This originally went by when I was seriously lagging in following FW,
so I didn't comment, but as Thomas has resurrected it, I have another
chance to respond:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2002, Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted Keith Hudson:
>Quote:
>
>"the mechanistic aspect will not be sufficiently analysable or understood
>until we have a currency system that has constant purchasing-parity
>across all countries. This can be either one world-wide currency of known
>and constant value (that is, a dependable human unit and also a truly
>scientific unit of measurement) or the frictionless exchange of
>individual currencies (that is, national currencies not being interfered
>with by politicians or central banks"
Keith, I believe you once suggested here, several years ago, that an
excellent basis for world currency would be energy. What do you think
about that now? I have had that floating about in my head since your
suggestion, and I've come to like it more and more. It has all sorts
of appeal, not the least being an accurate reflection of the physical
world, and a built in pressure for ecologically responsible behaviour.
Plus, if gold lust could be transmuted to greed for self-regenerating
energy hoards, a huge lot of stray mental energy might be directed
towards development of energy technology. At the moment, electricity
here goes for about $.06/kW-h, which is 6x10^7 joules/$ Cdn. A new
unit worth 10^8 joules would be about $1 US. It would be interesting
to look at what would happen to the various sources of energy if
they were revalued this way. I'd have to look into the energy content
of crude oil, to compare the values. Energy efficiency would become
very transparent with this system - a battery delivering 35,000 joules
(0.00035 energy units) might cost 3 energy units due to manufacturing
cost. And wind and solar properties of land would be regarded as free
money, and be more likely to be exploited...
-Pete Vincent
