The monetary system as a living system

Benj96

It might strike you as strange to ever consider money as a living entity, maybe even absurd. After all it’s just paper and number representations exchanged between people. But bear with me. This discussion may be at most metaphorical or a figurative stretch regarding to the notion of “living” but I believe there are some interesting insights to be considered all the same even if just for entertainment purposes.

When we think of life we have great difficulty defining it in an absolute/ exact way without notable exceptions, but biology, is a good place to start - it has provided us with a set of conditions that as far as we know are fundamental to all living systems. These are;
1). Sensitivity/ response to the environment
2). Order/ structure or self organisation
3). Reproduction
4). Growth and development
5). Regulation or homeostasis
6). Nutrition and metabolism
7). Excretion

It’s well understood that many in-animate objects possess some of these conditions: for example fire requires; nutrition ( fuel), a rudimentary metabolism (combustion), excretion (gases), has response to the environment (Blow air at it and it flickers), can reproduce (from wick to wick), but starts to fail in the case of order/ structure (it’s relatively amorphous and has little internal self regulation (nothing in a fire determines the size or how the fire burns other than the environment). Viruses have all the features but only in a host in which it uses to reproduce so cannot technically be fully living.

So let’s look at money.
Money of course depends on a pre established living system; us. But it is not separate from us either, as we all hold the belief that money exists and can be used. So it could be viewed as an extension of our own living systems that has its own body and its own purpose and agenda. Consider that we are born into a world where money dominates and none of us can do much to convince each other otherwise. We can simply agree to use it or well... starve or live in poverty or “off the grid”.

4/5) Growth/ development/ Regulation or homestasis - think society - central banks, the fiscal legal system, public demand, commodities, design features ( anti-fraud measures and security) - all in place to ensure money stays in a relatively functional state of having a certain value. Mechanisms are there to counter inflation and other economic phenomenon that could render money untrustworthy/ valueless.
6). Nutrition: metals (coins), paper (notes/cheques) plastic (cards), etc. Metabolism: exchange of money between people In order to carry out a diverse range of processes; construction, renewal, development, innovation, destruction, maintenance all of which can produce money, help to exchange thus propagating its value.
7). Excretion (old bank notes and outdated coins etc are disposed of and replaced)
2). Order and self organisation; money comes in may forms and structures and orders of magnitude. It is self organised in that money has a tendency to congregate: to go away from areas of low wealth and towards areas of greater wealth. Once in areas of wealth (power and influence) it can put in place more avenues/ means by which it can continue to accumulate there.
3). Reproduction: Money drives the work done to produce itself. If you didn’t hand the staff at the mint a paycheck they wouldn’t make the money used to pay them. Ironic.
4). Sensitivity and resonance to the environment. Money is highly sensitive to conditions of the human environment; war, unrest and uncertain times tend to dirige inflation of (a reduction in the belief that money has value) to a society whilst times of prosperity strengthen a currency. Consider the last person alive in a catastrophe... this is value zero for money (ie. the point at which money has lost all value as it can’t be used to do anything for one person... what are they going to do... pay themselves?)

Here we see that in certain ways the monetary system possesses (as an extension of us) all the features of a living system. Can it be said then that we birthed an organism that is more powerful and more self perpetuating than the individual human? Or perhaps a virus of kinds that feeds off of us (a host) to survive and do it’s bidding?

Possibility

Money of course depends on a pre established living system; us. But it is not separate from us either, as we all hold the belief that money exists and can be used. So it could be viewed as an extension of our own living systems that has its own body and its own purpose and agenda. Consider that we are born into a world where money dominates and none of us can do much to convince each other otherwise. We can simply agree to use it or well... starve or live in poverty or “off the grid”.

4/5) Growth/ development/ Regulation or homestasis - think society - central banks, the fiscal legal system, public demand, commodities, design features ( anti-fraud measures and security) - all in place to ensure money stays in a relatively functional state of having a certain value. Mechanisms are there to counter inflation and other economic phenomenon that could render money untrustworthy/ valueless.
6). Nutrition: metals (coins), paper (notes/cheques) plastic (cards), etc. Metabolism: exchange of money between people In order to carry out a diverse range of processes; construction, renewal, development, innovation, destruction, maintenance all of which can produce money, help to exchange thus propagating its value.
7). Excretion (old bank notes and outdated coins etc are disposed of and replaced)
2). Order and self organisation; money comes in may forms and structures and orders of magnitude. It is self organised in that money has a tendency to congregate: to go away from areas of low wealth and towards areas of greater wealth. Once in areas of wealth (power and influence) it can put in place more avenues/ means by which it can continue to accumulate there.
3). Reproduction: Money drives the work done to produce itself. If you didn’t hand the staff at the mint a paycheck they wouldn’t make the money used to pay them. Ironic.
4). Sensitivity and resonance to the environment. Money is highly sensitive to conditions of the human environment; war, unrest and uncertain times tend to dirige inflation of (a reduction in the belief that money has value) to a society whilst times of prosperity strengthen a currency. Consider the last person alive in a catastrophe... this is value zero for money (ie. the point at which money has lost all value as it can’t be used to do anything for one person... what are they going to do... pay themselves?)

Here we see that in certain ways the monetary system possesses (as an extension of us) all the features of a living system. Can it be said then that we birthed an organism that is more powerful and more self perpetuating than the individual human? Or perhaps a virus of kinds that feeds off of us (a host) to survive and do it’s bidding? — Benj96

I think how we perceive the monetary system may be a reflection of how we relate our own perceived potentiality to the value structures of our socio-cultural environment. To see it as a living system may be a credible start, but a more powerful and self-sustaining virus? I don’t know.

I don’t see the overall monetary system as ‘living’, mainly because its temporal aspect is indeterminate, but I can see how spatially located economic structures within it can be perceived as ‘living’ - they are each integrated systems of exchange events. I see the overall monetary system as structured according to the relative value or potential of these exchange events.

As for its own purpose or agenda, I think that the monetary system is to some extent dictated to by the spatio-temporal limits of its various exchange events, but that the relative value or potential attributed to each exchange event is negotiated from a very human perspective of meaning. So each economic structure tends to ‘fear’ its limitations and direct limited resources of attention and effort towards homeostasis, only occasionally and partially collaborating during times of mutual prosperity to develop limited self-awareness of a potential system capable of incrementally variable progress towards an overall purpose or agenda.

ssu

↪Benj96

Biological systems are based on chemistry and physics. If it thrives or dies is based on quite logical reasoning. A monetary system is a faith based system.

Does this make a problem to your model?

Echarmion

Here we see that in certain ways the monetary system possesses (as an extension of us) all the features of a living system. Can it be said then that we birthed an organism that is more powerful and more self perpetuating than the individual human? Or perhaps a virus of kinds that feeds off of us (a host) to survive and do it’s bidding? — Benj96

It's a bit of a human habit to imagine inanimate forces as living, usually even sentient, beings. This seems in line with conceptualising the planet as "mother earth" and humanity as a whole as a single organism.

The question I'd ask is less "can such a comparison be made" and more "what does it entail"? What new insights do you think this conceptualisation offers? What predictions result from applying it? Does it agree with the actual history of money?

Benj96

↪Benj96 Biological systems are based on chemistry and physics. If it thrives or dies is based on quite logical reasoning. A monetary system is a faith based system.

Does this make a problem to your model? — ssu

Not really. You cite that biology is based on physics and chemistry. Where exactly do we draw the line then between non living chemistry/physics and living chemistry and physics? If we are just blatantly ignoring the fact that we don’t have that answer then it’s not at all unreasonable to question the possibility the life extends to systems formed by biology. In fact if money is a process of the living it stand to reason that it’s less of a jump than the statement “the living is a process of the dead/inanimate (physics/chemistry).

It’s possible to apply the characteristics of living things to the monetary system (if maybe only to the same extend as to viruses) but nonetheless either we require Better parameters for the state of living or we must include a larger set of things in the state of living.

When does the inorganic become the organic?
Faith/ beliefs are based on biological phenomena just as biological phenomena are based on physical/chemical phenomena. Is it all living? Is it all dead? How to we discern the endpoint of each state

Gnomon

Here we see that in certain ways the monetary system possesses (as an extension of us) all the features of a living system. Can it be said then that we birthed an organism that is more powerful and more self perpetuating than the individual human? Or perhaps a virus of kinds that feeds off of us (a host) to survive and do it’s bidding? — Benj96

Yes. I suspect that Richard Dawkins would agree that "Money" is a meme, which replicates in human minds like a virus. Most viruses are innocuous for humans, but some may cause a worldwide Pandemic. In that battle for the soul of mankind, some humans fight the invasive "trickle-down" Capitalist Virus with its antithesis, the supposedly "bottom-up" Socialist Virus.

Which Money Meme do you think is becoming "more powerful and more self perpetuating than the individual human"? Are we merely passive hosts for the greedy artificial Money Matrix? Will humanity survive the monetization of the mind? Are we becoming mere organic "bots" for transporting unnatural selfish money memes? :joke:

Fixing the money meme : https://www.ethicalmarkets.com/fixing-the-money-meme-how-it-limits-our-freedom-and-life-choices/

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47pa3ka6bpx86kwwzh5dgje3gbbuhbyv7t1rqjpgum&rid=giphy.gif

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47pa3ka6bpx86kwwzh5dgje3gbbuhbyv7t1rqjpgum&rid=giphy.gif

Caldwell

The question I'd ask is less "can such a comparison be made" and more "what does it entail"? What new insights do you think this conceptualisation offers? What predictions result from applying it? Does it agree with the actual history of money? — Echarmion

While I'd say it is misplaced to compare it to a living entity -- "living" here could be given a narrative of 'what caused it to come to life, and what's sustaining its life' spin.

No new insights to me, as the concept of money has always been a subject of studies of societies. Our view of money is a reflection of our values as people. Our use of money is a reflection of our requirements for happiness.

Benj96

The question I'd ask is less "can such a comparison be made" and more "what does it entail"? What new insights do you think this conceptualisation offers? What predictions result from applying it? Does it agree with the actual history of money? — Echarmion

Aristotle once said “ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.“ I appreciate your openness to following the viewpoint to a conclusion without necessarily believing it.

What insights can we gain from money as a living system?
On adaptation; living organisms can only adapt so fast to changing environmental conditions. This is of note in the current climate crisis. Money if it is a living system depends on the human environment. It’s “volatility” or instability/ inability to thrive is directly related to the state of human conditions. Consider countries in poverty. Their currencies tend to be weak and unstable. People favour materials (food, shelter and water) more so than the value of their money which owes to the reason their currencies have little clout against those of the developed west. Money gains value in a stable human environment.
Living populations go through waves of population explosion followed by decline based on the whether their environment is favourable or not. Money also has this tendency: think of the impacts of war and social discord on economy.
On mortality; living systems strive to survive. They do this by being build on dispensable units (cells) which are regularly overturned for the health of the whole organism. Money is significantly more stable in existence than any individual human. We are born into the monetary hierarchy just as a cell is born into a body that it serves even tho it most likely will never outlive the organism in question. When I die I’m replaced with more units that subscribe to the Same rules that govern the necessity and existence of money.
One could argue that money is not necessary for the survival of the human. Self sustainability or living off the grid and subsistence farming can be completely removed from capital interests. But the same can be said of money. It is self sustaining despite the few that choose not to utilise it.
On natural selection; superpowers dictate the fundamental currencies. The moneys of the world with most ability to control/ exert action are the most successful; the euro the dollar the yen. Money that fails to thrive goes extinct.
Money also evolves. From shells and wheat to precious metals to bank balances to bonds and numeric values. It is likely that money 1000 years from now will look different from what it is these days as it is now since thousands of years ago.
On energy; life is fundamentally entropic. It achieves self preservation by always utilising less energy than it expends in order to stay stable. If it didn’t it would run out of steam and perish.
Beliefs are incredibly energy efficient. As the brains that hold them are designed to utilise their environment effectively. If a belief costed more to the body than it gains from said belief the belief would be terminal and ineffective. Considering that money is a phenomenon that aids not only survival but also luxury it’s capacity for abundance is often surplus to the requirements needed to uphold it.

The history of money is in interpersonal trust. Money is a measure of social cooperation much like the biological processes that ensure an organisms cells work towards the health of the whole. If In the case of cancer (or social retaliation) The units refuse to cooperate the organism fails to thrive. When people experience social unrest the economy is the first to suffer.

Benj96

hich Money Meme do you think is becoming "more powerful and more self perpetuating than the individual human"? Are we merely passive hosts for the greedy artificial Money Matrix? Will humanity survive the monetization of the mind? Are we becoming mere organic "bots" for transporting unnatural selfish money memes? :joke: — Gnomon

Haha interesting. Well if we have found ourselves as some neoGenetics which encode the life of the monetary system there is the beneficial gene (the subscribed capitalist) the protooncogene (the person dissatisfied with the effects of capitalism on the environment) Yet still using and agreeing to the system in place and the oncogene (the socialist that believes resources should be provisioned based on need not competition or the anarchist with the extreme vision of the end of capitalism - rebelling against its organism. Perhaps this is how life operates ... on orders of magnitude. Physics and chemistry is the code for DNA , DNA the code for organic life and organic units (us) the code for some yet unidentified collective organism on a larger order (money? Society?)

Benj96

No new insights to me, as the concept of money has always been a subject of studies of societies. Our view of money is a reflection of our values as people. Our use of money is a reflection of our requirements for happiness. — Caldwell

I find it curious that you made this comparison. As when we study biology or specifically bioenergetics we come to the understanding that ATP is the “energy currency” of the cell. Why is it that even in biology money or “the symbolic potential to release energy/ perform actions” is an inescapable truth of the development and persistence of ordered intelligent systems. Cells have societies too do they not? ;)

Caldwell

I find it curious that you made this comparison. As when we study biology or specifically bioenergetics we come to the understanding that ATP is the “energy currency” of the cell. Why is it that even in biology money or “the symbolic potential to release energy/ perform actions” is an inescapable truth of the development and persistence of ordered intelligent systems. Cells have societies too do they not? ;) — Benj96

Comparison?

Benj96

No new insights to me, as the concept of money has always been a subject of studies of societies. — Caldwell

Sorry perhaps comparison isn’t the right word. “Association”. The tie of money to a group. Value as a concept exchange between multiple individuals

Benj96

Comparison — Caldwell

I often find choosing the right words as cumbersome forgive my inaccuracies

Caldwell

Sorry perhaps comparison isn’t the right word. “Association”. The tie of money to a group. Value as a concept exchange between multiple individuals — Benj96

And therein lies the gist of your post. Forgetting the pesky details of money cause of the big picture.
Is it really just association? Or the degree of control of ourselves dictate what happens to the reality of money? The external appropriation of cause is misplaced here.

TheMadFool

There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. — Wikipedia

Given the above is true, there's more than enough room for anyone to draw erroneous conclusions based on bad definitions (of life). Imagine an assassin given a blurry picture of his quarry; the odds of killing the wrong person is proportional to how fuzzy the picture is.

That said, a decent argument. Kudos to the OP.

ssu

In fact if money is a process of the living it stand to reason that it’s less of a jump than the statement “the living is a process of the dead/inanimate (physics/chemistry). — Benj96

So you mean as people are living entities and people have invented money, so there's the reductionist link? With extreme reductionism many fail to notice how information is lost in the reductionist thinking, which assumes everything can be answered by looking at the parts and not the whole, for example.

But that wasn't what I had in mind...

It was basically that with living entities we have a quite solid foundation with biology and natural sciences. To live a living organism needs energy. That's a fact and cannot be avoided or disregarded. It's simply false that we could assume that there are living organisms wouldn't need energy at all.

However with money and a monetary system, it is not dependent anything else that perhaps humans being around, but other than that, issues like what is money, what is the value of it differ arbitrarily and can be totally different. There is no right answer. And thus here it simply gets illogical. Some can view money one way while others view it another way. And economist can make an economic model of how the monetary system works, but that can change through time.

This is even more obvious as we think of money as debt or how important the trust in a monetary system. Now you can make a model of how the monetary system works at a specific time in a specific place, but that can change to something totally else. For example, some time ago you would have a big difficulty to make people think that something like Bitcoin would be money.

The monetary system as a living system

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions