I agree with glen about the need for some explanation.
It's possible I would put my own spin on what is right or wrong with
current reward systems based on my own prejudices. (I focus reward here
purely on the financial.) Recently we saw horror at bailout funds used
for bonuses and the resulting crucifiction of the target's
employment/payment contracts - a secondary horror. Different
political/social systems have different reward systems and safety-net
systems. It's in the latter that I'd like to see some discussion.
The current system attempts to reward productivity while reigning in
excesses, with varying degrees of success in enforcement. Moral and
legal judgments put boundaries on most of us to conform to the local
perceptions. Some get rewarded for unethical but legal activities
(selling credit default swaps). Some get rewarded for illegal but
perhaps ethical activities (selling medical marijuana) and some get
rewarded for illegal and unethical activities (robbing banks). On the
other hand some don't get rewarded for legal and ethical activities
(volunteerism).
I don't think anyone gets rewarded for what they know. They only get
rewarded when that knowledge is used in some _process_ when it is
activated and acted on. It is labor that is rewarded. When the process
is valued by society then it or it's members are willing to pay for it.
Society or some subset ultimately sets the value.
Perhaps this is obvious?
Robert C.
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Emitted by Ann Racuya-Robbins circa 01/04/09 12:58 PM:
I have come to the conclusion a number of thoughtful people at Friam,
the Santa Fe Institute and the Complex and I may well have a
fundamental, important, genuine and sincere philosophical difference of
opinion about the future of the information/knowledge culture that is
emerging in the world today. This difference includes how and when
people should be rewarded for what they know? What is the most equitable
way for people to share what they know? What does it mean for something
to be ?free?? These are some of the areas of difference. I have spent
decades thinking about these things but no one knows everything and I am
sure I have more to learn.
This is a bit cryptic. I presume the particulars of any disagreements
have come to light in face-to-face conversations? How and when you do
_you_ think people should be rewarded for what they know? How and when
does your opposition think people should be rewarded for what they know?
What do you think it means for something to be "free"? And what does
the opposition think?
Personally, I believe people _should_ do almost precisely what they
already do. I.e. there are wide distributions for how and when people
get rewarded for what they know and that's how it "should" be. From
your using "should" in your question, I infer you think that (at least
some) people are NOT rewarded in the way or at the time they _should_ be
rewarded.
Likewise, I tend to think that nothing is ever free. "Free" is a
delusion we willingly engage in so as to "externalize costs and
internalize profits". For example, "free software" is free in neither
sense of the word (free beer or positive freedoms). Like proprietary
software, the costs and benefits exist, they are just in different
places and require attention at different times.
If the above discussion is irrelevant to what you intended, then please
elaborate and clarify!
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
