Life: Search for Value?
Determining the value of ourselves and the world around us has become the central issue of our time, although most of us are completely unaware of this fundamental search that drives the dominant part of who we are as a species.
Religion: The search for our spiritual value.
Politics: The search for mass opinion value.
Money: The search to represent value.
It is interesting to note that these three all first show up along with agriculture in Ancient Sumeira 10000 BC. Their religion can be traced very easily to modern Abrahamic religions, which in turn are predominantly responsible for the modern international banking cartels, which in turn run the governments of our various economic-powerhouse nations. I’m not suggesting that there is a secret within organized institutions that dates back ten millennia regarding the means to manipulate the world and profit from it, I just think it’s interesting. It is far more likely that we have slowly evolved this way and that it now simply seems to smell fishy in retrospect.
In the beginning, when we first mutated; when we branched off in a new direction, the fundamental driving force dominating our instinctive behaviour as early homo sapiens, was survival. This driving force, along with an already finely developed symbiotic network, supplied a sustainable growth platform for us to develop and flourish as a species. Traits like cowardice, courage, heightened intelligence or physical prowess were all genetic means of survival in a relatively harsh environment holding many hazards.
I had thought, originally, that our driving force is still survival since we live in what could easily be described as an equally harsh world, but it has not been since the introduction of agriculture. It was with the harnessing of agriculture’s abundance that our fundamental driving forces shifted gears, from survival to value determination.
Value determination is different from survival in one very important aspect and several less important ways. These include but are not limited to: leisure and recreational time at reduced stress levels, longevity and subsequent comprehension improvement, and artistic and scientific growth. The big difference though, is sustainability. By its very nature Value Determination is only sustainable while Value is indeterminable. Once value is established, the search is over and a new driving force is needed.
While value is indeterminable, problems resulting from the inadequacy of representative valuation methods such as economic disparity, ineffective government and cultural decline will continue to rise, until a collapse is inevitable. This collapse is not desirable, since it would more than likely result in the mass loss of life, decades or centuries of strife and suffering, and is the least likely scenario in which we are able to move forward to a better world.
The current methods of valuation used by the masses in their daily lives, are estimated opinions. This is also true for the economic valuation methods used by government and the private banking sectors. This means we have a rough idea of what value might be, kinda, sorta, almost… Or in more succinct terminology, value is still indeterminable.
What makes it even more difficult in the current paradigm, is the inherent contradiction of attempting to create an objective valuation means (money) to represent a semi-subjective concept like resource value. The two are not compatible, since an objective representation of value is too rigid to allow for the dynamic requirements of subjective valuations.
If we are able to determine true value though, we could solve these problems and assess everything dynamically using just a few simple formulae.
So, in my opinion property should be divided into three resource categories…
1 physical resources
2 intellectual resources
3 labour
These categories would require separate value assessment measurements with both quantitative and qualitative value being accounted for and measured in terms of energy.
V = Value
R = Resource Type
Q1 = Quantitative Value
Q2 = Qualitative Value
T = Task Value
S = User Skill Value
V = R * (Q1+Q2) * (T^S)
If resources have 3 distinct classes, each class would calculate within a specific range. And negatively impacting usage would shgow up easily The point is that just getting rid of money doesn’t help people understand the true value of the world’s resources as well as their own intrinsic worth within the whole system. But a system that proves the value of everything, even those things we can’t use, allows us to keep proper track of our resources. This is important if we want to establish and maintain sustainable systems, because not tracking everything leads to resource mismanagement, just like ambiguous, pure-subjective valuation currently mismanages resources. Also, sharing everything as it currently stands can’t work, we have to properly assess the world’s needs and then address them not split the resources. it’s about creating abundance and then providing equal free access to the abundance.
People, when asked, will tell you that they value predominantly those things that are qualitative. ie. friendship, music, family bonds, new ideas and these have immense value in their ability to inspire and unite, give moral support etc. Obviously a poem cannot feed you, but it can inspire you to grow your own food or harvest energy efficiently. the local engineer in his workshop where he plays Vivaldi while he works places immense value on that piece of musical poetry. If that valuation where accurately accounted for along with the energy economics that should determine quantitative value, artists would hold the same social status as a scientist or engineer or any other self-chosen profession.
once all resources are correctly categorized and valued, we will have shifted the nature of understanding regarding Value. and a world that can legitimately prove the value of not polluting and living sustainably, and living cooperatively can stop searching for value in everything, and can move on to whatever our other purposes on earth might be.
