Revision as of 13:58, 21 August 2010 by Coco (talk | contribs) (Created page with ' ==Doubts, open questions, piefights== Is it the paying of a footprint debt a part of the steady state economy principle? (=sharing within the biosphere) or Is it just an an …')
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Doubts, open questions, piefights

Is it the paying of a footprint debt a part of the steady state economy principle? (=sharing within the biosphere)


Is it just an an exceptionally aplied unofficial patch? (=barter within the biosphere)

    1. Bad-patchable sharing (or barter): Getting more than nature's ability to replenish which provoques environmental degradation (decreases Biosphere value) should be banned or exceptionally compensated (Footprint debt) like when:
    2. Extracting non-renewable resources like fossil fuels and minerals at a faster rate than they can be replaced by the discovery of renewable substitutes.
    3. Deposit wastes in the environment at a faster rate than they can be safely assimilated.

Hábitos o tradiciones de apariencia similar podían cumplir funciones radicalmente diferentes en culturas distintas, obligando a estudiar detalladamente el contexto y a prescindir de clasificaciones universales.

Note The Problem: There are many many humans who put low level accesory values upper than the ecosystem or its own body in their values' scale. 


About the why the Value page like that

The high level (human) values' development have to direct the technologic goods' development for increasing biospheric value by decreasing dependency on low level (property) values. The jevons paradox and-or Bastiat's insecurity that the increase of technology will surely create ecophagy or in the best scenario (other less valued) artificial needs are just necessary awareness advice for when drawing your human values' scale not choosing the bad ones.

(Wishing an hipotethic tragedy of the (global) commons being free rided is bad).

Transhumanism is flawed because it can develop beyond technogaianism standards, which are just recognized as a subtype of it instead of it being a core principle for all types.

Whoever puts their high or low level's values' ahead of the basic top ones for evaluating is acting dangerously against himself and the rest of livings despite of other posible fallaced short term selfish interest based reasonings (s)he may use, which is humans' biggest defect or limitation.

If for example, me or a majority was going to be proud of the opposite, i-we was going to destroy the ecosytem faster and specially more cheerfully without having to hide or makeup any of my bad actions. So there's a default shame on a human when damaging the environtment and it should be the

Coertion on bad values' scales designs shouldn't be done through humans' lobotomy further than the (repeated) recommendation to rather copy & paste this logic values' estructure into your reasoning when evaluating.

There have been conventions like the universal human rights declaration and more informally through the ethics field but they are not bringing strictly precise definitions-protocols and they are not completely enforceable although they are used as a default high values' scale by some people for enforcing his-her actions accordingly.

By strickly and-or insurrectionally attaching to this evaluation, you could avoid getting lost, bored or misguided when developing agendas for the rest of your future time & health.

The making of

The structure making of this proposed Values' theory is been created on the fly by a collection of UFOs.

The top level basic categorization & definition is been based on some principles from the ecological economies, deep ecology, earth jurisprudence, and biocentrism definitions.

The other top level values' categorization & definition is been based in a Shareful Invitation values promotion's strategy.

The high level categorization and defining is been based in works from the animal & colour test, the 'social' at ecological economies standard, edward de bono, daniel dennet, maslow, ethicaleconomy site, from a meta barter definition and other barter's axioms and specially based in the most valued things i have shared with actual or past people. People sucks, people is amazing.

The low level categorization and defining is been based in some principles from the Frederic Bastiat "Property as value"'s theory, with the graphics from the ecological economies(more explained below), with Simple living, Basic income, human rights declaration, ethics' field and basically on nice concepts reafirmed by contract, property and tort law along with some other humans' informal agreements mixed with some sharefulist brahmanic recomendation.

What's special on this values' system?

The main purpose and contribution of this Value theory is-has been the defining strategy of converting material rival goods into Biospheric's goods (giving preference for the technological ones - yet another antitesis to jevons), the hierarchy and the concept of added value (instead of intrinsic or inherent), the trolling about if agreeing to pay a footprint debt can still be sharing or no damages allowed, the (yet another) creation of a basic goods category, putting the property and private restrictful property, social(sociometry), religion and related concepts into the marginated corner they deserve to be in, the renaming of the title of the concepts shown on the 2 different ecological economies' logos and the comment on the complementary (non rival) differences between both, the more accurate & usable naming conventions for chapterizations, etcs and the mosttt imporrtttaanntt is that editors and hopefully readers (or puppets) too have increased their high level's values'!.

All for easing sharing (fully :).

Previous content


What is Value? There are different implementations of value. Is there value in trash? There are in fact two different concepts of value that answer this question. It is how you value it, what you can do with it and how useful it is to you. But also it is the value that, before dumpstering the food, there already was a process happening of value-creation - people making a profit out of it. Even things that are trash, have a social history of value-creation, even though the food that had been dumpster dived was given no value to by the market-people.

This interpretation is use-value and abstract value. Use value is something that you need, for example me getting information and figuring how to wpa on my laptop. From use-value to abstract value is a commodification / fetishisation process. This means that you take relations between objects as social relations and the relation between subjects as objectified relations. The labour that you put in making one thing is expressed in money-value. So we don't speak about people doing things, but about the products or things that people have done. What happens when labour becomes the prime determinant from value. How do you value your time?

A theory of value is needed to define a society of Sharism. A new theory of value would be an initial stage of creating sustainable forms of sharing.

  • Over accumulation
  • Affluence
  • David Graeber - Towards an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams.

Additional propositions to create a 'new' theory of value:

  • Ethical Economy. The next economy will be an ethical economy where value is no longer based on labour as in the capitalist economy (nor on land as in the feudal economy that preceded it), but on the ability to construct ethically significant social relations. [1]