To imply that every human interaction is a value transaction is to reduce the human experience to a spreadsheet.

They are far from new, but I wonder if you had already stumbled on these essays, notably the one on Bitcoin:

@lunar I hadn’t, thanks; on my (ever-growing) list :)

@aral I agree. But since the 80ies the human experience is reduced to a spreadsheet thanks to Nobel prize winner John Nash and other economists who made the idea of rational choice so acceptable.

@aral Our brains are kind of a soficiticated computer. So making parallels to software like spreadsheets to explain how we make decisions has its merits.

You should read "Human Action" by Mises. It would illustrate why every monetary transaction is a value transaction.
"The Virtue of selfishness" by Ayan Rand would explain exactly why every transaction is a value transaction AND a moral decision.

@aral @kpeace Our brains are nothing like computers. Memory is perpetually reconstructed, there’s no central processing unit, no hard disk, no keyboard, no network connectivity, what are you talking about?

And Ayn Rand was wrong about pretty much everything. 🗑
@hypolite @aral @kpeace Couldn't agree more with you @hypolite. Of course one can compare a brain with a computer, but it says so much about how one thinks that brains and computers are and so little about computers and brains.
Adam Curtis has illustrated in his documentary "All watched over by machines of loving kindness" the catastrophic consequences of Randian ideas and it's political successor Californian ideology.

@torsten_torsten @hypolite @aral
This is new to me. what exactly is this Californian ideolgy that you talk about that is the political successor to Objectivism?

@hypolite @aral
Actually, you are the one wrong about pretty much everything... 😂

@kpeace @hypolite Ah, Ayn Rand… that bastion of humanity. Say no more…

@aral @hypolite You are being cynical, but you are correct. She is a bastion of humanity.

@aral to be honest I cannot imagine another futuristic way to solve enequality. We are already measuring advantages and disadvantages of people and try to equalize the system based on the “data”. Think of gevernmental supports or progressive income taxes. But we still have loads of enequality, not only because we don’t agree on common morals but also don’t have a sophisticated way to measure all the complexities of enequality.

@aral @edgaras There still are loads of inequality because people who take country-level decisions are fine with it, nothing more. We aren’t lacking tools, we’re lacking the will.

@edgaras @aral in theory, maybe, but in practice we put too much faith in data and tools, and derive conclusions that aren't justified or that merely support our existing point of view, and best case, we rush backward toward something like taylorism and scientific management.

@toddsundsted @aral maybe you are right or maybe science is still too young to quantify enequality, inborn luck etc.

@aral isn't that what every executive thinks of the entry-level employees already?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!