Abstract
In this normative paper, it was looked at
the Economizing problem, also known to be the standard academic definition of
Economics, i.e. satisfy unlimited human needs under the constraint of the
limited resources. The definition was formulated from the following
definition: “Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a
relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses”
(Robbins, 1932). The closest solution Economics provided came from Adam Smith when
he added the Capital as a 3rd mean of production after thousands of
years of only considering land & labor as the only means of production (Smith,
1776).
Key Words: Economizing problem, satisfy, needs, constraint, resources, behavior, ends, scarce, means, uses, solution, mean of production, land, labor.
Adding the main idea of rationalists[1]
to the basic idea of Adam Smith[2]
puts forward the vulgarization: how can humans get what they want?; with
“how can” referring to the means, budgets, costs, or The Resources, and “what
they want” referring to the utilities, satisfactions, consumptions, production,
or The Needs.
As it might be deduced, Economics didn’t solve this problem, but only
managed it, admittedly seeing it as an impossibility or at the very least a
case of unfalsifiabile statement, because it constitutes for the human brains a
dilemma or a paradox, i.e. the seemingly contradictory results or patterns
reached using trusted rigorous methods such as logic and experimentation
processes.
So is it possible to consider the resources as something else rather
than a constraint? Does really having a limit (or a constant) in a part of this
problem and infinity on the other means the impossibility of creating an
equilibria? Why not suggest the possibility of the limited resources being
equal to the unlimited needs if we know that the natural laws of the universe
suggest that nothing is created nor destroyed? If we can’t truly crack this
formula of needs & resources, can we at least if instead of managing it
like Economics tells us to do, we try to approach this utopic equilibria as a
problem that can indeed be idealized & solved?
The problem that is tried to be solved not only is it materialistic, but
also fundamentally Philosophic and Ontological due to being linked to the human
psyche of decision making that has fundamental qualitative aspects next to the
rationalization of the said decision. Because of that, it will be avoided to
dissect the problem from the consumer revolution view it defines from Economics
(creating needs to facilitate the resources), i.e. orient the individual
choices towards low cost products so in the future these same products will be
produced, limiting like that the resources used. Which means also that the
simplification (that comes in many versions on lectures) of the problem
provided by the Rationalists[3]
will be discarded too. This approach can have intersections with the idea of
the society of leisure (Dumazedier, 1962), which will only be one aspect of this
normative paper.
Humans physically live in a limited closed
system/universe (and can only exploit a portion of it), and mentally in an
unlimited open system/universe. Yet the human needs -whether mental or physical-
are unlimited.
2.
Managing The Problem
Due to this humanly none-physical aspect of neediness
that seems to influence, “disequiliberate”, dysfunction, and break influence-
the natural physical ecosystem ; humans have opted to forge a tool called
Economics to create an artificial ecosystem where they can optimally manage
this inconvenience via a controlled balance between the needs & the
resources of physical & moral persons, this control consists of not
satisfying all of their needs (because they are unlimited), and base the
satisfaction on a certain economical judgment based on many factors like
priority, urgency, rarity, utility, recreation, etc.
3.
Analysis Of The Problem
Based on what’s mentioned before about human needs
& resources being divided into physical, and mental needs, it can be
said that:
-
For the satisfaction of the unlimited
mental needs, the unlimited mental resources can be used to build tools & “satisfactors”
to do so; the engineering problem that may potentially occur is making “satisfactors”
that are and only are purely based on mental resources such as abstractions.
-
For the satisfaction of the unlimited
physical needs, it should first be pointed out based on the last paragraph that it is
paradoxical to have unlimited physical needs with a limitation in the physical
resources, that actually suggests that the human neediness of “physicalities”
is mental based as a special case of a grander mental neediness scheme, meaning
that the satisfaction of human physical neediness not only is it manageable
like economics suggest, but also solvable if we act on the human psyche instead
of just its physical surroundings.
It can be extrapolated from this analysis that if the limitation of the
physical resources is discarded as being physical resources based, all human unlimited
needs can be solvable and not just manageable.
4.
Common Attempts To Solve The Economizing Problem
Some of the early generic attempts to solve the problem
of human neediness had two pathways solve:
-
The mandatory constrain of the physical
needs, this includes:
The construction of physical incubators to limit the neediness, such
as limiting human rights when born to limit potential emerging possibilities
that will lead to diverse and multiple needs to be fulfilled, examples of this
are cellular imprisonment, land grabbing, labor exploiting, and austere
monetary payments.
The Construction of mental incubators to limit the human psyche, examples of
that include humbleness, contentment, piousness, and devotion to an austere dogma
(e.g. cultic believes) by one’s outsource of his ability of thinking to the
dogma so its gatekeepers can manage the person’s needs & resources
according to a specific belief executed as a sovereignty law.
Both options of this first common attempt have led historically to
disasters due to their rigid restriction, not being able to provide a minimal
satisfaction (of physical or mental needs), and the welfare disparity inside
and outside the two options, making these options even more suspicious of
having any good results in the first place. These two options are commonly
forwarded by religion –mainly organized ones- and social economical systems
–mainly extremist & tyrannical ones-.
There are dogmas calling for extreme versions of the mandatory constrain
of the needs, these can be found in some branches of Philosophy such as Antinatalism,
Nihilism, and Pessimism. These extreme versions generally call for the
cancelation of the human psyche through the cancelation of the human species,
as they view the very existence of humans as the direct cause of human
suffering through the latter seeking a physical perfectionism, even though only
its non physical qualitative form that can ever be perfect due to the physical
world having change as its only constant (Heraclitus, ~500 B.C). Historically,
these dogmas don’t last –at least not in their enforced form- due to the
pushback from religion, some moral & ethics savants, and from some of the
populace; moreover, unlike religious and political figures that seek dominance
and richness through enforcing their idealistic world views, those forwarding
these extreme views were philosophers & thinkers who believe in freedom and
relativity of ideas, thus didn’t try to enforce them; and lastly, the third
reason would be those ideas were more like thought experiments to understand the
human case.
-
The unfalsifiable emphasis on getting
physical needs via the emphasis on realizing the mental needs. One of the
possibilities to do this is via the creation of a mental incubator- for its
unlimitation- whose outcome is physical or near physical, this has been
tried in the past using:
Religious afterlife promises: not believed in so much due to their clear
unfalsifiable nature.
Magical actions: believed in to last much longer for heavily counting
on complex real life phenomenon and semi-physical concepts that helps their
credibility; examples of this would be: hypnosis, self-hypnosis, Placebo
effect, Nocebo effect, ceremonial drogues, and persuasion with archetypical storytelling & acquaintance.
Nootropics, narcotics, hallucinogenics, and Psychedelics: had much more prominence because they
weren’t unfalsifiable[4]
like religion, nor had anecdotal & ambiguous results like magick.
Unfortunately, their results –and afterward outcome- is quantitatively and
qualitatively less controlled (by the human factor) when introduced to the
human body & mind, which makes these substances useless unless they are
used in narrow limited domains such as some recreation aspects and some mental
illness curing.
5.
Synergy of The Past in The Present For The
Future
Both types of the common attempts mentioned in that
latter chapter were historically used differently and many times simultaneously
too, but nonetheless the same types were the ones used and not anything else.
In this part, a potential way of approaching solvency
of this problem will be introduced with the present and near awaited
technological progress, and on the basis of a premise extrapolated from the
epistemological dissection of past definitions & attempts.
It was already established that saying there are
limited resources for unlimited needs is to a certain extent a misnouner and
that in fact even though there are limited physical resources, the unlimited
needs are all based on none-physical requirements, thus the limited physical
resources that exist can only be used to enhance the output of the human mental
resources to get its needs.
What can be done is try to use the limited physical
resources to come up with a physical near-permanent controlled thing[5]
(noted α) for humans that can provide them unlimited needs, the only way a
physical thing can do this seemingly impossible task is if these supplies of
needs have a none-physical form, thus being conscious-based abstractions
induced from the individuals minds[6].
Concisely, approaching the solvency of The Economizing Problem can be
with the plugging of humans to a virtual reality. As such, the way the Economizing
Problem can be solved is if the Hard problem of Consciousness is solved through
the understanding of the qualia, as it will explain human’s egocentric
predicament (Perry, 1910), at that point humans would be indefinitely conscious
entities capable of materializing all their wants[7],
or at the very least according to what’s more quantitative than qualitative: humans
will be able to hibernate themselves and amerce willingly into a very realistic
dream/simulation state where they will only consume an infinitesimal epsilon
energy who’s value tends to zero[8].
From an engineering perspective, humans would become one collective entity that
is able to harness 100% of the energy
Humans have accumulated through history quantities
& qualities of knowledge that lack sufficient understanding and clear
applications, and that’s due to humans “intellectual selection” for what fits
more their prioritized natural selection interests, as they have a short expiration date that doesn’t allow processing
a huge quantities & qualities of information.
That means a simulation can be created where all of this abundant abandonment
knowledge is equivalently –and not perhaps equitably- dispersed among the
plugged humans (the simulatees)[9]
to create purpose to the simulates by giving each person an egalitarian amount
of knowledge to kickstart its processing and became achievers if they give more
on this already existing knowledge
While having such intellectually satisfying goal to live for, the
simulaters (the unplugged residue) will also provide for the simulates their
basic human needs:
-
Physical needs: They can be actuated via plugging humans
with food & drink tubes, sex tubes, sleep, and food & drink residual
ejection tubes. The sentimental aspect of these physical needs (enjoyment,
pleasure, etc) should be simulated in different kinds, flavors, and
environments/atmospheres that mimic reality (e.g. the meridian cycle). Of course
simulating these on humans is free choice based, meaning simulatees will only
get stimuli when they do the acts corresponding to it in the simulation. Opt
out option should be available too, but
under restrained judicial and bureaucratic conditions.
-
Achieving mental needs: these needs are usually associated with
emotions & feeling even though physical needs have them too[10].
These mental needs are mainly abstracted as: love & belonging, self-esteem,
and finally on top self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). It is historically & instinctively known that these
human abstractions are realized through many types of human mechanical or
biological achievement, such as creation, discovery, and invention &
innovation.
If the simulaters weren’t given their basic human
rights & freedoms alongside feeding the simulation with real world
information & updates, the project will fail in the same way failures
strikes good structures & systems in the real world. Because intolerance,
dishonesty, and disinformation are the basis of any system failure due to their
inducing of structural malfunctions such as lying, hypocrisy, hate, violence,
and corruption. In fact, there would be no need for the human species to leap
into the digital world in the first place if replicating real world structures
there would mean also repeating its mistakes.
8.1 Stability & technological progress
Even if unlimited resources are achieved, that
wouldn’t directly translate to satisfying unlimited needs, because the later is
more driven by the political progress (i.e. rule of law) that guarantees stability
so that humans can innovate and realize technological progress and attaint prosperity
so they can enjoy the versatile choices this progress provide them with. For
example before the industrial revolution -or even the agricultural revolution-,
human population was very small, which made their resources abundant (basically
all the planet was for a handful of people), yet they didn’t realize any technical progress that augments their
choices & needs[11]
(Keynes, 1930), and that’s due to the lack of efficient resilient social &
political structures[12]
(political progress) to create stability that will be a safety net that makes
people’s desire to take risks and innovate more bearable in case of failure. Even
in the modern times it can be observed that there are nations who were stable
and innovative, but once they get destabilized, the technological progress
starts to decrease. That means that the two factors are intertwined, and if one
or both of them disappear, having unlimited resources would mean nothing.
Note that even
with this stipulation a little bit of conflict should always exist (Marshall, 1890)
(Schumpeter, 1942) to make sure humans don’t slack into a sterile life so they
can still use their critical thinking, analysis abilities, and drive of
surviving to be creative; the best case scenario conflict is to have an
intellectual conflict & asymmetries, thus rendering the conflict a free
competitive market of ideas; if the simulation is a shared space among users,
then there will be no option to opting out the intellectual conflict.
It
should be noted that ideological pushbacks might happen against the existence
of a simulation. In many instances, individuals can in elections vote based on
their ideological alienation (political, religious, etc) even if the candidate
might disadvantage them economically. And if that proves something, it would be
that what rationalists suggested about individuals being economically rational
is merely a perfectionist view that bounds individuals’ interests to only its quantitative
side in (using positive Economics approach) without the qualitative or
normative Economics approach. The failing of many metrics presently used to
measure the development of a country are an example of such case, in fact one
of these biggest metrics would be the economical growth, because in a sense
economical growth isn’t a necessity that should be chased by all means
regardless of their drawbacks, but rather more of an emergent property caused
by a convergence of individuals’ synchronized specialty work -in a geopolitical
territory- towards a common goal.
But as a more concrete example, the satisfaction of Maslow’s Pyramid of Needs (Maslow, 1943) don’t necessarily have to follow its conventional hierarchical pattern, in fact there may be a more EFFICIENT way of satisfying them as represented below :
Figure. Top-to-Down Maslow Pyramid Satisfaction
The crystallization of a population’s ancestral identity[13]
through systems & institutions[14]
will give them a sense of unity[15],
thus realizing their need of Love & belonging, and safety
due to the progress emerging from a unified identity. Love &
belonging and safety are the two criteria to give rise for good economy and
also to normalize in the population a sense of community that will make them physiologically
help the needed in their identity group. Once a person is safe, loved, and fed,
his esteem to self-actualize is then realized. When a territory’s
identity group is self-actualized, then it would be safe to say that they are prosperous.
Reversed Maslow pyramids were the standard way of
satisfying the needs in pre-modern age when tribes were the standard. If such
sense of identity is reintroduced to the present world, it would make achieving
all one’s needs fast and cheap like it used to be in the past[16]
if not faster and cheaper with the technological progress. Not only that, but it
will narrow down the “infinite needs” to the “infinite important/primordial
needs” an identity group seeks: in the same way infinity has infinite
infinities in mathematics (Cantor, 1874), the needs also have infinite
infinities from which one will choose those important for him. Meaning
simulaters should fight consumerism, or at the very least steer it to their
meaningful needs that assure lucrative & sustainable outcomes.
8.3 The Economics Of The Simulation
If the simulation will have its own economics &
finances with the ability to exchange its money & commodities with the real
world, its developers should then really pay attention to the means & structures
of acquiring these two to avoid people using modding, hacking, and loopholes for
profit & personal gain that exceeds the simulation average for each
simulater.
8.4 The Judicialities Of The Simulation
For such contexts, the judicial system should make
strict laws for the simulation, the simulated, the simulatees, and the
simulaters that regulates their activities and integrate them to the real world
too.
A post-scarcity world doesn’t mean making everyone
rich[17](Volckart, 1997), but what that mean is creating a cheap
marginal cost (Rifkin, 2014) service that tends to zero where humans can have
rights, freedoms, resources to satisfy their needs and achieve things that can
have an impact on the real world. It will be discussed on in-depth followed
papers suggestions for near and medium term experiments designs & to apply
to such path outside the stereotypical portrayal of such ambitions as being a
videogame or a digitized modernized theological premise, but rather as a
decentralized autonomous freelancing form of societal economy that utilizes
consensual brain mining: it can be someone’s job as well as it can be his heaven,
or both. If there is enough will and innovation, economists will increasingly
control this problem in the same way physicists does with entropy. What’s
needed is for economists to try creating a new working Economics framework, the
innovation on the theory of Economics hasn’t radically changed since Adam Smith
introduced Capital to the means of production (Smith, 1776) two centuries ago,
and the pathway –or a mix of a couple, some, or all of them isn’t
unconceivable- to create the new Economical revolution isn’t quite clear yet:
it may be with consciousness as some philosophers and spiritualism researchers
think, it may be with biology if human life is extended so they can satisfy
more needs, it may be with physics if a new better source or storage of energy
is created/discovered, it may be with Technology if it created optimal tools
that make energy consumption optimal, etc; either ways, a lot of promising
fields to ease human life while keeping its essence are still investigated
thoroughly. The American playwright Jerome Lawrence once said: “A neurotic is a
man who builds a castle in the air. A psychotic is the man who lives in it. A
psychiatrist is the man who collects the rent”.
References
Lawrence, Jerome. American Playwright and
author, 1915 to 2004.
Robbins, Lionel (1932). “An Essay on the
Nature and Significance of Economic Science “, pp 16
Smith, Adam, “An Inquiry into the Nature
And Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, Book 2 – Of the Nature, Accumulation, and
Employment of Stock; 1776
Heraclitus, compile of writings fragments,
Ephesus (Kusadasi, Turkey), 500 B.C.
Gregory, Clark (2010) “The Consumer
Revolution: Turning Point in Human History, or Statistical Artifact?”.
Department of Economics, University of California, Davis (gclark@ucdavis.edu)
July 4
Perry , Ralph B., (1910). “the ego-centric
predicament”. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 7. pp
5-14
Cantor, Georg (1874). "Ueber eine
Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen". Journal
für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik. 1874 (77): 258–262.
Carnot, Sadi (1824). « Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu et sur les
machines propres à développer cette puissance ». Paris: Bachelier
Keynes, J. Maynard, (1930). “Economic
Possibilities for our Grandchildren”; in “Essays in Persuasion”, New York: W.W.Norton
& Co., 1963, pp. 358-373
Marshall, Alfred (1948) [1890], “Principles of Economics: An Introductory
Volume”, p. 3
O'Boyle, Edward J., (1993). "On Need,
Wants, Resources and Limits". International Journal of Social Economics,
Vol. 20 No 12, pp 13-26 © MCB University Press 0306-829
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1994) [1942].
“Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy”. London
And New York : Routledge. pp. 82–83
Dumazedier, Joffre (1962). « Vers une civilisation du loisir
? », Seuil, Paris
Maslow, A.H. (1943). "A theory of
human motivation". Psychological Review. 50 (4): 370–96
Rifkin, Jeremy (2014), "The Zero
Marginal Cost Society", St. Martin's Publishing Group
Volckart, Oliver (1997). “Early Beginnings of the Quantity Theory of
Money and Their Context in Polish and Prussian Monetary Policies, c. 1520-1550”,
The Economic History Review New Series, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 430-449
[1] Satisfy the maximum of needs with the minimum of
resources.
[2] About the
resources to satisfy needs not being a much versatile spectrum and not
restricted to only land & labor.
[3] maximizing
the utility and minimize the spending, maximizing the satisfaction under budget constraint, maximizing the
consumption under budget constraint, and maximizing the production under
cost constraint.
[4] Due to the
person being the firsthand expriencer without any middleman like a savant,
cleric, magician/witch doctor, or a ruler/politician.
[5] E.g. a structure, like that of agriculture that still
thrive to this day after millennias of usage with falls & rises of
civilizations in between.
[6] Like the
archaic versions described in the past chapter.
[7] Regardless of
whether it’s done with the assistance of technological progress.
[8] Unless it’s zero if and only if consciousness is found
to be the maker of reality.
[9] The unplugged residue (the simulaters, the care
takers, and the watchers) can take care of the plugged ones physicalities &
machinery, e.g. update the simulation with new discoveries & achievements
done in the real world or in the simulation itself.
[10] That’s
because in more deeper meaningful way the physical needs are actually just a
special case of a more broader spectrum of mental needs with these mental needs
having even a deeper level of this association due to high levels of
abstraction power in them.
[11] The need doesn’t manifest in humans internally, but
rather one shall have information on existing things so he can have a choice,
thus to be able to express a need.
[12] Based on culture, traditions & customs, believes,
religion, normative economics, etc.
[13] Based on the historical ethnic origins
with all its cultural weight, such as language, traditions & customs,
religion, etc.
[14] Embodying in the modern era the already
existing cultural & ethnic systems and protect them with rigorous
legislations & institutions.
[15] If not sometimes directly self-actualization
if the identity was accepted after a populace physical/mental war, i.e. it was
an earned identity that people made their purpose in life to get, and not to
have one forced on them.
[16] But it has to be determined if this identity would
primarily rely on what pre-modern identities relied on such as racialism, ethnicity,
and religion; or will it synthesize a new way of creating new identities (such
as the uncontrolled creation of digital and physical sub-cultures, neo-age
religions, and cults).
[17] Because that will implicate making everyone poor due
to the devaluation of what’s valuable as a currency –mainly money-.
No comments:
Post a Comment