Why Not 'Open Access' Everything?

Could we follow the lead of science and apply the idea of open access to everything? Couldn’t we provide all the necessities of life freely in the 21st century? Colin uses the simple analogy of a fridge to demonstrate how this might be possible.

Picture of Paul Ginsparg by MacArthur Foundation

[thoughtsurferzone]

10's of thousands of years ago, an individual said to their companions "This is fire. This is how you make it. This is what you can do with it." Open access with there at the beginning.

[UnderOneSky]

Way to grow Colin. We have been following and rooting for you since day 1. Your dedication to shifting us to access and free world charter work is essential. Thank you.

[MaxNoble]

I like your concept of expanding the family type values. This is being done in groups of about 100 people successfully in my area.

[rayroy]

Yes, that's why we need to educated both the top 1% and the bottom 99% as to why the system is unsustainable, so that we start channeling back resources to the people equitably:)

[butterfly]

very interesting point of view . Simplifie life - simplifie economy !!

[mikerobinson]

Makes sense to me! I suppose there would be stages of transition. Probably it would have to start with fair taxation and higher employment standards. Once we get to a more equitable place socially and economically I thing we could "go moneyless", or maybe we'll discover money isn't the problem, usury uprooting and regulating the areas where there are opportunities for parasitic humans behaviour is vital because corruption will rot things from the inside. Imagine a world where status was conveyed through virtue rather than power and wealth!

[DavidDavida]

Quantum physics.. in real time applications.. We are all crew of our one "Earthship", i Love ur fridge.. idea. Dude we are on the same page.. cheers Colin. Greetings from "CampSerenity" to all our crew

[robertcircleone]

I was wondering about this fifty years ago (and every day since). And I have come up with a few answers. Everyone should start wondering about this.

[jrvthatsme]

What would you do in a world without money? Everything you used to not be able to afford to do.

[Thinkivist]

Nice concept in theory. And a great question to ask. We should have some larger scale experimental communities operating this way and then share their findings with the world. Oh wait, but aren't there some of those already? Or "weren't" there any in the past rather? But where we are now as a global community - we have not been before. SO it's wonderful to ask and discuss questions like this. However, if we assume false premises, how can we get to correct answers? One example is the "we are living on a finite planet with finite resources" ... that is empirically false. The SUN is by no means a finite resource within the context of a few million generations of humans. And one could argue that life itself depends on this single most abundant resource. SO while the idea of open accessing everything is a noble one, the model might need a bit more refining, hence why not "trial & Error" the idea somewhere?

[JubileeCreatesSomethingAmazing]

Did you maybe grow up in a family that was wealthy or have no siblings? Scarcity in a family (either because your parents can not afford more and you have to make it stretch, or siblings eating the best snacks, etc) often means there can not be open access to the fridge even in a small family unit where you love and trust everyone (and want them to eat too)

[NeoNine]

This is the economy that comes after we've learned to trust each other. We may still need to go through a transitional trading system as a stepping stone before we reach that point though. But that new trading system will be based more on trust building through being a good steward of what you offer and digital accounting for our actions and moving away from using physical money as most have gotten so used to the idea of property of what's yours or mine. We can't just drop that.

Throughout the pandemic we've already seen a drastic lowering in cash handling and ATM machines are running low on cash far less. People are beginning to realise we don't need cash and coins when we have faster digital methods of payment. And while doing it through the banking system still may not be the most optimal way when the bank can decline payments and can say what goes, it's a start at least towards something better.

I always wondered what it would be that would bring about change first. Us, the people or the government. Well when people are forced into drastic measures in order to survive, all they tend to do is ask for the government for help. That dependency right there on a centralized entity is a massive part of the problem and it's an even bigger problem when almost no one sees it is. I think that's because so many had gotten used to how things were in 'just about getting by mode' so they don't know of anything else besides living in a nanny state.

So i think in the end, it's going to be up to us to show that other ways of running society are possible. It certainly won't be overnight though.

[thewiseturtle]

While I very much appreciate your goals, I see that your theories of why we social animals are social, and why "open access" group resources (commons) works well for even non-social animals, are still thinking in the old fashioned, competitive ways, as opposed to how evolved biology actually works, via specialization. We only take more than we need when we don't regularly have enough, which is effectively what you mean when you say that there is consistency to the access, but we also only take what we, personally, need because our needs are unique. I won't take your favorite yogurt because I not only am vegetarian, and thus don't eat dairy, but I also just find yogurt gross to eat, so even if you had plant-based yogurt I wouldn't take it. Evolution simply didn't make me into an animal that does well eating yogurt. But if you are an animal who does well eating yogurt, then that's how evolution made you unique. This natural diversity through specialization also applies when it comes to why we offer things to others as well — which is sort of the opposite of your theory of why we might put food in the household fridge for our family and/or non-family housemates. We don't do things that benefit others so that they can "pay back" our generosity, but we do it because doing so is something we were made, by evolution, to need to do. Our motivation to express ourselves, and to do work that serves life, is fully internal, not based on some artificial, or just external, tit for tat compensation. We're not sacrificing ourselves for others here, in the hope that they "return the favor". We're helpful to others because all living systems are made to input certain patterns of matter and energy (input needs) and reorganize them in some creative way such that the system outputs novel patterns of matter and energy (output needs).

A more useful model for describing how ecosystems naturally function is your own body's organs. Each organ has it's own special work to do in the body, and for the heart, lungs, skin, brain, liver, stomach, and limbs to function well, they need to have both consistent access to their specific input needs, and have the freedom to express themselves in their own special way, which means that they need to have access to outlets that welcome their output needs. For example, the stomach needs to be able to access nutritious matter, which it rearranges into tiny molecules of various nutrients and such that it gives to the blood vessels as well as making larger blobs of "waste products" (poop) that it gives to the outside world (compost). There is absolutely no motivation of reciprocity. No competitive sense of "If I do this for you, you will do something for me." tit for tat incentive. There is only the internal motivation of digestion. Just unique inputs naturally being processed and turned into outputs based on the inherent design of the system itself.

Now, you can more easily scale this model up to a whole planetary organism. All you need to do is to see us humans and other animal, vegetable, and mineral Earthlings as cells in the organs of the Earth. All we need, to naturally serve the health of the whole organism, is open access to the specific input needs we have as individuals and the freedom to express ourselves in whatever weird and awesome way we're born to. My own work aims to help make that happen, by both focusing on the individual being able to identify their specific input and output needs, and for the larger technology of our emerging global nervous system to be able to match all of our needs efficiently and effectively, for a truly beautiful free flowing resource economy.

[alexmurray]

I agree. Hoever, who is supplying the steel, aluminium, plastic and wiring to build a fridge? Who actually builds the fridge? Who takes care of the power supply to keep the fridge running? So people have to work otherwise there will be no fridge or anything to put in it. So how do we regulate that? I can't make clothes, tried, can't and don't like doing it. So I'm dependant on somebody else making clothes for me. So how do I 'pay' for my clothes and what if my capabilitues/services are not needed by the clothes maker? So yes to free access beginning with food, housing, Healthcare, education. But in practice how?

[jimbob-jnjz]

Where you an only child or something. Because people do take more then they should from the fridge and they do stop other from accessing it.

[Katy-shru]

Great video! I think this is my favourite so far. I may do a response video of my own with some thoughts I've had about how this way of doing things is actually our original condition, and is still being practiced by hunter gatherer societies around the world. Who, far from being treated with the respect they deserve, are being systematically wiped out, and their lands privatised in the name of 'conversation'!!!
My channel is called Armageddon Outta Here. I've not made a new video for a couple of years, but you've inspired me! 😊

[robertcircleone]

Everything cannot be free within capitalism but the world could be a world of two halves with one-half capitalism and the other half free (at the point of use). It could work and work far better than the stranglehold capitalism has on us with no free half.

[pmoneyish]

A 100% complete robotic/ai is the only way to get this sort of thing (you can't force someone to work and without force you'll have to do something with someone who doesn't want to put in the effort for the community and if the answer is throw them in jail then just no). Robots making robots that gather the raw materials things, create things, transport those things around, etc is the only real way to get this. However that leads to the consumption issue then. People will consume more which means more resources used which means gathering more raw resources (which aren't infinite) and creating the things (more pollution). This side of the equation would only work if we harvest asteroids/other planets for the insane amount of raw materials they have that we need. We are a long ways away from doing that (again of course done by robots). Open access economy can work but not with humans in our modern society.

[mysolowellnessjourney]

Is there anyone how would like to share this point of view in SPANISH? on a community's social media (instagram live) the community is Afin, can find it as @universoafin. We would love to share this.

[TheKetsa]

This is exactly why there is an onging relentless attack on the Family...