[Converted from multipart/alternative]>> [1 text/plain]> I think the confusion between the two approaches are this:>> - like Stefan, I'm happy to see 'non-reciprocal' (this is just an empirical> fact) peer production to take place on the basis of a existing and already> funded general infrastructure and on the 'surpluses' generated by market> society, while seeking to change the latter, so that even more of the> former> become possible>> - Christian Siefkes seeks for a mechanism whereby the mechanism of peer> production, can also be transferred to physical production>> - Marc Fawzi seeks a unified system that can cover all economic activities> both immaterial and material, taking an energy currency as the common> mechanism>> The potential danger I see with that approach, and I'm not sure that is the> case as I've not fully read the proposal, is that the reciprocity> conditions> would be imposed on non-reciprocal peer production, thereby actually> destroying it and replacing it with another mechanism. Marc: is that the> case?>> This being said, I have to disagree with Stefan's point that energy is> practically infinite, and for now, it isn't. so I think we can concentrate> to where the problem really is: in physical production, cost-recovery is> essential,and we need a separate mechanism.>> As long as the surpluses of that mechanism can feed peer production, and> peer production's design innovation can strengthen that mechanism, we have> a> positive feedback loop.>> My take would be that current 'unsustainable' capitalism, is not a good one> (since it destroys the very basis of human and animal life) for that, and> therefore, we need to change that mechanism.>> I'm happy however, to let peer production exist on the basis of the> generalized technical infrastructure, while finding a way to fund peer> production in such a way that it becomes sustainable not just for the> projects as such, but for the individuals.>> Stefan's point that peer production is sustainable, is only true for the> projects as projects, but for the indvidual, and this is all we are and we> all need to live and eat, this is NOT the case. In present circumstances,> unless we are rentiers, we are not able to consistently engage with peer> production.>> Michel>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:>> > Hi Marc and all!> >> > Sorry for replying to the thread post by post. Bad habit. I reply to> > all the remaining posts in this thread in this one.> >> > Last week (8 days ago) marc fawzi wrote:> > > P2P theories recognize the requirement to keep peer exchange ratios> > > (inflow/outflow) at near unity (i.e. you get as much as you give) in> > > order to have a sustainable peer production economy> >> > Well, all I can say that such a P2P theory contradicts observable> > reality of peer production (and thus is not a theory worth talking> > about). In the contrary the very sustainable economies of Free> > Software, Wikipedia and others do *not* require you to give *anything*> > to be allowed to take. This applies to the micro perspective as well> > as to the macro perspective.> >> > In fact one of the key characteristics of peer production is its> > external openness which exactly means "you don't need to give to be> > allowed to take".> >> > 6 days ago marc fawzi wrote:> > > Yes, but those processes also have a continuous cost in energy> > > required to power them (whatever type of energy) and since energy is> > > finite> >> > Well, on the human scale you can safely assume that energy is> > infinite. Converting all matter into energy gives you so much energy> > that the universe contracts before this runs out or tears itself away> > (depending on which cosmology you prefer).> >> > > it has to come from somewhere, which given current technology> >> > In fact technology is an important point here. So if you are haunted> > by too little available energy you could probably think of ways of> > inventing a technology which solves the problem?> >> > > (we don't have zero-cost energy production and distribution, (e.g.> > > pocket sized nuclear generators that substitute for food,> > > information, interaction, entertainment, etc, all the things we need> > > to live which cost energy,) then energy is ultimately taken away from> > > someone and that someone needs to be compensated in potential energy> >> > If it is excess energy: Why is it necessary to compensate? After all> > nobody is taken away something s/he needs.> >> > What you are suggesting is in fact the property model of capitalism:> > property as way to exclude others from using something they need. They> > are only allowed to use it if they pay you. This is exactly the> > abstraction / logic because of which x million children a year suffer> > from starvation...> >> >> > Grüße> >> > Stefan> > _________________________________> > Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/> > Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/> > Contact: projekt oekonux.de> >>>>> --> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer> alternatives.>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags 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>