Well… welcome to the club, @Nobody. We are all way out of our depth, as we aspire to understanding and even engineering system change when all Very Serious People claim that There Is No Alternative.
But hey, this is not so much about a bunch of people being particularly good at anything, it’s more about some work that needs doing.
Hi! Somehow managed to miss your note 
Thought I would reach out about two things that are happening which may be of interest to you:
Ciao Arturo
I’ve been lurking for a while and together with Yudha, Ivan, Bojan thinking about how we can make space for everyone who wants to contribute in their own ways. Here are two ongoing things we just announced:
Hey Philip,
Dunno if these might be of interest to you?
Hey, @Nobody! I too was a teenager boring my friends with odd ramblings, not so long ago (and later, those odd ramblings became my greatest strength). I love Kafka and Becky Chamber’s work.
(part of me is screaming “back out and leave this to people who actually know what they’re doing”. I’m not paying any attention it as per usual)
If life’s taught me anything, it’s that we’re all making it up as we go along. Welcome!
Hi All, very excited to be here.
Witness looks like the Polytopian co-creation process I’ve been craving for years, but never incanted. I’m happy to have discovered this space of opportunity.
Throughout my life I’ve adopted many roles - my dominant orientation is Theor, though I worked hard especially in my younger years to be an Incanter.
An inventor who can see limitless opportunities, but had to practice grounding them and manifesting them in reality (though my material literacies are primarily mechanical and oriented around primitive toolsets).
Now my present orientation is more Auger as I take tentative exploratory steps to better understand Reality and how better to engage. In a fast changing world I seek what is possible, and to expand my adaptive capacity (and that of others) through play, making small tests and prototypes which I share with others in the form of “seeds”, prior to exploring the next challenge.
The first two parts of my journey are briefly touched upon here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwWQoDSSuJw, before I began to incant floating star domes (unfortunately most of the documentation was lost in the Sundering, but early prototypes can be viewed here) made from whatever is available wherever we land.
Our floating community the Circus of Seeds found its way to Witness and intend make it a part of our annual migration web (though many of us intend to shift our migratory frequency to once in a decade having found great resonance at the edges of the Assembly).
I would love to discuss further our culture, which acts to assist with the cross pollination of ideas, technology, culture, nature and people between global regions and we hope the different residences of Witness.
Our core system of Value and economics is The Infinite Win, though this runs in parallel to whichever Systems of Value we encounter.
I look forward to looking how we can weave our stories and experiences together to find new patterns of possibility and bring them into being.
Hello @jaycousins, welcome!
Very happy you and the Circus of Seeds are considering sprouting roots in The Assembly. Its system shows great promise, but still needs quite some work to become a bit more… restful, less dependent on revolutionary tension.
From what I understand – and forgive me, I try to parse alt-economic ideas in the light of strands of economic thinking more familiar to me – the Infinite Win is a close relative of green growth:
Did I get it right?
I am personally not a fan of green growth, for reasons explained below, but hey – happy to be proven wrong, and certainly happy to see a development of The Assembly (or any Distrikt in Witness) looking in that direction. Let us know how we can support you.
Thanks Alberto, it's valuable to have a discussion about this to better define what I mean.
I wasn't familiar with Green Growth until now, but looking at it, I can't see many parallels. If I understand correctly Green Growth simply seeks to reduce externalisation of cost, and increase environmentally beneficial technology. Business as Usual, but expecting that technology will somehow work it out.
The Infinite Win is closer if anything to Donut Economics (more information on that here), however it recognises that what is framed as Ecological Boundary or Ceiling in Donut Economics is mostly due to poor management and damaging relationships. So rather than seeing the Donut as a Static thing, instead it sees the Donut as having the potential to expand its carrying capacity - even where resources are fixed, how they are used is not - even land can be expanded by increasing surface area through habitat expansion.
So rather than a donut, a cornucopia.
Changing this "Ecological Ceiling" (eg. biodiversity loss, can become biodiversity gain) requires a change in our incentive structures as if defenders of biodiversity are being murdered while those destroying biodiversity are getting paid then there are fundamental issues with our reward structures.
We pay people to make Deserts, and we punish those who would protect, maintain and grow Habitats.
By reversing these incentive structures, we better align the monetary system with the environment.
The Infinite Win system seeks to expand both what we Value, but also who has the right to define Value (increasing agency to non humans).
The aim is a system where our very awareness of what has Value, and what provides Value expands.
So there is no such thing as an environmental or social externality. As a Bioregion and City are both Economic Agents with the Ability to define their own Needs (albeit through symbiotic and cyborg interfaces). Through the lens of the Infinite Win, the externalisation of cost to Environment or Society is a form of entity abuse on a par with slavery (which is another thing our existing system rewards).
I don't believe there is such a thing as "correct price" assigning quantative data to qualitative and contextual Value is a part of the problem. That said I haven't worked out how to address this element yet.
At the core of the Infinite Win is that Value is created at the point a Need is met. Communication of a Need is mining the data that allows resources to flow. It creates Demand. Once the Demand is met through Supply or Service, then Value is created (Money is Minted).
Not all Needs are equal, and are best assessed in terms of Life (opportunity) and Death (maintenance). For example without air a Human cannot survive for longer than 3 minutes (perhaps 10 if you are a free-diver). Yet under the present economy we don't pay for these essential services (and nor could we).
If we did there would be outrage, as the poor would die too quickly, and revolution would swiftly occur. However one can survive 8-21 days without food, at different stages temporary loss of function and eventually permanent damage occur (variable cost). Our present economy deems this acceptable, perhaps because the slowness allows for coercion, without rapid loss of the labor pool.
Under the Infinite Win System the ability to pay for these services is Automatic. The fact that your physical need has been met, means that those meeting that Need have created Value.
Communicating your Need also creates Value, as does communicating the Needs of others - as through clear communication the System can better understand how to meet its Needs. In this way we are incentivised to communicate Needs, and the System creates greater transparency of actual demand rather than imagined or illusory demand. A lot of the Value created is already happening for free, just our incentive structures fail to recognise the Value being created (which harms the ecosystem and causes these services to atrophy).
eg. Each day, you breath 20,000 Breaths. A debt to the Forest and Reef. But not one you pay, one that Society Pays, because you as a Human are recognised as having intrinsic Value through your mere existence. The Commons pays, and the Forest and Reef accumulate wealth and recognition.
Coral and Forests have their own Needs, Humans and other beings meeting these Needs are likewise rewarded.
Neither Forest, Coral, Human, City etc. have an account to pay for these Services. The money is minted at the point the Service is provided. So there is no artificial scarcity for essential provisions and services.
Scarcity however will never be completely eradicated - each human is Unique, specific geographies (whether urban or rural), a table at your favourite restaurant. The Money earned from assisting in the provision of Universal Basic Outcomes can be spent on these scarce goods.
The Forest may wish to use its funds to expand, yet also if forest as a bioregion increases the diversity and variety of beings it can support, then it can further increase its earning potential.
The same can be said of a City.
The Infinite Win System still needs further fleshing out, I presently envisage it working with Bioregional Banks, with both inhabitants, diaspora, and dependants each being shareholders in some form or other.
Likely it will require multiple currencies, or forms of recognition.
I'm also toying with the idea of qualitative valuation, and allowing for internal trading of "Proof of Work" as a means of establishing priority of Service. eg. The chef who Values fresh air, prioritises serving those who Serve the Forest or the Reef. Likely any infinite win system would need to use a combination of both measure and symbolism to define Value, rather than any one solitary and transferable measure of Value.
Not exactly. The main tenet is to dematerialize need, which seems to be also a feature of Infinite Win (and if it is not, if it is about addressing people’s material needs ad infinitum, then it’s not sustainable for the physical natural systems).
From where I’m standing Doughnut Econ is green-growthist, or at the very least green growth-compatible. The idea is to do growth, while staying away from physical planetary boundaries. That’s what green growth is.
Thanks for clarifying.
Dematerialisation is one aspect - without access to the actual models it’s difficult to engage with any disputes with respect to the efficacy - if you can point me to accessible data sources I’d appreciate it - right now I can’t even download the paper you are referencing.
Dematerialisation is one element of the Infinite Win, and not the primary focus. The primary focus is Habitat creation. The goal is not to stop global warming, the goal is to increase adaptive capacity in the face of global warming and the secondary crises it creates.
Increased Habitat and Variety of Habitat, increases our chances of survival.
Humans are a part of their habitat. Our present habitats (both mental, and material) are misaligned with the Natural World. Both Cities and Rural Environments presently tend towards desert - with serious limitations to which beings are able to occupy those spaces.
In terms of the “Green Growth” models - i don’t see any reference to Habitat generation. This is one of the fundamental differences with respect to the Infinite Win.
Green Growth is more oriented around “do less harm” whilst the Infinite Win’s is more oriented towards “create more benefits for a greater number of beings”. Doing less harm is one factor of this equation, but each harm also offers an opportunity through this lens.
The Blue Economy (Gunter Pauli) is a good example of how this can be applied in practice, with each toxic output becoming food for another productive system (perhaps I should’ve started here as opposed to the donut).
The second core differentiator is that this is not an Anthropocentric model. “All beings” is not humans, it’s all life on Earth. Although we may need to begin with complex assemblages of Being - such as the Amazon Rainforest (or more granular and overlapping bioregions within it). If the Amazon Rainforest is recognised as having both Legal Status (in a similar manner to Corporations), and it is recognised and compensated for its goods and services, then we reach a point where it is able to act with sufficient levels of power in its own defence.
But any such shifts need to have an underpinning of the essential intrinsic Value of any human life - as if the wood cutter isn’t fed, then parallel markets will survive or civil unrest will potentially negate any progress.
As for the externalities and pricing, and the political possibility. This is a harder thing to address.
As i’ve stated already I’m highly skeptical about any form of Measured Valuation, and unsure of how we can ever hope to accurately measure the Value of anything - given that Value itself is contextual. eg. a cup of water in the desert, vs by the mountain spring, or vegetable oil in your compost, vs in the frying pan.
This is the hard part for me, and yet to be resolved, and the Green Growth model seems to address these things as Taxes and Investments.
The Infinite Win doesn’t see the Reef as an externality. It sees the Reef as an economic entity possessing economic agency and rights. With both human and non-human beings dependant on it for survival. If the Reefs losses where actually to be modelled accurately the cost would be an infinite loss. So Reef destruction doesn’t just represent something on the balance sheet that can be taxed once, it represents an infinite future loss.
As for the Political Impossibility. Impossible is not a long term state. Everything changes. Flight was impossible till it wasn’t. To quote Ursula le Guin
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”
However I don’t imagine transition to come from the political class, I expect it to come from those who pull the strings of the political class.
One question here, is “How do we create a system of incentives that is of greater utility to wealthy sociopaths than fiat currency AND nurtures growth and maintenance of Varied Habitat and social goods as an essential part of any form of Value Creation?”
Hi everyone,
Not a writer but very interested in the experiment you are running here. I’ve worked as an AI researcher in Big Tech for a few years and become increasingly worried about the centralization and ownership of AI in the hands of a few. I started a project to build tools to empower independent teams of data scientists and other stakeholders to develop AI apps that are co-owned by the creators and users. We hypothesize that giving individuals the freedom to work on projects that they are allowed to choose, rather than assigned, will result in AI apps that are better for humanity than surveillance and ad tech. We also think there are benefits to using an open distributed ledger to record provenance of data, algorithms and AI training. This is something like a global operating system for AI development that can be audited (currently we have many closed, local operating systems). We are also exploring different economic models for AI ownership and value generation including running simulations. While we can’t find much prior work, we believe that decentralized AI may mitigate some of the risks of AI. Of course, we want to be aware of potential downsides too. With distributed compute, we now have the potential to unleash autonomous AI agents into the world with no ability to switch them off. A relatively benign example is a generative art agent with its own treasury and an objective function that drives the agent to make as much income from selling art to humans. Based on human interaction, the agent changes the parameters of its secret generative algorithm.
You mention that you permit books, films etc. to be built on top of your storytelling. I think another interesting application is to build storytelling around real world development of AI - both the potential benefits and the dangers. The narrative is currently controlled by the mainstream media and Big Tech. It’s the same old story in every article. We as a general public lack imagination around AI, in my opinion.
I’m starting to read through your material and about your districts. Is there anywhere that you think would be particularly relevant to AI development e.g. centralized vs decentralized?
Hello Richard, welcome!
In Withesspedia, there are two places I would start from. The first is the account of the State Machine in the History article and the Hygge article. The second is the article about Digital networks on Witness.
Outside of Witness, a real-life alternative narrative on AI is here.
Shwmae. My views:
https://aim196884.noblogs.org/anarchic-information-manifesto/replacing-compound-interest/
This whole thing is mind boggling and delightful.
I had no idea what I stumbled into and found myself in a wall of text using terminology I’ve never heard of as though it were perfectly normal. I thought I’d somehow stumbled into an alternate universe… the ultimate wish for xenophiles like myself.
While some accuse me of being a theor, I am most certainly and solidly an incanter.
I’m busy incanting up a platform for collaborative governance called Forby.org
I’m an integrative physician, past martial artist, and I dabble in a bunch of other stuff as is often the case with the children of education oriented hippies.
I’ve been slowly incanting a modular community system (I was calling it the Cloud Country: planned in the cloud, built IRL), and Forby.org is secretly the governance platform for this project.
This is an overview, and this talks about the green tech I’m looking at using in this system.
The video is a bit cringe but you get the idea.
Glad to meet this dreamy crowd!
hello!! My name is Giulio, I’m an Italian teenager, who wants to be a fiction writer someday, who loves politics, philosophy, writing and, in general, art. Yesterday I saw the presentation in Messina of all the project of Witness, thanks to my school, La Farina. I am really interested in this project, I think it’s a creative experiment that pay attention of the modern problems of the world. The capitalism is unsustainable, we have to find alternatives, and trying combining science fiction writing to this, for me, it’s genial. This idea enchanted me and I will do all I can to help and write, always respecting all users and the work of all users. I thank Alberto, Ivan and the others for making me interested in this project so much that I already feel close to me for the experimental creativity of the idea. My favourite philosopher is probably Albert Camus, my favorite band is Radiohead and they both influenced me so much in thinking, also political, along with many other characters in the world of politics and beyond. I am still a beginner and I have no experience, this is my first real experience, but I will give my best, and I apologize if I make mistakes. Thanks to everyone and I can’t wait to bring my ideas here and help others with theirs
Welcome then @StarlingJFF and @SamS ! Giulio, if you prefer to do work in Italian, we created a category for that: #witness:witness-in-italiano.
Looking forward to your further thoughts.
thank you so much! I can work with both languages