Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jack Sommer's avatar

"unifying themes in non-mainstream economics" may be a read you might enjoy. I will dig up a copy. Jack

Expand full comment
Ji·Lune's avatar

Regarding "wealth inequality is inevitable", i tend to disagree on how the correspondance to flow systems is applied to justify this argument.

Let's use the analogy of the water cycle, with several subvariants, and start with the easy thought :

1/ Wealth is money and represented by water.

a) People and organizations are waterbeds, size relative to their wealth.

The first thing we notice with this analogy is that water flows; it does not stay in place. Money is currency―current you can see. It is not hoarded or stacked, even in lakes and ponds, and the waterbed does not benefit from an increase of its size―it is just bigger, witness and facilitator of an increased flow of water.

Hence, biomimicry would not show a tendency to keep wealth unused or used for self.

It would instead suggest that actors have different roles allowing for the proper flow of wealth to fulfil "greater" (bigger scale) purposes.

b) People and organizations are ecosystems living off of waterbeds.

i- Maybe they use the water from the waterbeds?

Smaller streams carry less water. Are there less diversity nearby than that nearby a huge river ? Are the species less healthy ? Do they not get enough water to live ?

Not really. Might even be the opposite, as smaller streams are more numerous, closer to each other, have less momentum and stay longer, slower in any given spot, less destructive to the shores, and allow for more variety of water sources for ecosystems, and more collaboration between and within them.

ii- Maybe they use the water coming from the surrounding area, and let through what they don't need to flow into the waterbeds?

In that case, ecosystems near sources and small streams have more (or "free") water naturally available around them, as it is where the cycle starts, yet they do not take it all, and let it flow through. Ecosystems further down the stream, as it gets bigger, might have less surrounding sources of water and only survive from the leftovers of upstream ecosystems (interestingly, this kind of fits with the parasitic attitude of most "wealthy" individuals and organizations).

But let's shift the focus a bit, and naturally segway into what makes more sense : wealth is not money, it is what the money allows to *access* :

2/ Wealth is an ecosystem's capacity to live and share freely within and with others.

a) People and organizations are waterbeds, size relative to their wealth.

_This variant is presented for the sake of completeness, but i believe it unfit for this description of wealth._

Similar to 1.a, waterbeds do not really benefit from more wealth (the health of ecosystems around it). A waterbed only allows to collect water and make it flow, carrying with it possibilities of ecosystem health for the places it goes through, especially for bigger streams further down the streams (crossing deserts for example).

Smaller waterbeds, closer to the source, are actually less "used" for this purpose, but more for collecting and flowing further down where water may be needed.

In both cases, as with in 1/a), this description of people/organizations shows that they would play a role of wealth canal for the greater good, without real self-benefit.

b) People and organizations are ecosystems living off of waterbeds.

If the unequal distribution of wealth was naturally inevitable, ecosystems' health and survival would be terrible near the water sources, and amazingly good the closer we get to the ocean. The argument doesn't stick with the analogy here either.

---

Well, that's an exploration to try and demonstrate through observation and logic my unease to consider that the natural laws of life, love and the universe say « It's inevitable and natural that there are poor survival-mode people and obscenely rich people using the poor's lifeforce for their own benefit of comfort, control and power. »

Maybe that wasn't the argument though, and i missed the point. But i enjoyed the exercice.

And even then, i haven't looked at the analogy the other way around : rich near the source, poor near the ocean. It would somewhat illustrate the trickling down of debt-money, but still show careless waterbeds and healthy ecosystems all around, as long as... there is no conscious, designed blockage and redirections, as we know there is.

Cheers!

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts