act in
their own interest.


True, and this is a good thing. I name this selbstentfaltung.


well, at best its "adjusted selbstentfaltung".

 logically, if more than one person is living
together, this causes a conflict of interest situation resulting in
one of them giving in (or adapting their behaviour or adjusting their
self interest) to the others around.


The challenge is to find ways of conflict regulation, where one does not
prevail on the cost of others.


logically, this is not possible unless you make a distinction between
original "selbstentfaltung" ( i get 100% what i want) and one "environment
adjusted" selbstentfaltung " (i get x% what i want depending on my skills
to convince, my strength, the character of the other...). regradless, i
really dont think such a system can work when x billion people with x
billion different interest live together. even if it were to work, i think
this is an extremely inefficient system. im fine with switching to such
any inefficient system when we managed to find effective pills without
side effects
against all diseases.

 The goal is not, to avoid conflicts. On
the contrary, today conflicts are avoided if they are pre-decided due to
power-relations. The goal is to foster individual selbstentfaltung,
which is the precondition of the selbstentfaltung of all and vice versa.
A society based on these principles would be a free society.


again, if two free wills are in conflict, one (or both) have to give in or
adjust.
in other words, you are coerced by the other to restrict your will.


 > If people can answer your question freely, where their lives did
not depend on the answer they give, then some developments would
not go so fast. That is true and in many circumstances it makes
sense to lower the speed of developements -- due to environmental
reasons etc. But any coersive system ("extrinsic motivation" is an
euphemism) like the money system is structurally blind for demands
which can not be expressed in terms of money or which are not in
the focus of profit making ("negative externalities").

Money systems can't do the right thing, they are structurally
(=independent of the will of the participants) destructive in the
long run.

you take a very long time frame on that given that money (and barter)
are here for a couple of thousand years and are more important than
ever in todays very efficiently functioning society.


Deadly "efficient", yes. But we only have one planet.


there are zillions of planets outthere. considering what (extrinsic/money
driven)
mankind has achieved in the last 50 years with respect to other planets
and 500 years ago in exploring the earth, the system for a successful
expansion is in place.

generally, morally i support your model to a quite some degree. the
problem is that we
are talking about humans and they are - imv - not genetically and
evolutionary hardcoded for such an ecosystem.


Ciao,
Stefan


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de




-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT05272 Message: 49/96 L15 [In index]
Message 05567 [Homepage] [Navigation]