Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheDividendReport t1_ira2ty9 wrote

Reply to comment by shanoshamanizum in Moneyless economy simulator by shanoshamanizum

I guess I wasn’t taking that approach. My thoughts were that actors would have their own intrinsic motivations that may or may not align with the games goal, such as maximize luxury procurement.

This reminds me of a chatbot conversation I was just having with “God” about building a simulation in which all rewards (dopamine) can only be gained outside of actions that harm other players.

I don’t know if I’m explaining this right, I guess it’s the egomaniacal billionaire problem.

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ira30pf wrote

There is no ownership so there are no status goods. It's all based on usage for a certain time. Not sure if the case you describe is applicable here.

3

TheDividendReport t1_ira48zc wrote

Assuming status goods are all forms of luxury. An agent may be motivated to live on a specific plot of land because of childhood memories. Another actor wants to live there because the house has the best view of a mountain. How is this conflict resolved in a barter-free, money-free simulation? (Sorry if this is stated in your material I’m not sure how to navigate the website.)

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ira4l1y wrote

Via the liquid democracy simulator which is the second module to be developed. It can happen in many ways such as - rotation, disability preferences, age preferences etc. Since no one owns it all things are time constrained.

0

TheDividendReport t1_ira812e wrote

Yup. It’s those most scarce items that are the hardest to program policy for, especially since those qualities you mention try to stray away from being gamified, but now you have to prepare for actors to work around that. If disability is a deciding factor, who determines? Now we’re talking means testing. Will their reputation score be considered, or will the most disabled actor be chosen over a slightly less disabled actor with more sentimentality and contribution?

Very complex problem. And also one that is good to ponder as a share of overall societal conflict. In a world with relative abundance, we clearly see a lack of efficiency and can draft up an exercise like this. But what happens to the things that can never > 1?

I feel like the only workable solution is advanced virtual simulations of scarce experiences for those actors with selfish motivations (for lack of a more nuanced description).

1

shanoshamanizum OP t1_ira89oz wrote

Compared to how money handles that currently it's still way more effective don't you think? We are not talking about a utopia just a better system than the current one.

1

TheDividendReport t1_iracdir wrote

That’s where my intuition leads me to believe. And thinking on it further, the contemplation on relative abundance/gravitation towards remaining scarcity already has some scientific research to draw on.

The scarcity mindset leads to worse cognitive performance and short/long decision making. I’d say there’s good reason to describe it as self perpetuating. Any gravitation to scarcity (those focused on sentimentality, status goods, luxuries that have available/like alternatives) should start to reduce in a society where relative abundance is efficiently distributed.

Sorry if my initial comment came off as argumentative as it seems. There’s all too common a trope of “hurr durr no money no incentive” when a genuine approach to these issues is brought up. Thanks for the conversation

2

shanoshamanizum OP t1_iracnik wrote

Most welcome! I thoroughly enjoyed it. Please feel free to bring up things as they come to you. It's this feedback and collaboration that leads to progress.

I find it critical that we react to despair with creativity and out of the box thinking because even with the so called perfect system people die every day from it's inefficiencies and get apathetic to it.

1