This is a big page. Please be patient while it loads.

You have questions. We have answers.

Got a question you can’t find here? Contact us. We’ll send you an answer and add your question to this page! Don’t forget to:

Like our page on Facebook
Join our social community on Facebook
Have a question about getting involved? Contact us.
General questions about the idea and entity
What is Copiosis?

Copiosis is an innovation eliminating all problems caused by capitalism (pollution, crime, unemployment, etc.) while performing far better than any form of capitalism that has ever existed.  It spurs innovation like nothing seen before, while making the world a far better place for humanity and other creatures than it already is.

Everything we love about the current system Copiosis preserves. But it gets rid of everything we don’t like. A detailed explanation is available on our website and also in a book I wrote about the innovation.

A short explanation (adapted from an answer provided by a non-Copiosis party):

In a Copiosis society (using terms from capitalism):

“There's no such thing as cash. Money is replaced by a virtual form of reward called NBR.

If I “pay” for something, the money will go out of my account but it will not go into someone else’s account, it'll just disappear out of my account and out of existence.

- If I get paid for something, my payment doesn’t come from someone else’s account, it’s instead just created in my account from nothing.

- People get paid according to their ‘net benefit’. This means that if I do something that benefits you but negatively impacts either another person or the environment then my net benefit will be: the good I've done you minus the bad I've done someone else/the environment. This means it’s in my financial interest to be as ethical and benign as possible.

- There are two types of commodities in the world: Necessities and Luxuries. Necessities are basic housing, clothing, food, education and medical care. All the stuff you need to live. This stuff is free for everyone in the world. Copiosis is founded on the idea that no one should have to ‘earn a living’ in a job they hate, earning just about enough money to stay alive so they can carry on going to the job they hate. We live in a civilization that could easily provide the basics of life for everyone for free, and in a Copiosis system it would. The only problem then is incentive to work. That's where Luxuries come in...

- If you want anything beyond the glorified prison itinerary that Necessities provide (say you want a TV, car, designer clothes, musical instrument, nice furniture, cellphone, coffee maker, umbrella, whatever) then you're going to have to do some nice stuff in order to get some “money”!

- How people get “paid” is decided by a community called the Copiosis Organization. A member of this Organization will have an area they manage, say a zip code’s worth. Their sole job is to reward everyone FAIRLY. This organization is open to anyone who wants to be part of it. They determine rewards by an algorithm created specifically for this purpose. There is a lot more to this, so if you want to know more you should do more research.

It’s a great idea in my opinion. It would give people and businesses financial incentive to treat each other well and not pollute the planet. Our current economic system (capitalism) works by rewarding exploitation and punishing kindness. Think about it, if I own a factory and I make sure all my staff have the best possible healthcare, comfortable working furniture, a company car, gourmet dinner in the canteen etc., then I’m spending (read: losing) money in the pursuit of kindness and equality. I'm being punished for being good.

Whereas if I sack all my UK staff and build a cheap factory in the Philippines that just passes an inspection, where I can pay people a hundredth of what I’d pay them in the UK, I'm a winner! More money for me. Yay, I'm being rewarded for exploiting people. If I then dump my unwanted, polluting byproducts in the sea instead of paying huge sums to have it recycled or disposed of sensibly then I'm doing even better. While the system’s being so good to me, let's create a new bank account in an offshore tax haven and hoard my share of the finite global economy as well. Way to go, Capitalism!

With Copiosis, I wouldn’t pay my staff a penny because that’s what the Copiosis Organization members are there to decide. But my local Organization members will make sure I get more reward if I’m treating my workers as well as possible, so it’s in my interest to do that. I'll get punished for shipping my produce somewhere using a polluting petrol-powered truck so I’d better replace the fleet with electric trucks. No one builds electric trucks? Then there’s an enormous gap in the market.

If people help fix the plumbing in poorer areas then they’ll get more than they would for installing a new jacuzzi in a mansion, so there’d be more market incentive to help the poor. Help the poor for long enough and what do you get? Material Equality. That’s the ultimate goal of the Copiosis concept.

Bonus info: net benefit works like royalties. Musicians today get paid every time one of their songs gets played on the radio, even if it’s 20 years after they released it. The same would apply to every job in a Copiosis world.

There are a lot of details and it’s too complicated to explain it all ... but hopefully this gives you a basic outline...It's already a thousand times better than the system we currently have.”

I think that’s a tremendous outline of how Copiosis works. No one at Copiosis had a hand in writing it!

Copiosis is also the name of the company I created to implement the innovation. Perry Gruber is  the founder and Chief Visionary Officer of that company.

Want more detail? Visit our website or contact us with your comments and questions. We love hearing from people learning about what we’re doing. Even if you don’t agree.

Is Copiosis a scam?

We don’t blame people who think Copiosis is a scam.  After all, our economy has conditioned all of us to beware of things that sound too good to be true. The way status-quo economies work, it’s easy for scammers to take money from us against our will.  It’s been done at every level.  It has left some people broke and bankrupt, their lives ruined.  It’s left others angry or feeling had.

Copiosis is not a scam. It is a real, increasingly successful approach (an idea coupled with a sound transition plan) designed to gently retire capitalism without taking anything from any one or opposing anything or anyone.

Copiosis is also a company I founded to manage the approach and organize our efforts. As the founder and Chief Visionary Officer, I have put more than 10 years into Copiosis.  Yes, Copiosis is officially only six years old (as of 2019). But a lot has gone into Copiosis before that.

I'm committed to making Copiosis a global reality.  We’re making progress, and the best progress is ahead of us.  We don’t blame people for initially thinking Copiosis is too good to be true. In many cases things that seem too good to be true, are. But there are exceptions. Copiosis being one.

But don’t take my word for it. Keep an open mind and see for yourself. The progress we’re making should be proof enough.

Many things start out as seeming too good to be true but actually are true. Contact us and share your skepticism, or ask us a question. We’re eager to get feedback and we respond to every feedback we get.

Is this just another pie-the-sky dream or a way to fleece people of their money by having them invest in an unrealistic idea?

If anyone is being fleeced it is me. As the founder of this idea, I have invested my savings, my energy and my time in making this system known so that others can help make it a reality.  As a result, Copiosis is known world wide and there are people around the world now investing their own time to help make it a reality. That may not convince you that Copiosis is realistic. I only ask that you watch our progress and judge for yourself over time.

There are lots of ways people invest their money in things that go nowhere. There are even things people invest their money in that actually harm them. We’re asking people to invest in something that has promise to make everyone’s lives better.

How is that pie-in-the-sky?

People financially supporting us have studied our innovation and realize we have something promising. You might too if you’re willing to learn more. Got a question? Ask! We love answering people’s questions.

Why is an organization doing away with money asking for money?

In a word: sustainability.

I am serious about replacing capitalism with what I (and increasingly many others) consider to be something  far better than capitalism. In order to succeed, we need money to complete the transition. We need money to buy resources needed, hire people who have the skills we need. We need money to pay for technology needs, marketing, operations, rent and more. When we’re into our phase two operations, we need money to rent spaces for our events, pay actors and musicians and other creatives and more. When we’re in phase three, we’re going to need a LOT of money to wage political campaigns to place favorable politicians in state and local and federal elected seats. I talk about all of this in this post.

There’s another reason why Copiosis needs money. It’s personal.

Like everyone in capitalism, I want to have a life as free as possible from worries about money. That includes my financial future. Some people think I should do what I’m doing out of some altruistic calling.

I don’t agree with that. I believe people doing what I am doing should be financially rewarded for the effort they make to create a better world.

There are CEOs who make tens of millions of dollars for selling shoes or computers or other widgets, or creating things that people value, but are actually harming the planet. There are people in vice president positions at such companies earning multiple millions of dollars supporting these companies.  There are people who trade financial instruments who are worth billions. There are people who make hundreds of millions of dollars performing artistic acts (acting, singing, etc.), acts people love, but in the end, while moving and entertaining, they do not create fundamental change.

The United States President earns approximately $200,000 a year for representing America. Yet, many of the things he or she, or their employees do we don’t agree with. They for sure are not trying to create the fundamental change I am creating. Indeed, they are more about preserving the status quo than they are creating any kind of change that fundamentally improves life. Yet, there is little complaint about the President’s salary. There are some complaints about CEO salaries. But for the most part, these people go on earning great sums of money for acts that are sometimes morally questionable and sometimes morally bankrupt.

I’m dedicating a large part of my life to changing the world in a significant way, a way that will make you far better off than you are today. In the last three years, I have, through my leadership, created significant evidence supporting the contention that what I’m doing is working, in large part due to what I bring to the table. I am creating a world where:

  • You and every other person on the planet, as well as their children and their children and every future generation thereafter, will be free of debt and never be in debt again.
  • You and every person on the planet, as well as every generation thereafter, will never have to worry about housing, food to eat, clothing to wear, needed medical care, or educational opportunities.
  • People will have far more opportunity as a result of what I am doing.
  • The planet will be a much better place environmentally because of what I’ve created and what is resulting from that.
  • Businesses will willingly operate in net zero impact status or close to that because it is the right thing to do, not because they are compelled. Every business will be environmentally friendly.  In fact, businesses will have zero costs of operations in a Copiosis society, so running at a net zero status for them will be easy.
  • There will be no unemployment, very little if any crime, no taxes and nearly every chronic symptom of capitalism will be solved through the work I’m dedicating my life to.
  • Money will no longer rule your life. You will be totally free to do whatever you want in the world, and, if that work benefits others and the planet, you will be rewarded. Every person on the planet will be far more prosperous than they are today. That includes the one percent.

In short, I am working to make human society on earth as close to a utopia as is possible given present technology. What CEO, head of state, or other entrepreneur can make that claim? No head of state, very few CEOs if any, and very few entrepreneurs can.

Now, if CEOs can make tens of millions of dollars per year selling everything from toothpicks to airplanes, guns to atom bombs, if heads of states can be worth millions at the end of their leadership, no matter how many people their directives kill or how unstable the world gets because of their actions, how much should a person who is in the process of creating a world I described above make per year? I think the answer is “there is no limit.”

I do believe I should be well-compensated for what I’m doing because hardly anyone is focused on the problems I’m solving. I also believe the people who will eventually work alongside me deserve to be well paid too.

This is why Copiosis needs money. But it will be the best investment ever. Our plans are for millions of people to contribute on average $10 a month. The majority of those people will contribute far less than that monthly. So for between $1 and $10 a month per person (but not every person), all of humanity and the planet will be far better off because of the work Copiosis intends to do.

What is that worth? More than a CEO selling fighter/bombers? I think so.

I think a reasonable person would agree that this question is kind of silly given what Copiosis is doing, and intends to do. But I understand people will ask silly, even cynical questions. That’s because we live in a cynical, skeptical world.

The people working in Copiosis deserve to be paid for the future they are creating. So do I.

You may be too filled with skepticism to fund us right now. Still, we encourage you to keep learning about what we’re doing. Consider looking over our advanced material on our website, or ask us a question. We answer every one because we know the more people learn about what we’re doing, the more excited they get. They get excited because what we’re doing offers great promise. Maybe you’ll get excited too!

What is “Stigmergy”?

Stigmergy is the process by which people in a Copiosis society get things done. It also is the leadership culture in my organization Copiosis.

This free Copiosis report describes what stigmergy is and how it works.

A good example of natural stigmergy is this: Imagine a park with sidewalks around its perimeter. Of course people using the park will play in the grass, but some people will want to cross from one end of the park to the other. Rather than using the perimeter sidewalks, they’ll walk straight across the grass.

As others choose the same option, a new more efficient path gets created. No one pulled together a committee and voted. No one directed a work team to create the path. The path showed up after individuals acted.

Eventually, the park department may put in a permanent paved path there. If not this new path gets created with no planning, no leadership and no input from people with opinions but no commitment to the project. And yet, the path represents the most efficient solution to cross the park. That’s stigmergy naturally occurring.

If we’re going to make maximum effect of opportunities in the physical world, moving towards more stigmergy, more action-based systems may be in our best interest. Copiosis encourages stigmergy-based action systems over other ways people organize to get things done.

Feel free to download our document explaining stigmergy in detail.

You’ve said democracy and voting is a terrible way to run society. Why isn’t voting a good idea?

Voting is problematic because in every case the minority vote loses and in every case it is minority opinions which drive humanity forward. When minority opinions are squelched, progress slows to a crawl.

Votes of most kinds I’m familiar with assess how people think or feel about an issue so that leaders, once elected, presumably can then make decisions for others based on their voted-in credibility that they will represent those who voted them in.

That’s a problem because the minority usually moves humanity forward. If the majority fears progress, then movement forward gets really, really slow.

What’s more the Brexit phenomena in the EU, and the polarized electorate in the US has demonstrated, people are easily swayed to vote for things they don’t really understand, or that they think they understand when really they parrot opinions others gave them. There is so much going on in the world today, so much we are connected to, it is difficult to stay up on all the issues sufficiently enough to vote intelligently when you also must earn your living.

Better to allow people complete dominion over their personal lives and effects by giving them all the necessities they need. That way they don’t have to spend their lives earning a living. Or voting on things that might effect them, but also effects others more and more harmfully.

A proper framework can protect people. A proper framework can check some people’s distorted beliefs, which cause them to want to dominate others, and concentrate power or wealth. With those behaviors controlled, human relationships can function more smoothly. And, in such a framework where needs are provided at no cost, people have more time to get smart on issues, rather than accepting other people’s opinions. Opinions often shared in the self-interest of the opinion maker.

Copiosis is such a framework.

With Copiosis, the errant desires of another have very little impact on society as a whole. It is also easy to address such desires with appropriate attention and action (or non action). So there is little need for society to vote en-masse about an issue, create laws or penalize people.

This is why people have ultimate freedom in Copiosis: they are motivated to do good, good spawned from their personal, private passions (inspiration). Meanwhile bad behavior gets minimized by the framework itself.

So there is no need to spend time voting either on ideas or on leaders. We instead lead ourselves letting our passions drive our actions.

Is there a reason you believe democracy and voting is a good idea? Tell us why. Let’s have a conversation.

What do you mean when you say minorities alway drive forward human progress?

The ultimate minority is a single person. That is always the source of an idea or opinion. In every case, inspiration spawns an idea. The ideas gets acted on by a person who gets the inspiration. One person is the ultimate minority.

Many people may receive and do receive the same idea at the same time. But it is usually one person, or a small number of people who take that idea and create something the world has not seen before.

The same is true with human biological and sociological progress. All progress as a species occurs at the level of the individual. Artists, inventors, movement creators act from personal desires to express their uniqueness and in that expression they cause progress.

When people vote on something, they tend to vote “no” on things that are new, perceived to be threatening, or against their personal beliefs. Often, personal beliefs run contrary to human progress.  That’s because most people live in insecurity and fear. Or they feel secure with the way things are and don’t want that changed. Even if the way things are hurt many. Including the person who doesn’t want things changing!

When people vote “yes” on something, they usually are voting on something they agree with or that is safe.  Progress sometimes doesn’t look safe, but in the end always works out. So human perception is often handicapped when it comes to determining whether something is good for humanity or not.

People getting together to vote, often vote in their interest, or in the interest of their fears, i.e. they vote against that which they fear. In most cases, the fear is about losing money. This has been the case with many of humanity’s most important advancements.

Rather than relying on voting to determine how things move forward, it is better to allow individuals inspired with new ideas to put those ideas into practice, but in a framework that prevents potentially bad outcomes on a scale that could be detrimental to the species or to large groups of people. Copiosis is such a framework.

So in a Copiosis economy, all minorities are allowed free reign provided they operate within the constraints of the Copiosis system. Those constraints are super-broad.

Who ensures they operate within the constraints?

The people who provide them with capital goods and necessities. Since capital goods providers are rewarded NBR based on what the implementer does with them, they are ultimately responsible for making sure that person maximizes net benefit. If the producer resists such involvement, it is a simple matter for the capital good producer/owner to refuse to provide the goods the producer needs.

Same goes for Necessities.

In this way Copiosis facilitates an explosion of progress. Such progress may frighten people who hold fast to conservative views, but that’s where people will have to grow up: they must realize humanity is about creation and movement forward.

And the best thing for humanity is allow that creativity and expansion free reign. Voting immediately introduces restriction.

You talk a lot about people’s passions driving Copiosis. What about people’s passion to kill another person, or for adults to have sex with children, or sell illegal drugs, or make a lot of money at the cost of everything else? Aren’t these passions? And aren’t these bad passions?

I expected this question at some point. Let’s clarify what a “passion” is.

First, let’s define the word. It’s good starting with a common reference. Here’s what one online dictionary says the word means:

Passion definition

Obviously, when I use the word, I’m not referring to the suffering and death of Jesus.

So that leaves definition number one. But let’s look at another source. Let’s look at Webster’s Dictionary definition. I’ll omit the one definition relating to Jesus:

Websters Passion

 

So far so good. Now, there’s a legal definition that’s important to look at. It shows how biased society is against passions and in favor of reason. In my mind it also shows why passions are so overlooked by mainstream society. Because society sees a passionate person as dangerous.

Legal definition of Passion

So, passion, from common knowledge tends to mean something someone can’t control. Something that compels action. Something that when acted upon is dangerous. Is that what I’m referring to when I use the word “passion”?

Nope.

As with nearly everything Copiosis related, we must look at the word “passion” differently.

A passion is something someone knows. It is something calling to that person at the core of who they are, of what they are. They know this thing calling them is what ultimately makes them feel alive, inspired and, in a way, complete. Without fulfilling this calling, they would feel their life is not complete.

These callings come from somewhere.

Now, it is possible to have what feels like a passion calling. But it may not be a passion. Passions come from the best of all that we are. They come from and are inherent to what expands All That Is. And since All That Is is ultimately about moving everything into more or forward, all passions achieve that end.

All That Is is natural. It encompasses everything we know to be, and so, it could itself, be called “natural”.

Since All That Is is….well….All That Is and natural, all that is must reflect aspects of All That Is. That seems logical to me. So all that is must, somehow, even if we don’t understand it, move humanity (a part of all that is) forward.

Therefore all that is must be good. If “good” can be defined as “moving All That Is forward”.

Now, is someone naturally oriented to kill? Research says no.

So can a serial killer’s desire to kill someone be called a passion, in the context we’re discussing?

I would say not. It must be something else.

That said, a serial killer’s acts points to something. It could call attention to a part of all that is, that, if focused upon by someone passionate, could lead to forward movement.

This article and many others offer interesting clarification. I’m pasting one section from the article I think is relevant:

“What makes a serial killer?

Probably a combination of genetics and experience. Research shows that certain genes can predispose people to violence. (One gene, particularly, the so-called warrior gene, is present in about 30 percent of the population and has been linked to increased aggression.) Many serial killers also experienced childhood trauma or early separation from their mothers. As a consequence of that trauma or separation, scientists believe, they learned to suppress empathy or suffered damage to the areas of the brain that control emotional impulses. Serial killers often are loners who fear all relationships and seek to control, to destroy other people to eliminate the possibility of another humiliating rejection. Prolific arsonist Robert Dale Segee, who is believed to have killed 168 and injured hundreds more by setting a fire at a Connecticut circus in 1944, grew up with a dad who punished him by holding his fingers over a candle flame. Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed, dismembered, and partially ate 17 boys and young men beginning in 1978, said he did so "not because I hated them, but to keep them with me." Gerald Stano, who killed at least 22 women beginning in the 1970s, compared killing people to "stepping on a cockroach." Little said he got sexual pleasure from strangling women with his bare hands, and that by taking their lives, he came to "own" them.”

Regarding the “warrior gene”, note the quote says 30 percent of the entire population has this gene. But serial killers don’t comprise 30 percent of the population. More like one percent.

Which means there are a lot of people with this gene not serial killing. Or hardly even killing. So I would throw this explanation out.

The rest of the quote has good information in it. To summarize and paraphrase, serial killers aren’t acting from some deep calling from who and what they are. They are responding to experiences they’ve had and, through their actions, trying to make sense of that experience.

That’s not a passion.

The same goes with psychopaths, greedy people, people who are only profit oriented (at the cost of all else), and drug dealers.

The desire to understand their behavior though can be a passion. And, that can lead to solving circumstances causing serial killers, psychopaths and so on. Serial killers aren’t born, they’re bred. So are most other examples the question points out.

There is some agreement in the psychological community that some pedophiles are born that way, just like so many out-of-the-norm sexual orientations. This article is a great read. The point of this is, sexual activity is as diverse as the animal kingdom. Trying to put rules on it is tough.

I understand wanting to protect children though. Something must be done. Does a pedophile act from a passion? If so, then it must move humanity forward somehow.

I can’t say for sure.

All I know is, when I speak of “passions” I’m referring to compelling desires which well up seeking expression. The expression of which moves humanity forward.

In many cases, it’s unclear what “moving humanity forward” looks like for some time. Which is one reason why Copiosis doesn’t offer immediate rewards.

One challenge humanity faces (and must overcome) is its myopic view. Humans are eternal. This is obvious to anyone willing to look (with assistance from someone who already knows this).

When humanity finally adopts their natural, eternal state, they will begin realizing much of what they try to legislate or control, they do from a myopic perspective. That often fails because nature (All That Is) has the long view and also the last word in all things. It is, after all, All That Is.

Serial killers and other seeming never-do-wells make up a tiny slice of the human pie. Meanwhile there are all kinds of passions worth paying attention to and fostering.

It’s those passions I’m referring to when I use that word. All passions move humanity forward. That’s what Copiosis is about. And that’s why it is my passion.

In the advanced section of our website, I’ll be going much deeper on this and other philosophical topics underpinning Copiosis and why these philosophical underpinnings make Copiosis so unique.

In answer to your question, when I speak about “passions”, what I’m talking about are compelling desires which well up from within a person, seeking expression, the expression of which moves humanity forward.

Not convinced? Let’s have a conversation about it. Contact us.

Questions about making it happen, aka, the transition
How on earth are you going to make this happen?

Copiosis will achieve its mission without focusing blame on anything or anyone.  Without opposing anyone, fighting anything, redistributing other people’s wealth, or trying to pin blame on any single group of people, we can make fundamental change a reality.  Understanding how we do this requires a pretty good understanding of the innovation itself, which everyone will come to when the time is right for them.  Our understanding of timing as a critical element is another major advantage.  We also know how to manufacture what people generally refer to as luck.  More on that later.

Our secret weapon: Consumerism

Do you use Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, the Internet, Tesla, tooth brushes, shoes, or computers?  If so, your behavior, as well as the millions of people just like you who use or are familiar with these inventions as well as billions of other products, services, concepts and ideas, have already demonstrated our transition plan’s effectiveness.  Proof that our transition plan has worked is so prevalent that it’s invisible to nearly everyone even though everyone has demonstrated its workability in their own lives and has seen it work in others’ lives.

Every time you spend money on one thing over another, believe in one thing over another, or change your behavior as a result of watching or listening to others, you are demonstrating our transition plan’s workability.

I’m pointing to the power of product innovation and consumer adoption. People who make great products and services—those things we love, things we are eager to spend money on, things we believe in and talk about—know our strategy and know it works. Here, I’ll break it down for you:

  • First, a creator has a burning desire to do something.  It is a call of passion that they can not deny.  They can’t help but want to make this thing.  They know people will love it.  This burning passion germinates the massive success to come.
  • Next, they make it.  That product, service, concept, or idea can be a simple improvement on something that already exists.  In breakout successes though, the creation is a complete departure from normal.  It's an “Ohmygod, where did THAT come from?” innovation that people want immediately.  It polarizes the market into those who love it and those who hate it.

Screen Shot 2015-05-13 at 11.49.31 AM

  • Not everyone wants it immediately.  Just a small number of people loving the thing gets the process started.  Those people love the new thing so much, they can’t help but tell all their friends about it.  They want to be involved with the product’s adoption and growth.  They are compelled by internal forces known only to them to take this action.

I currently see Copiosis as one of the most strategically sound direct actions I can spend effort on.

- Timothy H., who became a volunteer after hearing our radio interview on KBOO-FM

I really am glad that you connected with me in the beginning! I have a good feeling that this project will see its way to fruition and that we will be in better times within our lifetimes.

 - Denver G., in a personal email to me. He is working now to bring Copiosis to Spain.

  • Or, if they’re more tentative, they check in with others they trust about it.

spreading the word

  • Before you know it, that creator has an army of people spreading the word about this great new thing. The army gets bigger, word goes farther.
  • Providence steps in
  • Over the next 10 to 20 years, remarkable events happen.  These events secular-oriented people call “luck,” “happy accidents,” and "coincidence" for good reason.  They seem completely random or magical.  That’s not what’s actually happening, but that’s what it looks like to the average person.  That’s why the average person (and some creators/leaders) describe these events as “luck," “perfect timing,” and coincidence.  The reality is, these events are not random, and they’re not luck.  They can be manufactured.
  • These 10 to 20 years pass without most people noticing anything about the innovation.  They are not paying attention to the "incremental-here-then-small-leaps-and-bounds-there" progress the creator, her team, and her small army are making happen.  But the creator, propelled by her passion and enthusiasm is keenly aware and consciously shaping events.  She’s buoyed by early success.  Most creators just have faith these events will happen, and sometimes they do.  But for the creator who knows how to manufacture luck, things happen quite differently.
  • Over time, the process described above feeds itself in a virtuous cycle.  Then, one day, everyone is talking about this new thing, and the creator is a hero.  This creation looks like an overnight success to most people.  They don’t recognize the "incremental-here-then-small-leaps-and-bounds-there" because they didn’t go through it.

That’s the overview of the Copiosis transition strategy. We’re well along this path. The key points:

  1. Make something that springs from your passion
  2. Make it so great a small number of people LOVE it
  3. Allow those people opportunity to participate in the spreading of it
  4. Manufacture events that amplify the small army’s work
  5. Continue on the path until it’s done.

I could go on and on describing the transition process, but that covers it in a nutshell.  There are nuances and key conceptual details I have a solid lock on that I could share, but won’t for brevity’s sake. Sharing those details doesn’t matter anyway. Instead, let’s visit some nuts and bolts.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

-  Buckminster Fuller

Some details

In successes, rapid adoption happens once the majority realizes what the minority (the earlyvangelists and early adopters) already know:  The new product or service is way better than the status quo.  Whether it’s iPhones, Teslas, Priuses, rap music, progressive lenses, electric toothbrushes, spears, guns, machine guns, missiles, or drones, it’s all the same—make something better, and get it in the hands of a passionate few.  Give it time, manufacture luck.  Don’t give up, and you'll have majority adoption.

curve-499x275
The technology, or product adoption curve. The heart of our transition strategy. We know how to implement this strategy and we’re already producing indicators of success.

The product-adoption or technology-adoption curve illustrates this tried-and-true process.  The difference between Copiosis and other efforts to make the world a better place are our advantages:

  1. Other efforts have not understood or consciously used the product adoption curve or the principles that underlie it.
  2. We know how to make the product adoption curve work because we understand how to run a startup.
  3. We already are producing results consistent with this strategy.  In other words, the transition plan is working today.
  4. We manufacture our own “luck" and know our process for manufacturing “luck” works.

Our transition phases

I have pretty good detail in my head of exactly what the transition looks like, but no plan survives the first “engagement.”  Flexibility is key.  I outlined these details in a previous post.  Here are those same details updated with current knowledge and awareness.

Untitled_Artwork 4

Early phase (we're in this stage now):  In this stage we focus on awareness generation, education, and recruitment, while focusing on solution improvement and development.  The most common question we get besides “How will you make this happen” is “Have you tried this somewhere?”  In this phase we show the system can work by rolling out demonstration projects across the country.  Demonstration projects are preceded by “tours” in which people get an emotional immersion in Copiosis.  They get to feel what it’s like living in a Copiosis society.  The tour also includes a presentation of our transition strategy.

I am going to inquire about you coming to Yelm WA to do a presentation soon

 - Adele C., Copiosis Portland Tour attendee

In this phase we expect to support an increasing number of demonstration projects across the US.  Work in this area will spawn interest for demonstration projects in other countries.  At the moment, it appears Spain may be the next country where a demonstration project may occur.

As more and more people learn about and experience Copiosis through the tours, more people are wanting to get involved.  Those people become part of our army. Their task is to launch a demonstration project in their community.  A group in Chico, California is planning to launch their own demonstration project.

Media coverage also is a prime component of this phase.  We already have demonstrated strong support from community-supported radio stations, which broadcast to an audience that is essentially our latent army.

Meanwhile, in this phase we have and continue to refine all the technology needed to run the demonstration projects with the help of Portland State University.  We also have successfully recruited enough families willing to participate in our first demonstration project.  A local (Portland) award-winning newspaper has begun preparing an article on that project to run some time after the Portland project launches in September.

This phase sees the widespread adoption of demonstration projects across the nation, with projects spontaneously popping up in other countries as we gain early traction and momentum.

Copiosis transitions to the Entertainment and education phase after we have identified and recruited one to five high net worth individuals (or a satisfactory equivalent) willing to finance progress and includes using high-concept Copiosis events, the media, and info/edutainment to further educate and inspire.  The Copiosis “tour” holds great promise as a highly interactive, edutainment event where people pay to have an experience that engenders hope for the future, inspiration, and inquiry. What’s more, we have both a board game and MMORPG in very, very early stage development.  This phase continues with subsequent remaining phases.

The Political phase of our strategy begins when sufficient heat is generated in public consciousness to merit the attention of pundits, think tanks, lobbies, the mainstream media, and political leaders.  In this phase, work begins to counter anticipated vile attacks, outright misrepresentations, and other strategies, including character assassination, people vested in maintaining the status quo will use in their ignorance to try to destroy our work.  I say “ignorance” because they (1) won’t have understood the innovation and how it benefits them, (2) their income depends on being contrarian, antagonistic, or ignorant of what we’re doing.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

- Mahatma Ghandi

I believe that by this phase, public support of Copiosis through demonstration projects, media coverage, our not-so-small army, and our results will be too great to ignore.  Public funding is expected to be massive at this stage, enabling us to begin taking action in the political arena, initially at the municipal level, to generate more detailed awareness among political leaders.  We also cultivate our own friendly political representatives and action committees and lobbies to do our political work although no legislation is needed until just before the Transition Phases outlined below.

Pre-Transition Phase:  We convene teams of experts to continue the software and technology development needed to let Copiosis economies work.  Much of this technology exists already and just needs to be repurposed to serve the innovation. Other technology we’ll develop in-house.

Meanwhile, other Copiosis teams begin working on the process of compensating people with investments in tangible market assets as well as financial securities, thereby eliminating debt once and for all for everyone.  We already know how to do this.  We also begin working with other nations to smooth the transition for them (assuming they aren't transitioning themselves).

The Payer Institute, the organization founded to train members of the Payer Organization, is formalized.  By this time, it has been training people to act as payers in the demonstration projects on an informal level.  We’ll be creating the Payer Institute as we launch the Portland demonstration project (Kenton) in September.  The Pre-transition phase ends with the passage of the Copiosis legislation, which we have drafted already but will likely change as we gain understanding of relevant subjects such as Constitutional law.

Transition Phase:  In this phase, the entire nation (or nations) begin to deploy Payers, distribute software to transform existing mobile devices  (if that hasn’t happened already) so those devices can interface with the Copiosis system (mainframe and other elements such as accepting and recording transactions and declarations) and continue other work that got underway in the previous phases.  Legislation and newly formed organizations assist with the transition to the Copiosis economy.

Post-Transition Phase:  Mop-up activities take place here.  There will be glitches needing attention (e.g., the Affordable Care Act implementation).  There will be uncertainty and conflicts, which we hope to address in the Pre-Transition phase.  In this phase we follow-up on the transition, monitor progress, and fix what isn't working.  We suspect this will mostly be adaptation issues of individual human beings and groups of human beings rather than institutional and infrastructure issues.

That’s the gist of our transition strategy.  We're creating something people get emotionally connected to, and we're going to win.  Period.

Wrapping it up

Is this plan working now?  By what I can see, it is.  We have a growing army, we have successful strategic alliances with key media so far, our education and outreach are increasing in effectiveness.  Meanwhile, our demonstration projects continue to develop.  We have functional software using a functional algorithm we believe works.  We have concepts, values, and disciplines guiding our organizational culture.  We have all the elements in place and they are all working.

If you don’t believe our transition plan can work by this point, if you disbelieve, doubt, or are skeptical, watch and see.

If you are beginning to see the light, please consider visiting our Patreon page and consider becoming a patron of our work.

Is Copiosis a purely a transition system, that is a system that will enable us to achieve post-scarcity but then no longer be necessary; or is it a system that will continue into post-scarcity and the mechanisms will still be used to maintain that state once achieved?

It can be either or both. I suspect after generations that have lived through capitalism are dead and gone, the remaining ones would probably agree to drop the whole NBR system leaving everyone essentially living in a post-scarcity, gift economy.

How does Copiosis transition the world to the RBE/NLRBE?

After decades of Copiosis, with the transition well behind civilization, and most people who remember capitalism are dead, people will ask “why are we still bothering with this NBR calculation and rewarding people stuff?” At that point, it is an easy matter of eliminating that portion of Copiosis and then allowing resources to be managed by the well-equipped systems in place at the time.

There is also a psychological component: Copiosis prepares human mentality for the switch by offering an interim step similar enough to capitalism for people to understand and be willing to embrace an RBE-like future.

It does this while also including many elements which prepare society for the RBE-like future. This includes easing conditioning people adopted to live in this system. A big part of this “easing” is around the way people think about their life and environment. I often say people need to grow up to live in the future. This includes many people who believe in TZM and the RBE. As tough as it is to read that, it was even tougher writing it. But it is what it is…

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, many people believing the RBE is our future don’t recognize six tremendous barriers standing in their way.

So the pathway to an RBE - should society want that in the future - is much easier through Copiosis than it is in any other way I’ve heard about. That’s because Copiosis solves all six of these barriers.

Are you an RBE supporter? Tell us why you’re supporting RBE initiatives, we’d love to hear from you.

Why can’t we leap directly to a Natural Law Resource Based Economy (NLRBE)?

It seems to me the NLRBE depends on a large amount of technology and automation. It is not possible to automate everything “right away.” It will take decades of engineering design, prototyping and build out. That costs money.

Also, in the meantime, people have to eat, live and work.

Someone has to feed, clothe and house those people, and the only way to do that now is with the facilities and systems we have.

There’s also the enormous challenge of changing people’s mindsets. That, for sure, cannot happen right away. That requires enormous effort. Effort that can’t happen through physical activity alone.

So there are many factors making it near impossible to leap directly to an RBE.

But why the impatience? Why do we need to move directly, immediately to this new future you want? What’s the rush? Examining your answers can lead to fruitful insights if you’re willing to look beneath immediate answers these questions bring to mind.

What do you see is the biggest challenge for an RBE to become our reality? How to organizations supporting RBEs have a plan for overcoming that challenge? If so, what is it? We’d love to hear from you.

Will you stop people from using whatever medium of exchange they want?

People often ask questions that speak to their current situation.

For example, as much as you’d like to, you’re probably not going to get into the Super Bowl trying to barter a ticket with a dozen (or even two-dozen) chicken eggs, or by using an alternative currency. Nor are you likely to satisfy your state or local tax obligation with firewood or bread. Your taxes can be settled with one thing: your government sanctioned “legal tender”.

In Copiosis, you can use whatever medium of exchange you want. But why do that?

Why try to “buy” necessities when they are given to you as gifts, with no expectation of something in return? Have you been conditioned to believe in ways that make receiving a gift as something bad?

Same for Capital Goods. Why try to “trade” or “buy” them when people will give them to you?

In Copiosis, it makes no sense using media of exchange. Even if you want a luxury item, in some cases people will give them to you. But in all the other cases, all you have to do to get it is do something(s) that benefits another person or the planet.

Why try to avoid that? Seriously, we’d really like to know.

I believe when people understand all money’s inherent problems, they won’t want to keep using it. Especially when offered something theoretically better.

But I also get conditioning people have. Conditioning making them think they must “earn” and “pay” for things.

That conditioning must be overcome to embrace a better future.

Thinking you have to earn what you get and pay for what you want is conditioning. It’s also stifling.

It doesn’t have to be how it is. And, it’s better not having it that way.

Bottom line is: if you want to exchange things, then go for it.

But in a Copiosis economy “exchanges” are a figment of the past. A concept created from ideas saying a person who gives is somehow less or injured and therefore must be given back to to make them whole.

The opposite is true: a person is made BETTER when they give. Copiosis just happens to also reward that person for giving. By rewarding them NBR.

If you’re interested in this question and concerned about being required to use NBR, please tell us why you’re concerned about that? What are your objections to people all using the same system, if that system improves life on earth?

Is the Payer Organization a monopoly? And what about people who have disagreements with its management?

The Payer Organization is a Stigmergic Monopoly.

Anyone can become part of it and contribute to its work. If someone disagrees with how it is running things, that person or group can join and make changes within or participate in one of many Citizen Juries to make the system better.

A person unhappy with how the Payer Organization functions also can spend all their time as a watchdog, capturing evidence of what must be changed, then offering such suggestions to the Payer Organization.

Anything that makes the Payer Organization do its job better will mean every member of the Payer Organization gets more NBR. Including the person who made it better. So there is good reason for Payer Organization members to adopt good ideas.

You’ll get NBR too, if your better idea is adopted.

But if you’re unhappy with how the Payer Organization functions because of a personal grudge, or irrational concern, or because you’re trying to force others to be like you, you’re likely to be ignored.

Say for example you want people to work harder. You don’t like lazy people. “Lazy” defined by how you think it’s defined. Others don’t agree with you about your definition of “lazy”, nor do they believe, like you do, that being “lazy” is a problem. Especially people you’d judge to be lazy.

So you join the Copiosis Organization and try to implement something that introduces a “punishment for being lazy” into the algorithm or ethos of the Payer Organization.

First, you’re not going to get any NBR for your effort, because what you’re trying to do is not NET beneficial. Second, it’s highly unlikely others will want to work with you because seasoned Copiosis Organization members won’t agree with you and so they’ll ignore you. Third, if you persist with what you’re doing you’ll likely get a declaration in your reputation account indicating your desire to “punish” people for something that doesn’t produce negative Net Benefit.

So in some ways, the Payer Organization is a monopoly. But it’s not the kind of monopoly we have today.

If you disagree with what it’s doing, you have all kinds of recourses. You can become a member and change things from within. You can become a watchdog or whistleblower and change things from without.

But you better have clear and good reasons for wanting the change. Reasons that make the entire system better than it is. Or else, you’re not likely to make much progress.

What concerns do you have about the Copiosis Organization administering the system so people are fairly rewarded? Please tell us.

How will the Copiosis Organization know an individual has done something that benefits another or the environment?

In a full-blown Copiosis economy, we all have handheld devices similar to our smartphones. We use these to create and confirm transactions. Producers still must register their items (goods or services). That way the system knows what’s being offered. Those records are used to create other records. These other records record who is consuming what, when and how much NBR (in the case of luxuries) they gave up to consume that thing.

That sounds like a lot of work for producers. But today products and services already are being registered. That is what UPC codes, product numbers, inventory tracking systems and product descriptions do. It is basic inventory tracking in action. We need it today and we need it in Copiosis.

Once a product or service is in the system, it’s a simple act of completing an online record, like an electronic invoice, detailing what happened. Such invoices can be programmed to be created from a series of voice commands. Easy peasy.

Once confirmed by the consumer (by voice or some other verification) the system rewards the producer.

For smaller acts, such as washing someone’s car or fixing someone’s bike, all the people do is create a record in the system, report what’s done and it’s done.

It’s possible early on that some events will be missed. In those cases, no one starves, loses their home or goes bankrupt. And, eventually all events get recorded. Events missed can be recorded retroactively.

There’s built in incentive ensuring that happens: Producers want their NBR.

It’s possible some fraud will happen. People will record transactions that don’t happen. In many cases, who cares? The rewards won’t be all that large anyway. It’s a sure bet though that the following will happen.

Someone or number of ones will disagree with the statement “it’s not a big deal if small fraud goes unchecked.” These people will be passionate about making sure bad actors are checked. They will create code that can sniff the system, pick out trends indicating potential abuse.

That will be a huge system improvement. Wouldn’t it?

The cool thing is, this result is guaranteed. Because there are, for sure, people like that among humanity. When they create that code and it’s implemented, the system will have improved because of their passion. So, guess what?

Those people get NBR and a perpetual reward for that improvement.

Another case: Suppose someone tries to falsely claim they did something worthy of a large NBR payout. Such acts must produce large impacts. How can that person falsify such large impacts?

There will be people who will try. But whistleblowers and watchdogs will catch them.

Right now we don’t have a verification process planned out. So if someone comes up with such a plan (after the transition), they will get NBR in the same way those who helped fix the fraud problem got NBR

So it’s not really necessary that the Payer Organization catch every single event the minute after we transition to Copiosis. So long as consumers and producers keep track of what’s happening, the system will catch up.

In the meantime, a whole lot of improvement happens. Improvement that couldn’t happen under our current structure. I believe that’s a very good thing.

For more information on this, see, “every problem is a market” in The Basics  page. Or visit the Advanced section (Coming soon contingent on additional funding)

Questions about wealth inequality
How this system addresses inequality is unclear since property can be transferred and currently less than 10% of the people own more than 80% of the resources. How do you get the 10% to distribute the resources they own for free given a vague promise of future benefit?

There is no need to "get the 10%" to do anything.  Inequality, especially when applied to property ownership is an illusion created by capitalism.

Despite what the 99% (or the 90%) claim, the 1% - 10% know exactly what is happening and are suffering as much as everyone else. In some cases they are suffering more.

Just because they’re rich doesn’t mean all their worries disappear. Some of them think they’re worry-free, but anyone who is human can’t be free while others suffer because concern for others is part of what it means to be human.

No matter how much you think a rich person is a “deranged psychopath with no empathy for others” there is still empathy there. It’s just covered up by a bunch of injuries and resultant scar tissue resulting from what other people (usually their parents) did to them. Other people who themselves were injured by still other people (usually their parents).

Copiosis doesn't deal with "inequality" the way we think of it today. What it does is it neuters the power such inequality has. This is the best approach because you’re not going to get rich people to give up their riches and property.

    • The very rich will still be very rich in a Copiosis Economy. The difference though is what that wealth can buy.
    • In Copiosis they can’t use that wealth to do the things they do today:
    • They can’t pay people crappy wages, because they aren’t responsible for doing that any more.
    • They can’t threaten people with economic ruin by firing them or ruining their careers because people no longer work for others they way they do today.
    • They can’t coerce people to work in terrible and life threatening conditions by threatening them with destitution or losing their healthcare.
    • They can’t control other people’s ability to get rich because they don’t control the money.
    • They can’t use their wealth to shape law because, for the most part there is no law-creation anymore.
    • They can't use their money to coerce or influence government, the courts or the financial sector because these institutions don’ t exist the way they do after the Transition. The Courts do, but they don't operate the way they do today.  Especially the supreme court.

So who cares how much property they have? Their property is more a burden than an asset in Copiosis anyway. Sitting still over there on some land, a factory or farm is worthless. So is a luxury mansion. Especially if the owner doesn’t know how to, or doesn’t have the time to, maintain it.

It’s only when people do something with the factory or land, or conduct maintenance on the mansion, that benefit gets produced.

So guess what? The REAL VALUE of “property” happens when a HUMAN engages with it.

And since a rich person can no longer coerce, through “earning a living”, others to work their property (like wage slaves), how will rich people take advantage of workers?

They can’t.

They won’t.

The opposite will happen. To get rich(er) a rich person must take care of people working with them. They must lavish them. They must bend over backwards creating the best work conditions possible. Why? Because smart businesspeople elsewhere are going to be doing that. They must. Free people aren’t going to work in crappy situations. Goodbye Unions! Goodbye shitty management!

They become obsolete.

The rich can’t use their wealth to curry political favors because politicians are, for the most part out of jobs, because there are no jobs. So go politics, political parties and political positions with any real authority. Rich people can’t even hire an illegal immigrant to clean their laundry and keep their mansion tidy!

Essentially, they can't force anyone to do anything through their wealth. What will they do???

They’ll have to become better people. Nicer people. More generous people. “Generous” measured differently than today. Because they can’t “donate” millions and earn a false kind of respect. Their wealth is worthless in that way because it can’t be transferred.

They actually have to do things with people. Be nice to people. All people. If they want people to work with them that is.

What’s more, after the truth and reconciliation process, some of the rich may have a hard time finding a community willing to support them. Copiosis becomes a great leveler in regards to ill-gotten gains of the past because all the power now rests with the people who actually do the work and produce stuff - not the people telling others what to produce, where to work and how much they get paid for that toil.

So a wealthy person pre-transition, still has his wealth post-transition, but it’s not very powerful post-transition.

New wealthy people in Copiosis can only become that way by producing massive positive Net-Benefit. Meaning they have created something or done something or enabled something that produced benefit to massive numbers of people and the planet. In effect, for the newly rich, wealth is a sign of respect and praise. Old wealth will be a sign of shame and disgrace probably.

There will still be wealth disparity, but the story of wealth, and what that wealth can do, changes.

By the way, everyone in a Copiosis economy is "wealthy" by today's standards, because they are no longer earning a living. Their lives are freed up and they can pursue their passion - just as the wealthy do today.

I guess what I'm saying here is the meaning of “wealth” is transformed through our innovation. “Wealth” is redistributed. Without having to take anything from anyone!

Do you think Copiosis might be able to solve wealth inequality? If so, how?  If not why? Please tell us.

If people can own and give (or will) property, won’t this just lead to what we have now, with some people owning a lot of ‘Capital Goods’ (usually, ‘the means of production’ such as the factories etc.)?

There will be cases where people own capital goods, but there may be cases where such goods are the result of shared ownership. It largely depends.

The problem you may be pointing to is what we see today. Concentrated wealth, influence, and power disparity resulting from asset ownership (including wealth) is a problem. Said concentration’s real problem is that such concentration can influence public policy. That influence effects individual lives.  Especially lives of people having comparatively nothing.

That influential effect can and has sometimes been positive. Nothing is black and white. But it also can and has been negative. That’s why you’re asking this question. It also can be positive and negative simultaneously: Positive to those wanting the effect, but negative to those not wanting it.

In Copiosis, there are no substantial political organizations. Power expressed as wealth goes away because wealth is NBR wealth. It gets you luxuries. Not political power. NBR can’t transfer, so you can’t use your wealth to influence people through increasing or decreasing their wealth through controlling resources or giving or withholding money you have.

Should you try, the rest of society has a strong check-and-balance: they can make life hard by not giving you Necessities.

Say a person owns a large capital resource. A timber company for example. The person owns, let’s say, many square miles of forest, the trees of which are used to make all kinds of end goods.

That property must generate beneficial consumption before that person gets NBR.

Now let’s say this person doesn’t like Asians. So they don’t let any wood go to Asian people.

In Copiosis, that’s ok. This person is free to do what they want.

Now let’s say the people working in the company are aware of the owner’s bigotry. The people working there can exert a lot of influence on the owner’s racist position. How? By not working. The owner can’t withhold their NBR. In fact, they (the workers) might get NBR for not working. Why? Bigotry is not Net Beneficial.

The workers might ignore the owner’s bigotry and give wood to Asians anyway. Again, the owner can’t do anything about that really. The owner can tell workers doing that not to come to the organization and work there. The workers could leave. But that might cause all workers to leave. There’s nothing keeping all the workers from doing that because the owner doesn’t control the workers’ income or their access to food, shelter, or healthcare.

Meanwhile, the entire town might get involved. Word will get around. The community will likely not agree with the owner’s bigotry. Like the workers, they community can put a lot of pressure on the owner.

If the workers ignore the owner’s bigotry and give wood to Asian people, the owner gets more NBR. But let’s say the owner doesn’t care about more NBR. They have enough. There’s still enough other pressure coming from their community, including workers making life uncomfortable.

Meanwhile, there could be other people owning timber land that would serve Asians. Including people with other capital goods making raw materials that substitute for wood. So Asians wouldn’t be substantially injured by this bigoted owner. The only harm the owner-bigot could create would be harm to himself.

There are a lot of different ways this could go. As you can see, people actually doing things, have as much power as people owning things. Owning something doesn’t carry much influence.

Another example. Take an assembly line factory. Suppose before transition, one person owned this factory. That person is the owner. But so what? They can’t run the factory by themselves.

There are too many parts needing maintenance. There are too many people needed to make it go. The owner can’t manage the line, the raw material inputs, the manufacturing process, the output, warehousing the output, inventorying the output, distributing the output, etc.

Again, the people actually doing all the work of maintaining it, using it to make things, and improving the efficiency of it are the value. Not the factory itself or the equipment in it.

The owner gets rewarded NBR when the factory works. How much depends on what they do as part of the factory working. Let’s say the owner creates ways to use the factory line - such as creating a new product, for example, or finding new customers wanting to use such a factory. She is rewarded NBR for the idea. She also gets rewarded for the benefit of creating labor opportunity for people working in the factory.

Once the idea becomes a product and is rolling off the factory, the people operating the factory making the product are receiving NBR for making that happen. But the NBR the workers get is not limited in any way by what the owner gets.

A worker could find someone who wants to use the factory too, for example. That worker would get the NBR reward for any net benefit coming from that relationship, in the same way the owner did. Everyone can win.

This means work place relationships change. They become more egalitarian.

It will be difficult for some people to roll with these changes. That’s ok. Change is part of being human. Thankfully, there’s almost total open access to any kind of service helping people with that change.

And when automation takes over there will still be equipment to monitor and fix. Someone must find uses for the production. Relationships must be created and maintained over time. At this point only people can do this. Automation can help. It can’t do it all though.

A single owner can’t do it all on their own either. Doesn’t that reflect reality? No one is an island. No one, NO ONE is a “self-made man”.

Owning a single capital good, such as a tractor, however, is different.

An owner can lend himself and his tractor to a farmer and receive direct benefit from employing that asset. Smaller assets are able to benefit the owner directly. That’s because the owner operates the asset.

The moment ownership grows over multiple assets, the owner’s NBR “income” could go down, not up. He just can’t manage all the assets on his own. If he cooperates with others, his NBR can go up through owning multiple assets. But that increase doesn’t in any way penalize or limited those he cooperates with. They can get rich too.

So as you can see, owning large amounts of things doesn’t mean much. Especially when the means of production are many and making them work requires many people.

My thought on large corporate assets such as factories, machine shops, jets and ocean liners…and trains and truck fleets and such is they will be fractionalized. Meaning they will be owned by the people using the capital good while using it. Then ownership reverts to another owner when that person uses it. This may be the future of “corporations”.

As corporate assets are owned (via investment) by shareholders, there really is no single owner of any corporate asset. Private corporations are a different story. But even there, assets likely would be split up according to skill/technical expertise.

The President of such a large, private company is unlikely to own the truck fleet, for example. What will he do with the trucks? He can’t drive them all simultaneously. He probably doesn’t understand fleet logistics or maintenance. How can he create maximum NBR with them by himself?

However, the company’s fleet General Manager, the Maintenance manager or even the drivers themselves could employ the trucks, thus benefitting people. They know how. The president really doesn’t. Unless he’s running a fleet company he founded from scratch.

Maybe you’re beginning to see something interesting: The only means of production worth any real value is labor. All the assets in the world sitting there doing nothing account for nothing.

Their owners can’t pay anyone to put them in use. They can’t use all those assets by themselves. They must rely on people’s good-will (willingness) and cooperation. Good will and cooperation that can’t be bought. Good will and cooperation that uses the assets to benefit other people. The planet too.

A person’s labor is their own. Labor has more power in Copiosis. Not “organized labor”. That’s unnecessary too. Since “management” gets neutered, there’s no one for labor to organize against, right?

Human labor is priceless. Without it, nothing happens. A person’s labor is akin to their existence. Even Copiosis can’t adequately reward people for value that person’s labor represents.

But it sure does better than capitalism. And it makes people far more free in the process.

Amassing wealth and power then controlling people’s employment/labor with it is impossible in Copiosis because people don’t own people like people do in capitalism.

Labor is not for sale. It’s priceless.

Have a specific example you’d like to hear how Copiosis might address? Please share it. It may even become part of this FAQ document. People sharing their questions and concerns is how our plans improve. We want to hear from you!

Questions about the feasibility of Copiosis
This sounds like Utopia

Just because there are no people living on the streets, no taxes, no unemployment, prosperity everywhere, you can do whatever you want, and no oppressive government will force anything else on you, doesn’t mean there are no problems and that no one suffers.

People are, after all, people. There will be problems, people will still be bored, frustrated, angry, jealous etc. There will be depressed and helpless feeling people. And there will be happy and excited people. People engaged in life, people getting rich.

And while ample mental health benefits will be abundant for that first group, people will be people.

That means many of those people feeling negative about life can get help in changing how they see life. But that doesn’t mean they’ll avail themselves of that help. Even when getting that help costs them nothing.

But your experience in Copiosis can be utopian-like when compared to any civilization on the planet today.

Maybe you think “Utopia” is a negative, dismissive term. We don’t.

At Copiosis, we believe it to be a worthwhile goal. Even if we never reach it.

Copiosis is not Utopia. But think about this: actions stemming from negative emotions, such as jealousy, greed, anger, envy, etc., impact far fewer people, over time, in Copiosis than today.

Capitalism’s unintended consequences often trigger such emotions. The effect of such emotions get amplified in capitalism. You can do a lot of damage putting a person hell-bent on retribution or revenge in the White House.

Emotions have a lot of power over people. You get – at the very least – stressed at tax time. Lose your job, you feel helpless. Lose it for a shitty reason and you get angry. Lose your home because you lose your job and you may be depressed. You may even seek violent retribution.

Much of these consequences don’t happen in Copiosis because one, in Copiosis, you can’t lose your home, go broke, lose your job (there aren’t any) or anything else that would be personally catastrophic today.

You can still feel the emotions though. You may feel hopeless because you can’t (temporarily) figure out something that stokes your passions. But there is ample help for that. All of it at no cost to you.

So a hopeless feeling has a productive outlet.

You don’t have to blame then hate people who don’t look like you, or shoot up a movie theater with an assault weapon to get attention.

No cost medical care/healthcare including mental health services are available. There will be a LOT OF PEOPLE helping you find your passions. There will be all kinds of education. Most important, your necessities are provided to you at no cost. That means you have all the time in the world to figure yourself out and learn to handle your emotional reactions productively.

So in essence, people grow up in Copiosis. So does everyone else.

That said, there will still be problems in Copiosis because people are human. There will also still be natural disasters that cause suffering. There will be problems. Problems are seeds from which the future sprouts.

There will still be people doing stupid stuff that harm others. People will learn as they mature in Copiosis, meaning, they will make mistakes. Copiosis is not Utopia. But it is about as close to that ideal as we can get right now given our capabilities.

If you believe utopias are impossible, we want to hear from you. Why do you believe we can’t achieve them? Please, tell us.

You’re trying to create Utopia which is stupid and impossible

Why shouldn’t we strive for Utopia? Who convinced you of your opinion? Have you really thought about it? Or are you repeating someone else’s opinion?

Just because no one has succeeded, doesn’t mean what you say. Everyone thought a sub 2-hour marathon was impossible. Guess what?

Humans would do themselves a huge favor checking their assumptions. Everything is possible. Even Utopia. One could say we’re living in one today

It doesn’t look that way, because most people don’t understand what’s happening.

Utopia is closer than you think.

Copiosis is not Utopia but it gets humanity closer.

For example, let’s say you’re in Copiosis and you work in a Public Relations firm.  The owner of the firm works there too. You’re a woman. One day, the owner calls you into his office. (By the way, anyone trying the following in Copiosis really doesn’t understand how Copiosis works). He drops his pants and asks you to get on your knees.

Now the problem with this is socially and professionally, it’s grossly inappropriate. In capitalism, as we have seen, the owner has tremendous leverage to make you take the abuse. And you might be willing to take that abuse or keep it inside you for decades. Maybe even your entire life.

He could make your life miserable. He could fire you. He could not promote you. In other words, he controls your income to some degree.

Yes, you could go to a different firm, but if he’s prominent in the industry, he could make that hard. Besides, we know, even in the #metoo era, women consistently under report exactly these kinds of inappropriate situations. I’m not making this up!

In Copiosis anyone in any kind of authority has stewardship authority. Not “power”.

In this case, if it were to happen in Copiosis, what could the owner do to you if you told him to fuck off and filed a negative reputation account declaration on him?

Your NBR doesn’t depend on him. It only depends on what you’re doing and the results of what you do for humanity and the planet, not the owner of the pr company.

By the way, should you file a declaration, you could receive NBR for protecting other women from his predatory behavior.

Since your NBR comes from the algorithm, not from this guy, he has nothing he can use to control you. He can’t even ruin your reputation. Why? Reputation Accounts.

Reputation Accounts are described in The Basics page.

While he could try using old-style word of mouth tactics to tarnish your reputation, your reputation account is far more important to others than what someone says.

For one, declarations made in your Reputation Account are Copiosis Organization verified for accuracy. Second, someone trying to falsify or fraudulently add a declaration to your account would themselves receive a negative reputation declaration from the Copiosis Organization (and others).

More powerfully, you can file a declaration in the PR owner’s reputation account, accounting for what he attempted.

Consider the backlash we see today from inappropriate workplace behavior. How would a community react when someone abuses their position in their community? In today’s world often the victim gets ridiculed and the perpetrator protected. Sometimes, though, the perpetrated is shamed to disastrous levels.

Industries are now shunning them. Whole communities too.

But in Copiosis, people who own and provide necessities can also choose not to serve that person.

In other words, they can make it extremely challenging to live. Even if you have a shit-ton of NBR.

That’s the first thing. The second thing is this: In Copiosis, this PR firm owner can do something about his problem.

There will be plenty of options to get relief. Usually poor, inappropriate or unbalanced upbringing spawns such behavior. Since all healthcare is available to all at no cost, including any modality you can think of, there will be all kinds of approaches this person can use.

Once he realizes he has a problem, that is. Eventually he will realize he has a problem. Because in Copiosis, there’s no reason for a person to be silent about it. And if he is, there’s no reason why people won’t let him know about it 😂

One way or another, people grow up in Copiosis. Copiosis will demand people grow up to succeed.

I use this example to show a couple things. One is, you can’t “utopian-ize” human behavior. But a framework in which people have nothing to fear can improve human behavior over time. That improvement can be astronomical compared to today’s behavior.

Copiosis offers one such framework. It’s not Utopia. There will still be bad human behavior. What Copiosis does is make that behavior so intolerable (for the actor) that he or she must confront his truths. Then do something positive about them.

Should he do that, he has all the resources he needs to get better.

It will never happen

And yet it is happening. That you’re reading this means it is happening.

There will always be naysayers for every great idea, great ambition, great undertaking. Everything on the list below was once thought unrealistic or impossible. And yet, they are happening or have happened. Today. There are many more. But I don’t have all day 🙂 :

  1. Sailing around the world
  2. Manned flight
  3. End of slavery
  4. Women voting
  5. Breaking the sound barrier
  6. Putting a man in space
  7. Putting a man on the moon
  8. Computers in every home
  9. Low cost computers
  10. Powerful computers that fit in the palm of your hand
  11. Women serving in combat
  12. High performance electric cars
  13. Gays being accepted in the military
  14. Gay marriage
  15. Pilotless planes
  16. Driverless cars
  17. Nanotechnology
  18. Video phones
  19. Giving sight to the blind
  20. Giving hearing to the deaf
  21. A Black President of the United States of America
  22. A sub-two hour marathon

What do all these accomplishments have in common? A lot of people, some respectable people, thought they were impossible. What made them possible? The will of a few, usually starting with one, a great idea, and time.

“It will never happen” - that’s pessimistic thinking. If you think it will never happen, then you’re not the one who’s gonna make it happen. Meanwhile there are enough people thinking it will. All it really takes is one.

Don’t you think it’s time to start looking at how you think? And how how you think influences the world around you?

“Well, I’m a realist.”

Bullshit. You’re a pessimist. Pessimism keeps you with what you’ve got. Realism is a nice way of saying you believe cynically, negatively. It’s more fun being different. And, you can change.

Those in power are not going to let this happen

We anticipated that and we have plans.

Copiosis not only makes rich and powerful people even richer, it allows them tremendous future potential to become richer still. A rich person will love Copiosis. Once they understand there is nothing for them to fear about Copiosis and everything to gain, they too will support it.

But not everyone will find Copiosis attractive. The power-hungry, kings and royal families, those who take joy in other human beings’ suffering, those who profit from killing and exploiting other human beings may find very little they like about Copiosis. So will “realists”.

But those folks can’t resist the overwhelming tide of people we expect will want to see Copiosis happen. Not to mention the power of positive change, which also eagerly supports Copiosis.

All that said, not everyone in power will oppose what we’re doing. Those in power are just as diverse as the rest of us. We don’t need every one in power on our side. In fact, those opposing it amplify our message. So opposition helps. A lot.

Their criticism draws people to our work. Some of those will not agree with the critics. They will agree with us. And so our work will moves forward.

That’s how it always works.

How do you think those in power will keep Copiosis from happening? Please tell us. Let’s talk about it.

How do you know this will work?

Every person who has fully understood Copiosis believes without a doubt that it is better than what we have today and will work once implemented. Some of those still doubt it can happen. Some doubt the “how”. That’s ok. I know how. That’s enough.

Some believe we don’t have enough time to make it happen in the way it’s happening. Others are too caught up in our current system to think adventurously.

I know it will work because I stand on the side of everyone who has made what was once thought impossible possible.

Where do you stand?

It will work because it is working. That’s not a play on words. It’s what is happening. And, it’s how everything happens. Small steps. Small steps taken over time. Passion expressed. These things are what makes everything possible. I’ll give more details on the “how” in our website’s advanced section.

In the meantime, don’t take my word for it. Just watch. You’re going to be amazed at how far we get.

The more involvement/attention there is, the more resistance that will be encountered, both intentionally and as a matter of the nature of our world economy. How do you plan to deal with this?

It is true that there will be more resistance as more attention/involvement happens. There will also be far more acceptance and readiness to embrace what we’re offering by that time. That seems logical, right?

The two go hand-in-hand.

In the end, everyone wins in Copiosis. So while people will resist what we offer, we know the winning outcomes will prove convincing.

The path we’re on includes resistance, and that resistance will serve us. Resistance amplifies the work, putting it on more and more people’s radar. That increases people’s awareness of what we’re offering.

Early on I spoke with a friend of mine who is a business owner, a lawyer and former advisor to Ralph Nader. He said “when this thing reaches the mainstream, conservative pundits are going to have a field day with it.”

I agree with him. Yet, I also have faith in people’s reasoning ability. Yes, there are those people who will go along with whatever their pundits tell them, but a lot of people on the planet tend to think for themselves, particularly when it comes down to their personal life experience.

**every seriously positive disruptive innovation was at first decried as ridiculous by some number of resisters. Yet, every one has succeeded, or will succeed if it hasn’t yet.**

Facing resistance will be an adventure for sure. But when we meet the level of resistance you’re describing here, we will have made tremendous progress. I welcome that resistance as it is the booster we’ll use to propel our work forward.

Yes, there will also be international resistance, resistance that will look a lot like what we saw with the U.K.’s referendum to pull out of the EU. Hell, the same thing happened when the US its independence from England. No one said this was going to be easy. That doesn’t mean it can’t also be fun!

However, benefits offered by our innovation are compelling. Nearly every human being, once they understand that all their basic food, all their education (all of it) all their basic medical care (barring elective care), basic housing and basic clothing is provided at no cost; in an environment where there is no debt, no monetary system demanding you earn a living; wherein you can do anything you want - anything! - and if that benefits the planet or people, you can receive a valuable reward… Once they get that…I believe nearly every human being will be inspired to support the idea provided - provided - we can show them how we can make that happen in a (mostly) peaceful and harmonious process. This has never been offered before.

Neither has this been coupled with a transition plan as capable as ours.

More compelling: As the current system produces more and more evidence that it is not working for the majority of species on the planet, more and more people are going to start looking for better alternatives.

This is already happening! It is the prime reason for the Bernie Sanders situation on the left and the long-fomenting trouble we’re seeing on the right.

These two taken together - a growing realization that the current situation is not working, combined with an increasing awareness of something that promises to perform far better, will be very, very hard to refuse, even in the rarified air of the one percent. For even the one percent is aware of our global troubles and they want a solution. That’s because even they have personal troubles compelling them to look for alternatives. No one has produced a credible one…yet.

In the end, the resistance you speak of is what helps get people’s attention. We welcome it.

Presuming Copiosis gets really successful what about the IRS?

How is this addressed in a transition to? Sure a few small local groups could organize and the IRS would pay little or no attention to it, but if the concept gained traction, I’m guessing we would see a big hammer come down.

Are you familiar with the case of Scientology vs the IRS? Short (true) story: L Ron Hubbard and his organization owed the US Department of Revenue more than $2 billion dollars in back taxes. The IRS tried to swing their hammer….and lost.

They didn’t get a dime. Details are irrelevant (well, they’re relevant, but we don’t need to go into them). What is interesting is this: The IRS lost, rolled over, capitulated. Scientology’s approach in getting the IRS to agree with them, is somewhat like (not exactly) the strategy we will employ when the time comes. It is an easy matter to overcome the IRS. Here’s why:

The IRS, like every government body, every 1 percent enclave, every supposed conspiracy organization…all these organizations are made up of people. People have far more in common than they don’t. The majority of all these people are in far more similar economic, personal and social situations than different ones. And, they are smart enough to know what is happening.

The only reason they are going along with what is happening is A: they see no credible alternative, B: they are in a state of hopelessness and helplessness-fueled denial because of A, and, C: they are longing for something better, but can’t find it. In the pain of longing they represent vast pent-up potential. Not potential for violence. Potential for supporting something that promises - really promises - a better reality.

I know C is a fact because of how factions of the population are rising up (Arab Spring, Tianeman Square, Hong Kong Protests, Occupy, the Tea Party Movement, Yellow Vests, Black Lives Matter, It Gets Better, Feel the Berners, both Greece’s and Britain's effort to get out of the EU and, most recently, the Yang Gang, etc.)

These uprising, protests and movements come with efficacy deficiencies. They can’t and don’t produce the result they want, because their causes beat around the symptoms. They aren’t taking on the core problem. So they aren’t effective.

There will be no big hammer. When the time comes, the IRS will lay down. It will lay down just like Wall Street will, just like the international community. They won’t lie down willingly. Not at first. But they will in time. They will because the people will want them to. The people will want them to because of the story we are telling, a story that has no credible counter argument, and offers wins to everyone. The story is this: humanity wants to be free. Completely. And everyone is in on the act of making that story a reality. Everyone. Even the naysayers. Even IRS employees.

Besides, when we’ve got the IRS’ attention, we must have come far, don’t you think?

Wouldn’t that be a great thing? If you disagree, tell us why.

About Private Property
What is this about all property being private property?

“Private property” in Copiosis doesn’t mean the same thing as “private property” in capitalism. In Copiosis all things MUST be privately-owned, because someone has to steward it.

Take, for example, the kitchen in your office at work. When no one is responsible for cleaning the kitchen, putting dishes away, keeping counters clean or making sure old food gets thrown out, the kitchen gets filthy.

Even with signs and emails reminding people, it stays a mess.

Only where a company (a subcontractor) or individual is responsible for the kitchen does the kitchen stay clean. In other words, someone is responsible.

The same is true for countries.

Take the Philippines for example. I travelled a lot in the Philippines (Manila, Cavite, Cebu and other places). Many public spaces there are poorly kept, littered and polluted (waterways, other bodies of water and the air particularly, but also the streets and some parks). These areas I gather aren’t taken care of mainly because the government, who is supposed to be stewarding “the commons”, doesn’t have the money to pay enough people to do that work. No one owns keeping it in shape.

So it doesn’t stay in shape.

In Copiosis it is important one person owns responsibility for each thing. That way we know who to go to when that thing is not “in shape”. “In shape”, in Copiosis means, being used to benefit individuals and society. Preventing disrepair, keeping it working well. That’s this person’s role.

Private property in Copiosis is not about keeping people from using something as it is thought of today. It’s more about stewardship: taking care of that thing benefitting as many people as possible with it.

We are repulsed by private property today because it means “keep out”. Someone can by a slice of the planet and keep others from using it. But the planet belongs to everyone.

So private property as an idea restricts a thing’s use.

Private property does mean the person owning it chooses who uses it and doesn’t. But with Copiosis’ other elements, maximize a thing’s use by others benefits everyone.

I know people aren’t naturally hoarding and selfish in the negative sense of the word “selfish”. They want to help others and benefit the planet. If you give people property and make them in charge of it, they will take care of it like it is theirs. So long as other parts of their lives work well.

If you then say to them: “to the degree you use this property for the maximum benefit of others we’ll reward you with NBR”, people will use that property in ways allowing them to get NBR. So in Copiosis “private property” becomes a virtue, not a vice.

Some will not let others use property they steward. But so what?

While there is private property throughout a mature Copiosis economy, as more generations are born into it, the old idea of “private property” gets forgotten. Stewardship or custody takes its place.

Some people will probably still want to own their homes, toys, things and some kind of homestead or estate. That’s natural, right? And ok.

Some will still believe it conveys status. Others who believe the same thing will gather with people with such status. So I don’t expect much to completely change. We are human after all. But if we can change 30, 40 or 60 percent, that would be a massive improvement.

The idea of private property in Copiosis frightens some people. If you’re one such person, we’d love to hear from you. By telling us your concerns, you help us improve our approach. If you’re worried about property being private, tell us why.

Comparing Copiosis to other ideas/systems
How does Copiosis compare to other new ideas like Ubuntu, Moneyless economy and Auroville Project?

We analyzed many other “systems” and compared them to Copiosis. Grab that analysis (it’s a spreadsheet) here.

Copiosis sounds like Communism or Socialism

Communism is a political and economic system where the factors of production (land, labor, and capital) are owned by a central planning authority, often a government, generally speaking.  This central planning authority dictates how factors of production are used to provide wealth in the form of products, services, and money in equal measure to all members of the Communist Party.

Another key aspect of communism is that all property is owned by the central planning authority or government. It is not owned by private citizens.  The idea of private property does not exist in communism.

In socialism, the factors of production are owned by the collective.  The collective community through a central planning authority determines how the factors of production are used to benefit the largest number socialist class members, according to the needs of the individuals in the class.

In both socialism and communism there is no such thing as profit.  In both it is very difficult to allow for personal freedoms, because personal freedoms tend to lead to greater autonomy, freedom, diversity and personal authority expressed through personal choice. That often comes into conflict with what central authoritarians consider the greater, or collective, good.

Copiosis has several features that make it seem similar to these. The Copiosis Organization appears to be a centralized organization. Necessities are provided to all at no cost. How that happens is quite different than in communism and socialism. Capital goods are also given to all at no cost. Profit is gone, money is gone, but so is government. That’s about how close Copiosis comes to communism and socialism. Although both political systems have money in them, they have government controlling them too.

Let’s now look at the differences.

All property in Copiosis is privately owned, by private individuals. Not a central authority or group. That alone separates it from these centrally-planned systems.

But let’s look further.

All decisions are made by individuals.  No one tells anyone else what to do, unless the people involved agree to such a relationship.  So there is no “party” that directs what people can and can’t do. Everyone is free to do whatever they wish. Even not participate in the Copiosis economy. They don’t have to use NBR. They don’t have to consume necessities. They can do whatever they want.

The factors of production are owned by private individuals.  No two people can simultaneously share ownership of anything. So if a government exists in Copiosis, it owns no factors of production. And, it has no influence over them. Does that sound like Communism or Socialism?

In Copiosis there is no central planning authority dictating anything.  There is no collective and there are no classes. Some looking through distorted ideas will look at the Copiosis Organization and claim it’s a large central planning authority.

But close examination reveals the Copiosis Organization is a bunch of individuals acting stigmergically in a loosely idea-based system. They are expressing individual wants and desires and ideas with the best of those floating to the surface and benefitting people. It does no planning in the sense of a centrally-planned agency. What it does is observe. It observes what people are doing and rewards acts of doing that benefit people and the planet.

How is that communist? How is that socialist? We’d really like to know. So if you still think it is, tell us.

Copiosis does contain ideals inherent in Communism and Socialism. As it contains ideals inherent in Capitalism.

Ideals such as (but by no means limited to these):

  • Everyone should have excellent healthcare without going broke.
  • A safety net should be available so people don’t unnecessarily lose their homes, get sick or die.
  • People should be taken care of. We’re all part of the same family. The human family.
  • Everyone should have access to wealth opportunity.
  • Everyone should be free to choose.
  • Everyone should have access to any education in whatever field they choose.
  • Everyone should have access to safe and enjoyable work.
  • Everyone should be free from oppression of all kinds.
  • Everyone is created equal. We should all take care of one another.

Is there something wrong with those ideals? If you think so, tell us what’s wrong.

We at Copiosis believe in an expanded version of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. Copiosis ensures – like no system does today – that these human rights become human realities. Realities for everyone planet wide.

Americans especially are concerned about Communism and socialism when they think about Copiosis. If you’re one of these people, please share your concerns with us. Let’s talk about them.

Sounds like capitalism. How does it avoid economic inequality?

“Copiosis Sounds like capitalism to me. Slightly better, but still having the potential to lead to economic inequality. Is that true?”

It certainly has elements of capitalism in it and that's a good thing because it offers something familiar to those conditioned to that.

However, it has none of the bad things. Economic inequality is impossible in Copiosis because there is no money. Economic inequality results when money is in the picture.

It is possible to have, and there will definitely be, material inequality. Which means, Copiosis is NOT utopia.

But material inequality is no big deal. You may not like having less than someone else. But with all necessities provided at no cost and capital goods too, what’s keeping you from getting your share?

Some people will be more willing and more capable of (for a time) creating benefit than others.

If you’re thinking everyone should enjoy the same material lifestyles no matter what they do, well you’re in for trouble. Because every human lives their own experience. They have their own talents and limitations.

Everyone has a passion though. Once tapped, that can and will generate great wealth in Copiosis. Every person’s passion adds tremendous value to the world.

But everyone enjoying the same level of wealth at the same time is impossible in capitalism and in Copiosis. Consider the following example:

Joe is college educated, but he has a drug problem. He lives in the midwest, was raised by strict religious conservatives, and is gay. Because of this combination, Joe has many beliefs that cause him much anxiety.

He struggles too with self-worth. On the one hand, he believes he is a good person. But on the other, he believes he’s going to hell because “god hates gays”.

Joe is not out to his parents. Or anyone else. As a result he is constantly paranoid he may slip in some way. Some way that will blow his secret. Because of his beliefs, resulting anxieties, and fears and because he believed he had no choice, Joe sought relief from drugs. That’s how his addiction started.

Sue on the other hand is not gay. She’s college educated too. She was raised by conservative parents. But Sue realized early on that her decisions were her to make. She realized her parents beliefs were theirs. So she decided to think for her self.

Now let’s say Sue and Joe have the same education, in the same field. They see the same advertisement for a job. So they both have the same opportunity. Let’s say there are plenty of these kinds of jobs. So Sue and Joe are not in competition for the job.

You can see though that Joe would have a hard time “succeeding” compared to Sue, a self-thinker, has no anxiety and no fears or paranoias and no substance addictions.

Joe, on the other hand, might spend much of his energy at work worrying about things having nothing to do with work. He may even react to things said or done as if they have something to do with his problems, even if they don’t. His reactions might trigger certain behaviors. Behaviors not conducive to being successful at work.

You can see these two people, with different backgrounds, but with the same opportunity, will have quite different experiences. The same can be drawn for any two people. In short, no two people are coming at a situation with the same level of preparedness, other than the fact that both are prepared to learn from the situation and become better for it.

So Copiosis doesn’t create equal outcomes. No system can. Instead, it focuses on equal access. That’s an inherently pure, capitalistic focus. Unfortunately, today’s capitalism doesn’t include what should be inherent in it.

The other thing that keeps things equal as far as opportunity or access is concerned is how NBR works.

NBR which replaces money is only good for one thing: getting luxuries. Someone may amass enormous NBR quantities. But they can't do anything with that material wealth other than obtain luxury goods. They can’t buy political favors, can’t determine another’s income, can’t use it to sway how the system works. They can’t use it to keep others down or restrict what is possible for those people. They can’t use it to do anything other than obtain luxuries.

Problems that come with economic inequality stem from the power such inequality enables. In Capitalism you can use large amounts of wealth to economically advantage yourself, and disadvantage others. You can’t do that in Copiosis.

That’s why Copiosis offers EQUAL ACCESS, but UNEQUAL OUTCOMES. With Necessities available to all, the access playing field is level. That means your lifestyle is limited only by how willing you are to find out what you’re passionate about, then follow that. And, unlike capitalism, you don’t have to starve, live on the street, die from an illness or any other horrendous situation just because you can’t afford a place to live, food to eat or medical care.

You have all the time in the world to find your passion, refine it, benefit the world through it and get rich because of that.

What are the differences between Copiosis and Western capitalism?

Copiosis keeps lots of things that are good about capitalism, but lots of things are different too. The most important thing to know is Copiosis frees people from capitalism’s persistent problems:

Most crime is eliminated. Most crime results from someone not having access to resources they need. Usually that resource is money and usually, that resource is used, once illegally obtained, to get other resources. Often, those other resources are the basic necessities. Sometimes they are luxuries or capital goods.

Sometimes the missing resource is mental health services. Copiosis handles that easily by making healthcare available at no cost to anyone.

Not only healthcare, but all necessities are provided to everyone at no cost to them or anyone else. So no one is in a desperate situation due to lack of necessities. Necessities available to all makes it easy for a person to pursue luxury attainment by following his or her passion. So if you have all your necessities, and you want those new Adidas customs, you can have them, by doing something you love doing. You’ll get NBR if that benefits others. You can use that NBR to get the shoes. Assuming of course they’re tagged as Luxuries.

There are “immediate gratification crimes” perpetrated out of jealousy, envy and such….these emotional motivations can lead to both property crimes (theft) or capital crimes (murder). Such crimes must be addressed by the healthcare community at large and over time. But since healthcare, including mental care is “no cost” to everyone, it’s not hard to get such help.

Other crimes such as organized crime happen because there’s a lot of money in it. In Copiosis there is no money. And, organized crime activities are predatory. Predatory behavior is not net beneficial. It merits no reward. So any organized crime activity gets no reward.

Why would organized crime-doers keep organizing to do it?

Copiosis is not a Utopia. Meaning there will still be bad actors doing bad things. But there’s still a police force or, rather “peace officers”. There are still justices and a justice system. There is still a penal system. But the number of people in that system is a fraction of what it is today.

The good news is those custom shoes, and envy and jealousy about others’ success can be huge motivators for individuals to find out what they like to do, do it, enjoy the process and, eventually, obtain that extrinsically motivating reward. This is how Copiosis is designed to work.

Capital goods are provided to all who can demonstrate a favorable use case for those resources. Capital goods are plentiful. The only practical restriction on capital goods today are their affordability.

So long as a person can offer a compelling argument for his passion, he or she can obtain what is needed (office space, equipment, assistance) to get the passion underway. Remember, people are doing things they love, so the end goal (in this case the custom shoes) is just icing on the cake.

So that takes care of crimes committed due to lack of opportunity or resources.

That leaves crimes of passion.

Again, Copiosis is not a Utopia, so it doesn’t automatically change people. What it does is make options available that weren’t before, options which can change people over time.

Let’s say someone is struggling in their marriage because they fear their spouse, who has abused this individual many times before. The spouse is a well-known celebrity and his domestic abuse is equally well-known. I think it’s too much to expect the abuser to voluntarily seek counseling, which is medical care in Copiosis and therefore provided at no cost to that person.  The other spouse get some interesting balls rolling though.

Actually anyone familiar with the situation can file a declaration in this celebrity’s reputation account, documenting his domestic violence history. If the declaration is verified as accurate, local authorities (peace officers and the Copiosis justice system) can then peacefully approach the celebrity and inform him of both his options and potential consequences should he not change his ways.

He can of course, refuse such guidance. Peace officers can require by court order that his handheld be used as a passive tracking device which would alert authorities any time he came near his former wife after she leaves, should she leave. And there’s no reason making her stay anymore because she doesn’t need (and can’t get) the celebrity’s NBR.

So, leaving her spouse isn’t as financially destructive (to either party) as it might be in today’s world, because no assets are jointly owned and all NBR she has received is hers and hers alone. Necessities are provided so there’s no worry of financial ruin. Even if she has no NBR to begin with. That would be rare I think.

Anyway, the court could order that the spouse keep his handheld with him at all times. Since his life is essentially in there, he likely would in most cases. And, should he try to leave it behind, the device could alert the peace officers. Simple software script can turn the handheld into a monitoring device.

An entire community can act against the domestic abuser once a verified declaration exists. Community members can withhold necessities, refuse to cooperate with the guy, and put pressure on him to change his ways, in ways that aren’t possible now because money enables our abusing celebrity husband to get what he wants regardless of his actions. Including sympathizers and those who will help cover up his ways. We’ve seen this happen many times in #metoo accounts.

Luxury providers can deny him service. The community can make it very hard for the husband to continue his current behavior and refuse psychiatric support.

Meanwhile, the other spouse can free herself from the situation by leaving. If she fears for her life, she can hire security and security technology, backed by the Copiosis Justice System to protect her. In Copiosis, Peace Officers are much more proactive. They are no longer “law enforcement”, which is a major distinction between today’s police and Copiosis’ Peace Officers. They are, like anyone, empowered to take any action, with their reward based on the algorithm. So if they are working with a known domestic abuse victim, their ability to keep that person safe from harm is a big NBR-earner, so long as their actions produce more benefit than harm to anyone, the community, and the environment. That includes the abuser of course.

Some (many?) passion crimes can be proactively avoided. For those that can’t, new approaches to punishment must be devised.

For victims and their families, there is the matter of justice. But justice must not be confused with retribution or revenge, as it often is in today’s system.

Consider this: what is the net benefit of allowing a victim’s family retribution, revenge, or an eye-for-an-eye type recompense?

Which brings us to punishments. The prison industrial complex is transformed as a result of several elements of Copiosis. Think about it: what is the net benefit of locking someone up in a 20th Century style prison as punishment? A punishment which research shows doesn’t work?

We already know that prison time is a terrible deterrent. That’s why so many are in prison. We also know that prison is ineffective in turning criminals around.

So what are the alternatives?

With incentives inherent in Copiosis, such alternatives become robustly explored. There’s a lot of improvement due in the US penal system. Some countries are doing much better, but any system where people are locked away for crimes needs deeper consideration. It’s quite possible that a mature Copiosis system would see far fewer incarceration facilities simply because so much crime will become a thing of the past.

Corporate takeover of our politics and government can’t happen. Just a reminder that we’re exploring how Copiosis and Capitalism differ.

Anyone who seriously denies how influential corporations are on our lawmaking bodies, isn’t paying close enough attention. Politics and government are dominated by corporate interests. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Many corporations influence government for the better. Some don’t.

For example, a recent effort to make bankruptcy laws in America less consumer friendly was initiated by credit card companies. Companies who would of course benefit from people being less able to walk away from their overwhelming debt.

The regulatory function of government, administrated by politics, literally effects corporate profitability. So it’s in the best interest of corporations to control the political system. Which they do to a large degree.

Thankfully, there is no such thing as “profitability” in Copiosis. There also are no corporations as there are today. Since government shrinks significantly, along with its influence, there is little need for business or associations/organizations (or anyone else) to try to control government decision making.

Businesses can’t own NBR, and NBR is non transferrable even if they could own NBR. Because of its non-transferability, people can’t use their NBR to influence others.

But why would a person need to use her NBR this way?

Business is completely unrestrained in its operations in Copiosis, so there is no need for business to try to sway a regulating body. There are no regulators really.

There are civilians looking over organizations making sure they don’t do crappy stuff. These civilians are passionate whistleblowers. It’s ultimately impossible for an organization to keep them from showing up inside and around their operations. So it’s just easier for organizations to do the right thing in Copiosis, have the people in them get rich and get on with enjoying life.

Someone might argue that the algorithm is the regulating body, or perhaps the payer organization. But the algorithm doesn’t regulate. It doesn’t prevent or promote anything. What it does do is take inputs from the payer organization and “crunch” them to produce a reward.

That leaves the Payer Organization as perhaps owning a regulating function. But the payer organization doesn’t tell people what they can or can’t do either. All it does is collect the data the algorithm needs to produce rewards. It also operates supporting functions.

So where is regulation happening? It is for sure happening, but not in ways we see today.

The most powerful regulators are those who own and produce capital goods and other goods and services producers need to make their stuff. Producers themselves do the regulating as well.

A watchdog or whistleblower is a Producer in Copiosis. Anyone who creates Net Benefit is a Producer. So Producers regulate themselves in expectation that the world gets better and they get NBR for that betterment.

NBR maximization also provides an intrinsic motivation: individual producers will regulate themselves in ways that maximize their NBR.

Why wouldn’t a producer of, say, wicker baskets not use the most renewable processes, institute a cradle-to-cradle product chain and ensure consumers participate in all this, when doing so increases their NBR? Especially when all they need to do these things comes to them with no cost at all???

Communities regulate via necessities they provide Producers (and everyone else). Run afoul your community and you may not get necessities. That’s a powerful regulation.

So community members who also are Producers have a lot to say about who gets what and how much. As a result, regulation naturally occurs at many levels. With no regulation coming from government.

Political gridlock and ineffectiveness of government doesn’t happen. As mentioned above, government as practiced today doesn’t exist or at least shrinks in form and function.  In Copiosis, there are no representatives making rules on our behalf. People are free to do what they wish. So a lot of rules aren’t needed. That’s because “doing what they wish” is guided by the Net Benefit framework.

Should they conduct themselves badly, such as in a domestic violence situation described above, a revamped justice system spearheaded by Peace Officers apprehends them and brings them to justice.

But as mentioned above, “justice” looks different.

Again: what does “justice” look like in a system based on Net Benefit, where there are no costs incurred in getting things done and no rewards for people meting out justice if net harm results?

In Copiosis there is no need for political deliberations. The state exists in name. There are no reasons for political parties vying for power in a system. Such parties exist when resources are hoarded and controlled by a minority. And that minority uses such control to keep control. Resource control and the control of people’s lives.

In Copiosis power is ultimately in Producers’ hands. Producers are regulated by fellow producers, who in turn allow their rewards to be regulated by the Net Benefit Framework. So there’s not a lot of need for politicians telling us what’s good for us, while siphoning off wealth for themselves and their supporters through taxes, tax cuts or other fiscal policies.

Corruption in business and politics. Will there be corruption in Copiosis? Likely. But it will be on a much smaller scale and occur more rarely.  Why? How?

For one, money, the grease of corruption, doesn’t exist. So the only thing people can use to curry favors is luxuries. But luxuries have a chain of custody. So it’s easy for justice system workers to determine where luxuries come from and where they go.

So sure, you could bribe someone with a diamond and give it to him “under the table”. But at some point, that diamond must be traded for something. If the possessor isn’t the current owner, and the possessor tries trading it for something, he’s going to have to explain how he got it. Because his handheld won’t recognize the diamond as his property.

In addition, any corruption reported creates a better system if the report makes prevents future corruption. Reports that do that are NBR-worthy acts. So strong whistleblowing incentives – and few disincentives – exist.

“But what if Billy Bob the Architect, colludes with his designer friends to offer luxury design products at a Gateway that is artificially fixed? In other words, what about price-fixing?”

Well, this question is steeped in our current thinking. First, all gateways are artificial. There are no “right” gateway levels. They are totally dependent on the producer’s consideration.

Second, gateway levels interact with algorithm variables to stimulate consumption.

For example, if I place a high gateway on my products, fewer people will use their NBR to get them. As fewer people demand my products, I would need to decrease my resource use to ensure my rewards remain stable. If that’s what I want. I would also need to ensure those resources I do use are as environmentally benign/restorative as possible. Otherwise, I’m using too many resources or too “costly” (in terms of negative effects on the environment) for my customer demand.

If a lot of people are making the same thing I am, and few people want it, it might behove me to make something else. For the number of people making something relative to the number of people wanting what’s made has an effect on every maker’s NBR.

So if an architect wants to collude with his fellow architects and “artificially” set gateways on their designs….well…that’s what we want them to do. But some won’t go along with that idea. And that’s good too.

There’s a whole lot more to how gateways interact with everything else in Copiosis. The explanation above gives a glimpse at how each element of Copiosis is designed to work with others so they produce a compelling whole. It’s what makes Copiosis so compelling an idea: it’s elegance and how nicely the pieces work together.

Homelessness is much less of a problem. If you look around the United States you’ll find it hard to ignore the homeless problem.

I don’t know about other countries, but I have visited a few. In some of these places people live in very poor approximations of adequate shelter. Other circumstances – war, political instability and oppression for example – create situations where people must abandon where they live while being uncertain where they’ll land.

Of course there are government and nonprofit programs at all society levels focusing on these situations. But if they were working so well, why do we see so many people living outside of adequate shelter or losing the adequate shelter they once had?

I think humanity has all the resources it needs to provide every human being with more than “adequate” shelter. I could explain what that kind of shelter looks like, but I’ll have to do that in response to another question. This response is long already.

Copiosis makes it possible to provide shelter for anyone living involuntarily outside  – in their cars, on the street, etc. Incentives built into the system make that possible.

For one, there is no cost incurred in doing anything. So physical resources become far more available than today, where money acts as a gateway to resource access and use. Second, anyone who solves a problem receives NBR. Since necessities are provided to all at no cost, people are freed up to focus their time and energy on things they’re passionate about.

For every problem, someone, or some number of ones, are passionate about creating a solution for that problem. That’s just how consciousness works….

Take homelessness as an example. Despite the fact that we have such a big problem in this area, and despite the fact that so many structural elements of our system prevents us from really solving such problems, there are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people focused on solving the problem.

In addition to practical implementers, and individuals who just want to help, there are academicians, theologians, politicians, and community leaders all working on - or at least thinking about - these problems.

Sure, some of these folks are doing it because it’s their job. But others are doing it because the work inflames their passion. If those people were freed up – from debt, affording healthcare, groceries, etc. – and if resources were made more freely available (eg. cost-free) so they could be more effective, what solutions might we find working?

For example, we know there are lots of privately- and publicly-owned buildings that go unoccupied for various reasons. Those private landowners today want to cover their taxes and benefit from the value those buildings have.

Such owners could work with development agencies and convert their office building spaces into small, livable “necessity” housing. Again, this kind of housing, under Copiosis, is nothing like “project” housing. They instead rival luxury condos of today amenity-wise. They can be built or remodeled at that quality (as everything is) because durability, longevity, quality, sustainability…everything we want to see in construction is rewarded through the algorithm. So builders aren’t penalized (through costs) to include such quality.

By the time Copiosis is implemented, we will likely see a huge shift in the nature of work. More people will have discovered far different ways of mixing work and life. We already see dispersed work teams, digital nomads, telecommuters, home-based businesses and more. This evolution could dovetail nicely with new housing visions Copiosis would stimulate.

As a manager at Intel Corporation, I learned a saying that turns out to be accurate in nearly every instance: That saying goes “It’s not what it’s about”.

That’s especially true for homelessness. Many people living on the street aren’t there voluntarily. But the reasons they’re there have nothing to do with not having a home.

Debilitating mental illness, drug addiction and chronic unemployment are reasons people find themselves on the streets. Family dysfunction and social norms, which cause people to reject their kin (a conservative patriarchal family rejects a homosexual or transgender child, for example), domestic abuse, even differences of opinion can see people suddenly homeless or houseless.

So while Copiosis can create situations where all these people can have shelter, there are obviously contributing factors which must also be addressed. These factors will still exist in Copiosis, but at least when someone finds themselves rejected by their family, or loved ones, they can still find dignifying shelter. Meanwhile, perhaps those family members doing the rejecting will avail themselves of the no cost mental health services so they grow up.

Poverty, hunger, mental illness, corporate irresponsibility, the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, inflation, recessions, depressions and other bad economic outcomes; global warming and environmental destruction; unemployment..all these things are solved equally as well. None of these are being solved in capitalism. It would seem they all are getting worse.

Don’t you think it’s time we get on with solving them?  Solving them before they become too big so solve?

I do.

You just read a lot of material. You must have a question! Get your answer by asking it. Or maybe you're excited. If so, consider supporting Copiosis on Patreon.

What makes this more viable than Marxism and why do you push for consumerism? Consumerism is counterproductive to any sort of utopian effort.

I need to get nit-picky with terms to answer your question. Bear with me.

“Marxism”, to me, isn’t an economic model. It is a method by which “anti-capitalists” critique capitalism. I think you mean to ask, “How is Copiosis more viable than Socialism, which Marxists claim is the inevitable middle-stage between capitalism turning to Communism.

Socialism, according to Marxists, leads to Communism, which, in theory, is a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership, distributing resources according to the very-famous (infamous?) statement: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

Of course, there has not been a successful historical demonstration of a prosperous Communist State, and although there have been and continue to be many Socialist States, they are more like hybrid economies, not pure socialist economies.

There are fatal flaws to any current economic system existing today. Socialism and Communism suffer from the same flaws as Capitalism. But the centralized planning and distribution of goods and services concept, which is unique to socialism/communism is also a fatal flaw.

I presume you know that centralized planning means some central entity would be responsible for meting out “prosperity” to citizens of a socialist/communist society. The same entity would own the factors of production, meaning, all land, labor and capital would be owned by that central authority (the communist or socialist “party”).

Those are prime components of Socialism.

If the factors of production are NOT controlled by such an authority, you don’t have Socialism, you have a hybrid.

Such a central authority is bound to suffer from corruption. Corruption that cannot be controlled/mitigated in a socialist/communist framework (or any other form of government that exists today).

Why is that?

One reason is because of how a centralized authority works. Another is how corruption works.

People comprise an authority. Those who have resource distribution power, in a context where resources are scarce, are bound to want to find a way to unfairly benefit themselves. In a socialist/communist society, resources, i.e. the factors of production - land, labor and capital - ARE scarce because the central planning authority (the State) owns or controls the making of all resources. The authority thus benefits directly from how those resources are created and distributed.

Another reason why such a structure is bound to fall prey to corruption is because Socialism and Communism, like every other form of government today, relies on people.

People are inherently selfish. That’s not a problem until you put that inherent focus in a system where that focus can run amok.

Communism and socialism are such systems because of their centralized focus. But they’re also vulnerable because both systems, like Capitalism, also depend on money. And wherever there’s money, there must be political leadership and a political processes. Such leadership and processes, whether it’s a king, Czar, President or Prime Minister, like flawed systems, allow self-aggrandizement for the few at the cost of the many.

Political processes inevitably create disparate representative power concentrations (interest groups and political parties). These concentrations compete against each other. They want to control “prosperity distributions” or own outright resources/factors of production.

Copiosis doesn’t depend on governments, centralized planning, or resource distribution decisions being made by leaders. Instead it relies on Stigmergy.

But the biggest problem Socialism and Communism have, as I’ve already mentioned, is the kind of money used in those systems. I’m not referring to Rubles, or Rupees (to cite two currencies of two countries who have declared themselves as communist and socialist). I mean a currency that has the following properties:

  • Is scarce
  • Is transferred from one person to another
  • Is uncontrollable and,
  • Is amoral

Every form of money today (including digital currencies) has these problems. And they are fatal to any society. I can explain why this form of money causes all our problems. But that is beyond what you asked.

Copiosis is doesn’t have these problems. Because there’s no money in it.

In Copiosis, resources are abundant and they are owned by individuals (producers). These people use them to create benefit for others. Acts which in turn, benefit the actor. “Producers” are free-thinking, free-acting individual human beings. Not “persons”. What’s more these individuals represent one thing: their individual interest.

There are no authorities in Copiosis telling Producers how much to produce or who to distribute the production to. There are no power disparities of consequence because power is not derived from holding a seat in some organization or controlling another’s access to resources.

Our unique Net Benefit framework replaces all forms of money in our system, thereby eliminating many social and economic problems today’s money-based societies have. Of course, we’re speaking theoretically. There is no real-world Copiosis society at the moment.

In Copiosis, the main reason producers share their output with as many people as possible is they get richer doing that. But producer activity must also be as environmentally beneficial as possible. To the degree it is, producers get even more NBR. So there are many incentives moving producer activity into areas where “problems” exists. That’s every problem. Not just those that can make someone money.

On Consumerism: This is an important point to consider in light of everything I just wrote. Some believe consumerism is bad. I understand why.

However, like people, consumerism is only bad in the context of existing socioeconomic systems. That’s because those systems and the money they rely on shapes human behavior (consumer patterns are behavior patterns). Consumer behavior that is harmful to the planet and to other people (and other non-people living things) is nearly always driven by Producer desire for wealth.

So “consumerism” isn’t the problem. The problem is how Producers get wealthy.

Current systems and their reliance on money, reward any act you can get away with. So long as that act successfully gets another person’s money out of their pocket an into your pocket, you’re good! Getting other people’s money is the prime motive of many (but not all) producers in current socioeconomic frameworks.

That prime motive makes sense. Everyone needs other people’s money to meet their needs and satisfy their wants.

So it makes sense that if producers can stimulate extreme levels of consumerism and match that consumerism with extreme levels of production, producers get rich. Enriching themselves, Producers feel less stress and risk that come with unmet needs (or wants). Our problem today is, producers aren’t held responsible for negative consequences of their self-enrichment.

Copiosis is different.

Our Net Benefit Algorithm rewards producers who satisfy consumer demand up to a point. So long as production doesn’t erode the planet, producers and society prosper. But when production and consumption start harming society, wealth generated by productive activity drops precipitously.

The influence the Net Benefit concept has on producer activity is strong. If you read about it, then think through it a bit, you’ll intuitively come to some startlingly (positive) conclusions. If you discover a flaw with it, we’d love to hear from you.

Some people (like myself) are intrinsically motivated. They do the right thing, or any thing because of the internal “reward” they receive from doing that thing.

Other people are extrinsically motivated. They are conditioned to be motivated by external rewards (salary, a new boat, tickets to the Super Bowl, whatever).

What’s interesting about Copiosis is we offer opportunity for both. Money doesn’t restrict people who want to do things they love. So they’re free to do wonderful things for others and the planet.

At the same time, those who are motivated by material possessions or material experiences are given that kind of motivation. Luxury desire does that.

But their consumerism, because of the Net Benefit Algorithm, does not have harmful effects it would otherwise have in today’s society because producers are rewarded differently.

For these reasons, Copiosis IMO is far superior to Socialism/Communism. There is just no comparison. And since there’s no fully socialist or communist state, I can say that.

Not convinced? Tell us why.

How is this different from time banks?

Let’s look at a real example:

60 min folding napkins vs. 60 minutes working at a daycare center.

With a time bank, doing either activity for 60 minutes will give you the same income. In Copiosis, there is far more net benefit produced from a person working for an hour in a daycare center. So that person would get far more NBR than napkin folder. It is true that both people are using an hour of their lives. The time bank philosophy, as I understands it, says each unit of life investment is equivalent, no matter the circumstances.

In my mind, it’s obvious that how a person invests their life units creates different degrees of benefit to the world/society.

In Copiosis, people have equal opportunity for personal development. They’re also free to choose what they do with their time. So those who invest their life units producing greater benefit should receive more reward. They’re making different choices.

The time bank philosophy tries equalizing contributions. But opportunities aren’t equal. So  outcomes aren’t unequal. In Copiosis opportunity is available to all. In a way, that equalizes opportunity. Necessities are given to all, and so nothing prevents a person from heightening their productive capabilities. Nothing other than their desire.

So there is no need to equalizing rewards by making all contributed life units equal as in a time bank.

Structurally, Copiosis’ Payer Organization function is massively distributed. Far more than a time bank is able to be - because the Copiosis Organization is literally made up of tens of millions of volunteers world wide coordinating their individual actions under Stigmergy.

My understanding is Time Banks are inherently local.

Both the Payer Organization and the algorithm are designed to be recursive so they match the values, mores and cultural differences across different geographies (global, regional local) as well as different cultures.

For example, an act in an Israeli community might be valued differently than that same act in Tanzania. In this way we are able to tailor rewards in ways that match local customs and cultures, no matter the social scale and no matter the action.

It is one reason people are calling our innovation “the most detailed and thought through innovation of its kind.”

I admire the concept’s longevity. But time banks aren’t designed to be implemented on a global scale. And they aren’t a future innovation in my opinion. Copiosis is designed specifically to take humanity into the future. And it’s designed to operate on a global scale.

There are many other differences between time banks and Copiosis, but what I’ve described above is one major difference.

How is Copiosis different from Universal Basic Income?

Society is ripe for fundamental change, but UBI doesn’t produce the fundamental change necessary.

Those changes are:

  1. Eliminating government as a way of running civilization because we now can. And doing it means more freedom for everyone.
  2. Eliminating money and debt thus stimulating trade at levels never seen before.
  3. Eliminating government-controlled markets which are used to dominate society, cultures and individuals around the world.

Basic income is a nice step. It helps us forget ideas we must forget so we can move forward:

  1. The first belief: That humans must earn their living.
  2. The second: you have to work a job.
  3. The third: humans are unworthy unless they are doing something productive.

Yet UBI also prevents fundamental change. Here’s how:

UBI depends on government and taxes, right? It is all about money. And it perpetuates money by perpetuating government and taxes. Furthermore, all money is physical, transferable, and amoral. Those are the most big problems we face today. UBI ignores these.

Consider the possibility that UBI is just another form of dependence. Whoever controls how much UBI goes to whom controls those who are dependent.

Government is still needed in this scenario, people are still having to work (some) jobs they don’t like, and people are still in debt. Other status quo problems remain, including continued negative effects capitalism has on the planet.

I do agree there is growing UBI support. I'm eager to see how far such support gets. It’s remarkable seeing a presidential candidate running on a UBI platform. I believe UBI’s popularity is a Copiosis prerequisite. In that sense, it is excellent.

I wrote a blog discussing UBI. It’s worth a read. It compares UBI to Copiosis’ benefits. You can also download our free comparison spreadsheet, comparing Copiosis to all kinds of ideas. Including UBI.

Does Copiosis support UBI?

As a very-near-term stepping stone, yes.

If we achieved a Copiosis society, Have we moved past the need for UBI?

Absolutely.

What about more equitable systems of distribution? Would large mega-corporate grocery stores, department stores and malls cease to function as our “supply stores” then? Would these be abolished?

A key component of Copiosis is TOTAL FREEDOM for everyone. So nothing would be abolished, ever.

Yes the stores mentioned would still exist. But think how the Copiosis SYSTEM and NBR affects their operations. How would they operate differently now that their rewards are based on benefitting the people AND the planet?

A large “mega facility” makes sense because it is most efficient in terms of moving volume. Yet, such facilities will operate so differently in my opinion they won’t look like what you see today.

That said, anyone with the skill and resources (tools and equipment and contacts) could offer similar goods, maybe better goods, or different variety collections. So I imagine local farmers, small scale local suppliers of many other approaches being successful alongside big ones. As many still are today.

Isn’t there a risk that larger stores would destroy smaller ones? No. Why not?

Because big stores and small stores aren’t competing against each other. No one is competing against anyone else. There are no “costs” and there are no “prices”. There are no artificially scarce resources, goods or services.

So stores don’t compete against others based on price and cost or artificially scarce resources or anything else. They will likely offer differing levels of service, values (as opposed to value), and morality from the consumer perspective. They may differ on environmental stewardship and product efficiency and capability from the producer perspective. But there’s no reason, for example, a small grocery or can’t operate alongside, say Amazon. Small stores may even get their inventory from larger ones.

Amazon may generate more NBR. But that doesn’t effect the small store owner’s ability to reach customers interested in what he offers.

In fact, it’s highly likely consumers might favor small stores. One reason Amazon destroys it’s competitors is on price and convenience. Perhaps, when prices don’t exist, and it’s easy to get things to consumers (because shipping costs go away) consumers will pay more attention to their values than price, selection and convenience. That could mean they would support their local guy or gal and still get what they want.

The Resource Based Economy (RBE) is very much a planned economy, and it seems to me that Copiosis has created a split, or semi-planned economic model; that is the necessities are planned for and provided, whereas the luxuries are part of an unplanned economy. Is this a correct assessment? And if so, is there any provision for luxury items to become part of the freely-provided 'necessities' as the standard of living improves over time?

An RBE in my opinion is a planned economy. Copiosis is not.

“Planners” in Copiosis are the people producing things. They also are those willing to share their capital goods with those producers. This is about as close to free market as it gets because at the end of the day, it’s individual producers and capital good owners who decide what’s made. And there are too many of those to coordinate in a globally-planned way.

So there is no central organization planning what to make or not make. Necessities are provided by the same people who provide luxuries: those passionate about providing those things. All the Payer Organization does is conduct research and monitoring needed to assign values to the algorithm so Producers are rewarded.  The rewarding process has a semi-central planning aspect to it in that the algorithm is “planned”.

But how the algorithm is applied is according to local customs, via the Citizen Jury process.

It’s possible in the future that Luxuries also will become as Necessities. That is, available without Gateways. It’s likely some Luxury producers will do that at the beginning. No one requires that Luxuries must have Gateways. But it helps that they do at first because we trained each other into extrinsic motivation.

In a far flung future Copiosis economy, I do see society scrapping the algorithm, NBR and Gateways. Then, everything is done from personal expression and sharing. With no expectation for reward other than intrinsic ones. When that happens, we’ve returned to what I think is the natural state of human society: the gift economy.

I think that may be far off. On the way though, we can make life far better.

How is Copiosis better than the Venus Project?

There is nothing wrong with the Venus Project vision.

However, the process for getting there must include concrete solutions to several problems TVP (and TZM for that matter) doesn’t address. More and more TVP and TZM supporters realize this. Some have known all along.

That doesn’t mean they are defecting to Copiosis and we don’t want them to.

What we do want is for TVP and TZM members to see the problems we think MUST be solved. And realize Copiosis has the solutions. In short, the end vision is kinda the same. But we have a better transition plan. One that can solve the problems. One that is working today and producing tangible results.

Our transition plan offers practical right-now plans and actions moving Copiosis forward. There are no dead ends or roadblocks standing between where we are now and Copiosis’ ultimate fulfillment. Our plan is working today and producing tangible results.

One of the biggest barriers to the future is our financial system.

We have a deeply entrenched financial system. A system people are simply not going to wipe from the face of the Earth without well-reasoned ideas that have well-reasoned transition plans.

Realistically, people expect, and should receive, logical answers to all their questions, including fear-based ones, BEFORE they accept or support a different system, let alone transition to one.

In any transition out of our current debt-based financial system, the richest in the world are the most important audience.

Why? Because rich people control resources. Any transition plan harming these people is non-workable. In my mind both TZM and TVP’s plans fall into this category.

It’s possible to reach the rich by galvanizing the rest of humanity. But there’s a problem with that: there is a LARGE majority of people who are moderates. They are satisfied with what’s happening in the world and don’t want that changed. Or rather, they prefer change happens slow.

So, a new idea must show these people something so compelling they are willing to move fast.

I don’t think the Venus Project offers that.

Feel free to download our free comparison spreadsheet which includes facts about many new system ideas. Don’t take our word for it that Copiosis offers the best transition available. Look at the other plans. Come to your own conclusions.

Questions about how Copiosis works
How does Copiosis pay for all this free stuff?

First, “free” and “provided at no cost” are not the same thing.  You can’t walk into a store in Copiosis and take stuff, because all property is privately owned.

Second, the concept of having to pay for something is unique to current economic systems that generally are based on cost-based manufacturing, profit taking, supply and demand, monetary policies, and the State, which regulates all these.

Copiosis does away with government or at least makes it extremely small. It also defines a new compensation system, a new way of looking at work, and a new way of looking at humanity’s output. All that makes the current system’s paradigm’s obsolete.

People who make necessities and capital goods, both of which are provided at no cost; and luxuries, which people must use their NBR to obtain, are rewarded for the benefit those things create when consumed. The Payer Organization rewards anyone who benefits people and/or the planet.

Necessities given to all at no cost are benefitting people. So those who produce these things are being rewarded. Same with Capital Goods. That’s how Copiosis “pays” for things people get at no cost (not free).

Got a question? Get an answer!

How does a Copiosis Economy deal with natural resources and resource management?

In capitalist economic terminology, Copiosis uses income signals (rather than price signals) to drive resource conservation. It also puts resource management in the hands of producers, where it belongs. Not with comparatively ineffective consumers.

It works simply: The more scarce a resource, the less Producers get paid when they use that resource to produce a good or service. Restoring or conserving a resource that is becoming scarce is a positive benefit and results in more income when pursued.

If restoration is not possible in human time scales (such as with a mineral), conservation (through using substitutions, innovating synthetic versions, or out right refusing to use said resources) also results in income. So would identifying other plentiful sources of said minerals, such as asteroids and stores on other planets. Since cost (money) is no longer a factor in a Copiosis Economy, space exploration and colonization becomes an economic non-issue.

Resource extraction methods often causes environmental damage. Producers must minimize (at the least) process environmental damage to maximize their rewards. Or they must mitigate said damage. Our algorithm also considers resource waste management. Nuclear waste, for example must be managed in maximally beneficial ways if producers using nuclear material are to maximize their rewards.

Know though that Copiosis is not a quick fix solution. Nor is it utopia. Some negative environmental effects will still happen in Copiosis because technology or other solutions haven’t surfaced to mitigate such effects. The bet is that people will see these negative effects and those with a passion for the environment, or those who see opportunity, will draw from the world of ideas solutions that mitigate those effects. When they do, they’ll get rewarded.

Trying to force people to not do something when nearly everything in the current system compels them to continue doing that thing you don’t want them to do is Sisyphusian to say the least. Consuming a resource to depletion in return for profit is highly encouraged today because it generates a (short term) profit. Meanwhile progress in stemming such depletion is slow. Very slow. Meanwhile, the damage increases. Often to disastrous consequences.

We can do better. And we will.

I understand NBR is rewarded after sharing something with others. Example: I grow 30 tomato plants and give a lot away to the community. I would be awarded NBR rewards. How is this tracked/ verified? Is it by computer, cell phone, separate device? Basically how does the system run in practice.

You may not be aware of this, but right now, in capitalism, many purchases are tracked many times and in great detail in different ways. Even the illegal drug trade tracks market activity closely.

Some organizations actually count inventory at the beginning of the day, then again at the end of the day. So they have an idea of what happened.

Some organizations use computers which track in real time what is “moving” through the product chain. This happens not only for finished products. It also happens for products in production. Even things which go into making other things are tracked like this.

This “product supply chain management” keeps store shelves, show rooms, trading floors, even the corner drug dealer with near-constant supply.

So when a tomato for example, is purchased by a middleman, the grower knows how many tomatoes she has grown and sells them by the pound to the middleman. The middleman accounts for that many pounds coming into his inventory and the farmer accounts for the same amount of pounds going out of her inventory. When the middleman sells half of those tomatoes (at a markup) to a retailer (like Safeway), he accounts for that half going out, and the retailer counts that amount (in pounds) coming into their warehouses. Those are then distributed to various Safeway stores and each store’s allocation is accounted for (counted) and included in their inventory. The inventory system is updated for each store. Often this is by the piece. Sometimes more than once a day.

UPC labels are affixed to each tomato. That label has the 4 digit code you enter (or the checker enters or scans) when you take your tomato to the counter to buy it. When that tomato is sold, the inventory automatically deducts that tomato from that store’s inventory.

When enough of those tomatoes are sold, and deducted, a trigger gets tripped in the inventory system, alerting store buyers that more tomatoes need ordering.

This entire process then begins all over again.

All this accounting and inventory tracking happens today for every item bought and sold at every level in the producer-consumer chain in every industry. With few exceptions.

In Copiosis, the same process is used everywhere.

Expensive inventory tracking technology that only corporations and successful businesses can afford, in Copiosis, is available to every producer because “expensive” is not reality in Copiosis. That’s because there is no such thing as “cost”.

So, here you are with your tomato garden. You have a tracking system in place (on your phone, for example, but it doesn’t have to be). It estimates your expected yield and then trues up its estimate with an actual count of the number of tomatoes you have in your yield. So somebody has to count the tomatoes, right?

It doesn’t matter whether the inventory accounts for pounds (less accurate) or actual items (more accurate) so long as the same unit of measure is carried through the entire supply chain.

So when you offer your necessity tomatoes to people, the inventory system knows that your yield has now been reduced by the number of tomatoes (or number of pounds) you have given away and that show up in the recipient’s truck, boxes, refrigerators or whatever.

It is up to you as the producer to account for those that leave your farm. Your inventory tracking system will do it for you so long as you account up front for your initial yield. Don’t want to do that? No problem, someone who loves counting stuff will do it for you. And you won’t have to pay them!

Why?

Because they benefit you, so they get NBR from the algorithm. And you get your inventory done.

It is also up to the consumer (the receiver of your tomatoes) to account for receiving your tomatoes in the same way that, today, you are responsible for ensuring you are not overcharged for buying more tomatoes than you actually bought at Safeway (or wherever you shop).

Falsifying information in Copiosis will earn you a negative declaration in your reputation account and could cost you in social ways such as people not wanting to work with you because your reputation is bad, or not giving you certain necessities or luxuries.

Once the consumer and producer report the inventory change, or once the automated system does so in a full-blown Copiosis economy, the Payer Organization now knows tomato transactions happened. This accounting can happen in a myriad number of ways.

Cell phone, RFID tags, bar codes, verbal transaction records…it doesn’t matter how, so long as it is verifiable and trusted.

The Payer Organization has data indicating the benefits that accrue to someone when a tomato is eaten. If you want to know how, contact us. They also know the effects growing tomatoes has on the planet. They also know the beneficial difference between growing and eating organic tomatoes and non-organic ones, tomatoes grown with chemical pesticides and those not grown that way, and a bunch of other variables. Much of this information we already know today, so it’s not a lot of work to gather that information. That information is used to populate variables in the Copiosis algorithm.

Now back at your house, you have a refrigerator that monitors the types and quantities of goods inside it. Samsung already makes a refrigerator that does this. I saw it at Lowes this past weekend and it is awesome.

This fridge can not only can tell what’s in it, it can tell when the item is spoiled, when the items are running low and need to be replaced; and it can alert the owner of that fact. I don’t see any reason why this refrigerator in the near future (like in a couple years) can’t also automatically order more tomatoes when your supply reaches a certain minimal level - just like what happens in grocery store inventory systems.

This fridge could also report to the Payer Organization what was recently put in it, thereby reconciling automated reports at the farm, with reports it makes in the home. It could actually connect throughout the entire supply chain, thus enabling the Payer Organization to track individual tomatoes as they move from the farm through the system and into your belly.

Speaking of your belly: So you eat your tomatoes. At that point, a benefit has occurred. You have benefited from the farmer’s effort, and everyone else who moved your tomato to your home.

The algorithm, is then triggered to run its computation based on all the factors from the Copiosis database related to tomato growing, harvest, consumption. The result of that “run” or calculation is an NBR reward.

This “run” happens many times along the process of the tomato getting from the farm to your refrigerator. At each step where people benefit another, a calculation is run: The farmer benefits society by turning raw material (seeds, land, water and sun) into food (tomato). She is rewarded for that. The middleman benefits the grower by distributing the tomato so the grower doesn’t have to. He gets reward for that. But he also is rewarded for sourcing tomatoes for the retail store warehouses. He gets rewarded for that. The drivers moving the tomato benefit everyone involved with “transportation”. They get rewarded for that. The warehouse workers are rewarded for moving the tomato from the distributor to the stores. The stockers are rewarded for stocking the shelves, the produce managers are rewarded for keeping track of all this tomato activity in the stores. The checkers are rewarded for ensuring you have a pleasant and accurate check-out experience, and that your tomato doesn’t get squished.

Automation handles a lot of this, but at every stage a human being (both a payer representative and the people actually doing the work, as well as probably some other people acting independently, but in coordination with the Payer Organization) is also verifying these transactions along the way.

This is not unlike what is happening today. I can assure you that in big farms, distribution companies and retail stores there are salaried employees with titles similar to “Supply Chain Quality Assurance Manager” doing this work.

I think you can see that it’s not very much different than what happens today, it’s just that the reward process is much different because we’re not measuring value expressed as price and cost, we’re measuring actual real-world benefits and detriments (negative benefits) and rewarding based on that. Instead of capricious values humans use to judge “worth” when they’re using money.

That’s generally how the system works.

Want more detail? Let us know what you’re looking for.

Does the consumer need to verify when they receive basic amenities?

They do, but that’s not the only way verification happens. Verification can happen through automation as described in the previous answer. In smaller, more personal transactions, such as when a kid cuts your grass, you might be prompted by the child to acknowledge receipt of a mowed lawn. So there will likely be a lot of those things happening.

Think people may not want to go through the trouble to do that? Maybe.

But many children who want what their NBR makes available will. So will most producers. Should it be a hassle, you can bet a producer who wants it done easier will find an easier way.

And in sharing that way with the world, they’ll get even more reward than mowing someone’s lawn.

Since everything is property, and all property is owned by someone, what is the story around basic resources? How are resources allocated to provide the most net benefit?
How is this determined and by who? How does somebody own the basic minerals, water and air?

In most cases, things are allocated by private individuals according to their private interest. This also applies to basic resources in some cases. In others, the allocation is determined by the community at large through the Payer Organization.

For minerals it’s easy: the land in which the minerals are located is owned by a private individual. That person has the ownership right (ownership in Copiosis is more akin to “stewardship”  than “ownership” as we know it today) and manages that land as he sees fit for his own benefit according to how the economy works.

Let’s look at water as a possible example.

Today, we have entities responsible for managing water “rights”. There are water utilities (munis). There's the EPA, courts, lawyers and others. There are agreements in place dating back hundreds of years detailing who has “rights” to water.

In a Copiosis Economy the people best suited to take ownership of property are the ones likely to do so. You wouldn’t want my mom, who lives in Virginia, being in charge of the water in Portland. But you’d probably be ok with the Senior engineer of the Portland Water Bureau managing that resource, wouldn't you?

Let's assume your answer is yes. Now, that engineer only owns the “resource”. But he can’t own all the assets used to manage that resource. There are too many. Too many tools, vehicles, pipes, switches, computers, etc.

He also can’t “own” the aquifers that feed it, the watersheds that feed them or the mountains containing the snow which feed the watersheds. He also doesn't own the clouds that bring the water, or the sun that gets the whole process going. However, there are lots of people who also work in the water bureau and elsewhere who could own parts of this “resource system” that are “ownable” or rather “stewardable”.

The men and women who maintain the pipes, valves, spigots; the guys who drive the service vehicles, the scientists who test the water, the security people who keep the system safe....all these people in a Copiosis Economy, if they choose, could take ownership of specific aspects of the water utility system. All these people could then manage their portion of the system as they see fit. Of course, they would have to do so in a coordinated way. They would also have to coordinate with users of all kinds as well as the Payer Organization, to make sure the system operated in a way everyone agreed was the optimal use of that system. Coordinators would obviously help with that.

There’s bound to be disagreement. That’s why there still are mediators (current-day judges) to help folks come to fair and equitable decisions on such matters. Copiosis dramatically alters the Justice system. But that’s a whole other story.

Water “rights” such as those governing streams and rivers are a different matter. That said, those rights are still managed by someone. Today, it may be the (I think) federal Bureau of Land Management, Native American Tribal leaders and other federal agencies.

In Copiosis, those agencies go away, but the people who work in those agencies don’t. They can continue (if they want) working on these issues. The good news is, these issues suddenly become free of the political machinations that make these things so contentious. Managing scarce resources in certain regions, such as water in the desert southwest, gets easier. That’s because people’s livelihoods aren’t as at stake, unleashed innovation helps increase resource supply, and with abundance replacing scarcity, stress, worry and fear subside. No one is going to lose anything while people figure this stuff out.

Also, our methods of using water (as well as all resources) change dramatically after The Transition, which, presumably makes many of these concerns over time go away. That is where the Payer Organization comes in. More on that shortly.

I personally don’t think specific people will be able to take stewardship of certain things such as the air or “rainfall” for example.

This is more of a commons, as would be water existing outside water utilities. These resources - including some basic materials (i.e. minerals) get managed by the inherent nature of the Payer Organization and the Net-Benefit calculation.

For example, since there is no federal, state or local governments, people who work in entities such as the DEQ, EPA, Coast Guard and such would no longer have jobs in those agencies (as with the other federal agencies mentioned above). However, their skills - the scientists, researchers, data wonks, public health PhDs, analysts, etc., would find themselves highly sought after in the Payer Organization.

Some of these people, such as rangers, inspectors and such could continue their work, but their information would feed into the Payer Organization. Others, might conduct enforcement actions in favor of the resource.

The wonks, researchers and scientists might use knowledge, skills and abilities to calculate, for example, how much negative Net-Benefit is created when a car, plane or jet ski emits pollutants into the air; when a farmer uses technology and farming practices that waste water, or when a factory uses processes that not only consume millions of gallons of fresh water (such as fracking or microchip processor manufacturing) but also might result in water that is not reusable.

This information gets fed into the Net-Benefit algorithm. Then, Income Signals (as opposed to price signals) are sent to Producers that, presumably alter their behavior.

Let’s say, for (an extreme) example (for purposes of illustration), I’m the owner of a coal-fired power plant. The Payer Organization might tell me one day that my use of coal and the emissions I create by burning it cause so much impact to the environment that operating my plant will earn me 2 percent of what I was earning in capitalism, based on forecasted Net-Benefit calculation.

WTF? I would say at first.

Now there are several actions I could take. I could get mad and stomp around and operate my plant anyway. This would be a problem though because not only will I get only 2 percent of what I was making in “income", everyone who helps me make that plant run also sees a similar decrease for contributing to the Negative Net-Benefit my plant produces.

Same with vendors, suppliers and contractors to the plant. So it isn’t likely I’ll be able to run my plant under those conditions because I can’t run it by myself.

But, in theory, Copiosis does remarkable things to human choices that capitalism never will: it frees people.

In this example, I may no longer want to run my coal plant. In Copiosis, the balance sheet costs of my plant are irrelevant. In other words, the stranded costs/investments that would happen if I abandon the plant, aren’t a consideration. That’s because those costs/investments were compensated for in the transition.

What’s more, changing how my plant runs in Copiosis is a relatively easy undertaking. That's because so long as the changes I may make help my pant produce Positive Net Benefit, all the material, equipment and labor I need to change it will be provided to me at no cost to me.

So, let’s say I’m a smart guy. I’m reading the economic tea leaves and realize that coal as an energy resource is dead as a doornail post-transition. It’s clear, since the marginal cost of production is now 0 for all goods and services, that renewable technologies suddenly become highly attractive, and more “economical” than any other energy source - even Nuclear power.

If I were to convert my plant from a coal-fired plant to a bio-fuel-fired plant, I could do better. But the emissions I would create could still impact my income.

But let’s say I also know a guy who had developed an innovation that captures all those emissions and recycles them into more energy. I could go that route. But really, the best energy source in terms of Net-Benefit is one that does not produce any emissions.

My plant just happens to be located out in the boondocks because the EPA in the old days wouldn’t let me site it close to city centers. That turned out to be a good thing because my plant is surrounded by relatively little. It’s mostly prairie land. The land my plant sits on is owned by me, but the adjacent lands are owned by other folks. Maybe I could create a solar farm? Geothermal? Maybe I can provide my land to another energy company that is in the solar business. Maybe I could join a team and investigate other ways to create energy, ways that don’t require a bunch of land. Maybe I could turn my facility into a launch pad for space exploration…maybe…maybe...the options suddenly get quite interesting.

This openness of thought and opportunity is possible because I don’t have to pay for my home. I don’t have to worry about insurance or medical bills. My food, my kids education, all that is covered. If I really wanted to continue running my plant, I could convert it to the Bio-version and still make income.

I wouldn’t maximize my income until I figured out a way to capture and eliminate the emissions. I could probably find a way to do that with some time and thought, or someone else might have figured that out already. In either case, I have a lot of time to figure this out in a Copiosis economy.

This story hopefully illustrates that the “commons”, air, water, some land, elements and minerals are held in stewardship. Through the Payer Organization and the Net-Benefit calculation people who today work at capturing all the data we use to currently keep track of these “commons” do their bit and get rewarded. They today work in a very large number of separate institutions, consulting firms, engineering firms, government and nonprofits. After the Transition, they would earn income doing those same tasks, but as part of a massive organization (loosely managed in an open-source, transparent environment) supporting the Payer Organization. Their work informs civilization about the state and quality of these commons, and their work product (their results) informs all kinds of Net-Benefit calculations.

Of course, anyone could join this loosely managed nodal network, so if you don’t like results they come up with, you can help create the results.

Most importantly, entrepreneurs, industrialists and innovators in Copiosis can take on problems that languish because “we can’t afford it”.

Some people argue that the politics involved in dealing with some of these decisions would result in stagnation. I think such stagnation, as well as the policy pendulum swings we see today, occur because there currently are too many perverse incentives driving such decisions. Incentives including the false scarcity created by our money. Take these incentives away and I believe people will make better decisions faster. They’ll also come to agreement faster because they won’t disagree as much. Because doing the right thing no longer conflicts with their personal self-interest. It’s in everybody’s self-interest to benefit people and the planet.

All commons and community property is managed in the same way. Any property or material value too large for individual stewardship is managed by the Net-Benefit calculation which increases the negative consequence of resource consumption as that resource nears depletion: the closer towards depletion, the greater negative impact consuming that resource has on a Producer’s income.

As resources near depletion, the Net-Benefit value of actions restoring said resources goes up.

In fisheries for example, I could envision fishermen earning income fishing stocks, but as those stocks near depletion (they don’t have to get CLOSE to depletion) Net-Benefit Income Signals would transform some of those fishermen into conservation managers as they would earn more income restoring the stock than fishing it. Over time I would presume smart fishermen would self-manage these resources thereby maintaining an optimum level of income balance with “sustainable fishing practices” whatever that would look like.

The same would occur for power plant managers, factory managers and other facilities that consume or impact the commons.

Got a followup question or a what if? Get an answer!

Who judges if some action is “good” for other people?

First, today, in nearly all countries (I think) someone already is making that judgement for you and for other people. In some cases, it’s your government, sometimes it’s your boss at work, or the company at large. Sometimes it is your girlfriend, boyfriend or spouse, or your kids. Sometimes it’s your parents.

So, it isn’t new to have someone judge some action as good or not good for another person. That’s happening already everywhere.

In Copiosis, no one is deciding what is “good” for others. Here’s what they are doing: They’re looking at results that come from your actions. They’re weighing those results against a list of things we believe are net generative or net destructive to humanity. That list is available for you to review. You can even have input on changing them if you want.

If your actions are net generative, you’re rewarded. If they’re net destructive you’re not rewarded.

So I guess “good” in Copiosis is analogous with “net generative”. Or, as we have been saying “benefits people and the planet”.

Who do you think should get to make that judgement?

For example, smoking has good and bad consequences at the individual level. At the social level, smoking has a different set of benefits and consequences. At the socio-economic level, smoking has another set of benefits and negatives.

Should the person addicted to cigarettes get to decide whether his addiction is good or bad? Should the cigarette maker?

Who?

Unfortunately for society at large, decisions made at the individual level generate tremendous costs socio-economically, especially when those decisions are replicated many times by many people over time. In a different context, many of those people probably would not choose that behavior (smoking for example). And often, those getting hooked on smoking aren’t making the decision. The decision is being made for them by their peers, advertisers, society, etc.

Producers today are compelled to satisfy people’s needs. But they’re also compelled to create needs (such as smoking) because they need to earn a living to meet their needs + generate enough income to live the kind of life they want.

The question, therefore, is more interesting than who is deciding what for whom. Because in large measures today’s producers are dictating many of your decisions and you don’t even know it.

In Copiosis, we have an elegant approach to dealing with this interesting situation. Rather than deciding what’s good for you, the system gives the decision to producers. But producers must answer the question in ways which produce the most benefit to humanity, and the least harm.

That is, if they want to get rich.

Today we don’t have an effective mechanism accounting for what we widely agree is “bad”. Pollution, crime, poverty, homelessness, lies, deceit and manipulation in politics...unethical corporate behavior, etc., all these things pretty much everyone would say are “bad”.

In effect, “bad” action is a kind of tragedy of the commons. People can get away with such actions because there is very little consequence most of the time. Sometimes bad action gets condoned.

Copiosis changes this. It holds people - not companies - accountable for all their actions, both good and bad.

Our current systems don’t do this very well. Holding people accountable, in the long-term, is extremely helpful. And effective.

In Copiosis earning a living is unnecessary. This is a critical point and it can not be overstressed. A huge result of not having to earn a living is, you’re not forced to compromise. Compromise often starts the slippery slope to “bad” outcomes.

“I was just doing what my boss told me.”

“Hey, I needed to keep this job.”

“Good” ones naturally happen in Copiosis because that’s the only way someone gets rich. And people have all their lives to get that right.

Good and bad are subjective for sure. But our algorithm makes them about as objective as it can get.

So who is judging? Producers do. How do they (and we) know if they get it right? They get rich.

How many times have we seen people get rich today and destroy entire lives…or worse, entire countries?

Got a concern about people helping you get rich? Let us know why.

Who decides how something is valued?

“I’m concerned a bunch of people, or bureaucrats are going to tell me how much the thing I make or the thing I want is valued. Who is deciding how much things are worth?”

Short answer: producers/owners decide how much their things are worth.

Longer answer:

“Value” is a concept we as a global society must get rid of. Everything existing has infinite value. Especially humans. Even “bad” outcomes…

But let’s look at this concern about “value” and who decides what value something holds.

At first, the non-governmental Copiosis Organization defines what is categorized as necessity and what is generally categorized as a luxury. Everything that fits in any of the five necessity categories is a necessity if the owner tags it as such. “Necessity” and “Luxury” are not value categories. They’re just organizing categories. If you’re naked on a freezing tundra, which has more value? A diamond ring? Or an arctic parka?

After that initial categorization, “value” is in the eyes of the Consumer. “Value” is a separate matter unrelated to how Copiosis works. No one but the Consumer and the Producer is concerned with value.

The Copiosis Organization rewards producers based on results (benefits minus consequences) using the Copiosis algorithm. Not value. “Value” isn’t among any of the algorithm variables. What the algorithm does consider are the negative and positive effects of human actions. We’ll get to that in a moment.

The bottom line is the only people who care what something’s “value” is are those producing the good or service, and, sometimes, the person receiving the good or service.

Necessities are provided to you at no cost. So “value” is not part of that transaction.

Luxuries are the only thing you give up your NBR for. But when you do give it up, you’re not giving your NBR to the Luxury owner. The only “value” consideration you can make in Copiosis is: is this Luxury I’m considering getting, worth the NBR listed on the Gateway?

If you don’t think it is, you don’t have to give up your NBR to get it. So in this case you decided.

No one tells producers how much their Gateways should be. That’s a producer decision. No one tells a person they must give up their NBR. That’s a consumer decision.

For example, you might be so amazed at the meal you just had, you want to send personal congratulations to the chef. Maybe you go home, or right there in the restaurant, whip out your mobile device and post a glowing review on Yelp, Foursquare, or tell your friends about it on Facebook.

In Copiosis, if you want to make sure the chef gets special praise, you would also let the algorithm know about your experience by providing the real-time input to the algorithm via your smart phone.

But in other places, my guess is you don’t really think much about the people who produced the good or service you consume.

So, in most cases, the Producer is the person who cares most that the benefit her work creates is being recognized, since she perceives (correctly) that in Copiosis her personal reward is based on that. So she may or may not try her best to create “wow” experiences for everyone, every time, to get that customer bump.

For the vast majority of products and services though, that’s tough. How do you wow someone’s toothbrush experience?

Benefits minus consequences is WAY more important than “value”. Societal resources (labor, resources such as minerals, trees, land etc.) being consumed when producing a product or service are quantified and subtracted from a similar quantification of the individual benefits (to the consumer) and societal benefits of consuming that product or service. It’s less about “value”, especially “consumer value” and more about actual benefits, or lack thereof.

This is a critical difference between Copiosis and capitalism and why things we can’t seem to fix today, get fixed in Copiosis.

A couple examples:

Today in capitalism, rhinoceros horns have TREMENDOUS VALUE for an EXTREME minority of the earth’s population considering all Earth’s inhabitants human and otherwise.

As a result of the “value” this EXTREME minority places on these horns, people who provide those horns earn over $100K per horn. That leaves us today with no more Black Rhinos on planet Earth for ANYBODY.

They were declared extinct about 3 weeks prior to this question being answered.

Is that a consequence we want to see more of? Is it one YOU want to see more of?

I could go on a long time about the number of species, raw materials, and life-sustaining resources (such as the air and water) we are or have destroyed as a result of meeting “consumer value” run amok.

In Copiosis economies, we don’t care about consumer values so much. In the case of people wanting Rhino horns for virility, poachers couldn’t get paid for poaching these animals, because the loss of Rhinos (i.e. extinction) is too great compared to a minority of people wanting to increase their libido with a questionably effective potion.

The only reason why we currently don’t have consensus on the value of species vs. a minority of consumers and their perceived value of their body parts is because people earn a living cutting the faces off of Rhinos, fins off sharks or providing opportunities for other people to kill animals for sport. And in Capitalism, it’s hard to tell one group to quit it. It’s even harder to actually make them stop.

Some people really want that horn. Some people really want that shark fin soup. If they really want that horn or that soup in a Copiosis economy, that person can go out to the savannah or sea and get their own. Most people will not want to do that, and people who do supply such service today only do it because they believe it’s the only way to live the kind of life they hope to live.

In a Copiosis economy they won’t do it because they won’t need to: They are living much wealthier lives as all their necessaries are being provided.  And, there are plenty other more productive things they can do to earn money to enjoy the finer things, such as playing with their kids, teaching people how to make nets, finding adventure in exploring other worlds, or whatever their passion might be.

Got a question about how value gets determined? Get an answer!

What about challenges of mismatching values?

It’s accurate to say people have widely varying values/opinions about what makes the planet a better place. The Rhinoceros horn example above shows that. Vegans may think non-vegans are exploiting our companion species. Biodynamic farming advocates think this system is best for the planet, even though animal husbandry and consumption of animals is integral to biodynamic agriculture. So they would run afoul vegans.

Mismatching values is a challenge. Most people offer political differences or differences in spiritual beliefs and how those effect social behaviors/values as the challenge.

Experience has shown me that the one reason such challenges are is because resources are artificially limited by the “we can’t afford it” problem. This problem gets created by having to “pay for” things we do. That funding must come from someone’s pocket.

As a result, we have politics, which attempts to funnel “limited resources” towards what we think the answers are. “Leaders”, “scientists,” and others with opinions about how things “should” be therefore, stand to gain, both professionally and personally from their answers winning the day.

So do their supporters and constituents.

As well as powerful people who leverage these people’s ideas for their own interests. These factors weigh heavily on the noise that comes from competing, mismatched values. Climate change offers a contemporary example.

Copiosis relies on a fully unconstrained market, in which the benefit of many different pathways can be demonstrated, the ones offering the largest Net Benefits meriting the greatest rewards. But even there, other pathways’ rewards are not limited by the “winning” pathway’s reward. NBR is unlimited in quantity.

Solar energy, for example, won’t be the only pathway that sees the light of day (or more light in solar’s case) for example. All kinds of energy pursuits will likely be explored when money is no longer an issue.

So in Copiosis people with mismatched values are free to pursue their own visions. May the best visions prevail! But if you’re out there killing Rhinos for their horns, and you expect to make money somehow through that, in Copiosis you’re not going to. Because Copiosis doesn’t care about “value”. It cares about benefit spread across a number of factors.

The fact is, there’s room on the planet for all kinds of different values. Problems happen when one group believes their values are superior, then tries controlling resources of others in order to spread their values and coerce others into believing them instead of letting people be.

As I mentioned before, Copiosis doesn’t care if you want to ingest Rhino horn virility powder. But no one is going to get NBR making that for you. So if you really want it, you’re going to have to get it yourself somehow.

That’s going to be tough because it’s hard to do anything these days without help from someone.

We humans have a lot of growing up to do.

Our approaches to stewarding the planet and caring for one another have been greatly distorted by our systems. Systems born of the same ideas that shape our societal approaches.

No biggie though. There is time to grow out of all that. Including our penchant for arguing over artificially constrained choices.

Through Citizen Juries society can hash through potential mismatched value issues without stymieing human progress. Including progress on stewarding the planet. This post describing how these juries work is worth a read.

Human values are a challenge, but we think we have a good start on creating peace among them. Got a yeah-but?  Share it with us. Let’s talk about it.

Aren’t you trying to assert your values on the planet by creating Copiosis?

In a way I am yes.

My values (aka “What I know”):

  • There’s no good reason why we all have to be in debt
  • There’s no good reason why we must earn a living
  • There’s no good reason why we must pay for what we need to live.
  • There’s no good reason for preventing people from following their passion.
  • Passions create increasingly better worlds.
  • Humans are essential good in human bodies.
  • As such humans are inherently valuable. Their value is unlimited.

What’s wrong asserting values that make everyone’s life better?

Think there’s something wrong with a system based on those values? Especially if that system impinges no one else’s values? If so, tell me. Let’s talk bout it.

Related to Value: Who decides which approach is better than another?

“As an alternative health practitioner, I would be devastated if I were forced into the allopathic medical construct just because the Payer Organization says that modern medicine is the only thing of value. (or that the food pyramid is valid) I know from experience that love, compassion, belief, and many of nature's own gifts work far better than most drugs. What happens to things that don’t fit the mold?”

There’s no mold in Copiosis. It looks at results, measures them, then makes rewards (or not) based on the results.

The good news is, you’re not going to starve or lose your home or healthcare while the Payer Organization measures results you’re producing. And you ARE producing the result. So it’s up to you to produce results you know are possible.

Because of that, no one needs to force you into anything. You’re sovereign.

What’s interesting about our society today is the complexity of the opinion-verse. There are so many people sharing the same opinion of almost whatever example you give. One reason (among many) one wellness modality prevails over others (allopathy vs. “alternative”, for example) is because of our system: in our system even modalities must compete for a slice of the limited money pie Capitalism creates. The reality is, there’s no reason all modalities can’t be offered and allow the choice to rest with the person choosing.

People think they are free to choose today. In “reality” terms, that’s not the case.

Western medicine (allopathy) dominates the healthcare space. Even with so many alternatives, it’s still center stage. Especially in people’s heads.

It is relatively difficult (even with the Internet) to get reliable information on alternative medicine. Mainstream “medicine” doesn’t always equate it as equal to allopathy. That’s changing a bit though as more people ask for such alternative methods.

But it’s changing only because allopaths see ways to make more money (or keep their patients) by being more inclusive. What’s more, allopathy has stronger lobbies, more money and more powerful allies (such as the insurance industry and Big Pharma). This cabal makes sure you spend your healthcare dollars on their models.

There’s a lot more to be said about how uneven the playing field is between allopathy vs. alternative medicine. So I get your concern.

In Copiosis there is no “mold” because there’s no one putting pressure on anyone to fit in any kind of mold. There’s no financial pressure, there’s no political pressure, there’s no federal government (or any government) pressure.

All there is is the desire you have to follow your bliss. Provided that your bliss makes other people’s lives better, you get paid. Period.

The Payer Organization is a cross-section of the population. It is made up of millions of people. It is bound to include many retired and not-retired alternative medicine practitioners. So your views on alternative medicine will be represented within the Payer Organization. How do I know? Because there’s nothing keeping such people from being in the organization. So why wouldn’t they?

As I wrote above, the Payer Organization doesn’t care about modalities. It looks at results. And it doesn't pay the Producer (in this case the healthcare provider) until the result shows up. So there’s no need for the Payer Organization to pay an allopath differently from a natural or alternative medicine practitioner unless the two approaches produce different results regarding benefits minus consequences.

We know that allopathy is problematic in many ways. Healthcare as practiced today is highly reactive, not proactive. It’s expensive and it often causes more problems than it solves. It’s also extremely resource-wasteful.

Such practices in Copiosis would not earn as much as other modalities. Modalities that keep people well in the first place. Some say that’s harder than we think. But that doesn’t make it impossible.

The only arena where I could see allopathy earn more in Copiosis than alternative medicine might be if a human is critically wounded - such as in battlefield conditions, a car accident or any other circumstance where the body experiences extreme trauma such as a loss of limb or damage to internal organs.

Wellness practices (proactive and alternative modalities that keep people healthy so there is no illness to treat) are much better when it comes to chronic disease and other disorders which develop over time from bad habits.

Politics also makes you ask this question.

The food pyramid is a great example of politics influencing health care/wellness. In a Copiosis Economy, things like the food pyramid, how it was influenced by industry and why it persists is impossible. For one, there’s no law-making body to lobby.  Two, even if there was, a lobbyist can’t lobby them because organizations can’t own money. So a lobby organization can’t pay money to pay someone to lobby, or contribute money to political candidates. Even if organizations could own NBR they still can’t do anything like this because NBR can’t be transferred from one person to another.

There’s no reason different healthcare modalities can’t thrive alongside one another. Not in Copiosis anyway.

Got a healthcare related story? Please Share it. We might create a case study from it.

What if something has value to one person, but then causes another person harm, how is that handled?

“For example, many allopathic drugs do create “value” for the company and shareholders, but harm people”

By value here, you mean, for example that an allopathic drug has value to the maker in terms of making money, but harms people who take it. Is that right?

Or maybe you mean the drug helps some people, but harms others? We’ll try to answer both questions at the same time.

Today, value is separated from consequences. This is true about nearly everything. So a drug maker can make a lot of money (create value) well before the full effects of the drug (long term harm) is known. A man can “grab a woman by the pussy” and not face any consequences for decades.

Regulators try to keep this from happening and are somewhat successful in many cases.  such as What happened recently in the US with vaping is an example. Yes, many people still vape even though it’s been proven harmful, addictive and a boon to tobacco companies.

Another example: Antibacterial soaps made manufacturers and marketers a LOT of money before it was revealed these supposed remedies were potentially more harmful than beneficial. Is anyone trying to claw back all the money those companies made?

Aren’t these soaps still on the market? How about the billions made off opioids?

In Copiosis, a drug maker doesn’t earn a dime until results are known. So they can’t earn “ill-gotten gains”.

Some drugs work for some people, but don’t for others. In those cases, we are getting into very specific detail how the Net-Benefit calculation happens.  But principles upon which those details will be determined remain consistent:

  1. Income is realized after the facts are known
  2. Income is based on actual results produced minus resources consumed and other consequences
  3. Customer “value” has some input, but that input is small.

In Copiosis, even allopathic drugs get better because the NBR a drug maker gets is based on results, not the “value” or “cost”. Drug makers get better producing what they do because how much they make is tied to actual results. And since their costs of operation drop to zero, it’s easy to make what they’re making the best it can be.

Same holds for every producer.

Got a specific example about dealing with human values? Please share it!

How do you define, “making people and the planet better off?” Who decides the objective definition to follow?

Generally this is how it’s done. It’s more complicated than this, but this gives an overview:

First, we take all the results of a given action. We identify negative results (results that are harmful to people and the planet) and tally them.

Then, we identify the positive results (results that are constructive for the planet and people) and tally them.

Then we subtract the negative results from the positive ones. If the subtraction results in a positive number, people and the planet are better off. If it is zero or negative, people and the planet are not better off.

All this is done via the algorithm. It’s more complicated than simple addition and subtraction, because the algorithm does other things in addition to what’s described above. But generally, that’s how Copiosis defines “better off.”

You can find out about how the algorithm works here and here.

Who determines NBR rewards for different types of activities?/Who determines which activity is good for the planet, the people and which is bad?

The value of NBR is determined by a math formula, an algorithm, which was developed by me (Perry) and refined by a PhD in Mathematics a Computer Science PhD candidate and several others.

The variable values (numbers which replace the variables when a calculation gets made) are determined by people. You can listen to this YouTube video to hear how actual Payer Organization members determine variable values to feed into the algorithm. This recording is from one of our past demonstration projects.

So Copiosis citizens determine variable values. But the algorithm variables are fixed. Variable values get made through the Citizen Jury Process. Through Citizen Juries the general public controls how the Copiosis algorithm works.

Jury members get drawn randomly. Juries work with the Copiosis Organization throughout the process. At a set period, a random selection of mobile phone serial numbers are drawn. This is how jury members are selected.

These citizens attend a series of presentations by experts in their field. First experts introduce them to the Citizen Jury process and how the algorithm works. The jury in session gets invited because changes are needed to the algorithm. Experts explain how this process will end in those changes.

Then other experts come in. They present all kinds of data and information about a subject, new information on a former or existing endangered species say, that needs citizen input. After hearing these experts. The process concludes with the jury directing algorithm planners in the Copiosis Organization to change the algorithm (values associated with certain human acts) in light of the new information.

Once the algorithm variable values are changed, changes remain in effect until the next period.

In this way you, me or anyone has equal opportunity (random) to serve the country by influencing how the algorithm serves us.

Oh, unlike Jury Duty today, Copiosis Citizen Juries produce great Net Benefit, obviously. So Jury members get NBR for their service.

Supporting this jury process are experts: scientists, engineers, statisticians and other researchers, field experts such as biologists, geologists, oceanographers, industrial psychologists, ordinary people (via citizen juries), and more. Watchdog groups and whistleblowers are all over the process for obvious reasons: they’re passionate about catching cheaters and the system works better because of them. So these people get NBR for their participation too.

All these people work stigmergically. The process is open to anyone who wants to participate, but, again, you must invest time in learning how the system works. You must also demonstrate an ability to get along with others. Certain interpersonal skills are needed too. Such as remaining calm in tense situations. Education in Copiosis is no cost, so it’s easy to improve one’s self.

It’s my expectation that political and other ideologies get weeded out. For example, suppose a Christian believes people who meditate practice devil worship. So this person wants the algorithm changed so that people who teach meditation don’t get rewarded.

First of all, the tangible results meditation produces would likely make this scenario implausible.

But let’s say it gets to the Citizen Jury process stage. Here, experts on both sides of the issue would offer their arguments. After presentations, the Christian, by himself or with a league of fellow Christian scholars, can’t make the decision. They must work with their other citizen members to decide. In this specific example, it would be extremely unlikely for religious ideology to prevail over actual results meditation produces.

The Christian can’t form a political movement, raise money then overpower rational arguments backed by evidence that their opinion is misguided. He can do that today. But he can’t in Copiosis.

Got a followup question? Ask it here!

Who/what decides what is produced and on what terms?

Generally, individuals called Producers make these decisions. Agreements between producers are codified in records which exist in the Copiosis computer network. Producers arbitrate bad faith agreements according to justice system rules, rules governed by (as with everything in Copiosis) the Net Benefit Concept.

The question is two questions. Let’s take them one at a time:

What is produced

Most likely, what is produced is decided by two main factors: a person’s passion (what they are inherently, irresistibly interested in) and that thing’s potential Net Benefit outcome.

Any passion will produce high Net Benefit once it ripens. So the second factor pales compared to the first. The first is most important, as that’s where people get their greatest satisfaction.

That’s the first part.

The second part of the question is: on what terms.

Individual Producers get to set their own terms generally speaking. Such terms of course is governed strictly by the Net Benefit Concept. The operative phrase in this case is “make the thing in the most efficient, planet-beneficial way”. The algorithm (particularly the production demand balance portion of the algorithm) governs this. You can find out about how the algorithm works by going to the Advanced Sh*t section of the website.

Businesspeople use the word “terms” to mean conditions under which all parties will be satisfied working together. In Copiosis such matters are handled in the moment, governed by each person’s desire to keep their positive reputation (recorded in their reputation account).

So the main “term” might be “be nice, easy to work with and focused on serving consumers with the best possible good or service we can offer as determined by the algorithm and we’ll be fine”.

Any other “term” doesn’t really matter all that much.

Producers have control over what is produced and how in Copiosis. That includes how much NBR they get.

How does society measure quality? What happens if the provided good or service is poor?

Everyone who benefits someone or the planet in some way is rewarded NBR. Quality is important in the extreme and is measured indirectly by algorithm variables.

Quality is different for different things and services, but in all cases it is captured via the good or service’s effects on the environment, satisfaction (benefits) both subjective and objective which are accrued to the consumer, and how the good or service benefits humanity and society. How long it does that is measured too.

As you can see, “quality” in Copiosis means tangible functional outcomes. Things like durability, long life, sustainably produced, reusability and functional benefit.

There will (for a time anyway) be poor goods and services. This is natural as people learn to improve their abilities and processes. NBR will still be rewarded, but obviously not as much compared to when we’re producing similar goods or services but at higher quality levels.

Spoiler title
. However mainstream science is ultra-conservative and hugely influenced by corporate interests. How can it be trusted?" open="no" style="default" icon="caret" anchor="" class="spoiler_child_q_a_style"]

This is a great question.

I agree science has too prominent a place in many future visions. Decisions made based on science alone would create a sterile society in my opinion. There are so many other worthwhile sources of information, some of which science laughs at.

This is regrettable and will likely be remedied in the future.

While science is included as a decision making tool, it is not central to the Copiosis decision making process. Far more important is the human heart and human concern for people and the planet. These factors will weigh more heavily as people let go of their fear, scarcity beliefs and other conditioning that has come with living in debt-based, rational-mind systems. Systems which have their origin in humans’ beliefs that they are unworthy (sinful).

Science plays a part in Copiosis, but it is not the only part. Nor is it the biggest part. It’s just one tool of many.

Do people who work for someone doing bad things also lose NBR for being associated with that business?

People don’t “lose” NBR because NBR once rewarded it’s non-transferable.

However, if net benefit produced by a given action is really bad, people can lose future NBR. This includes everyone who is involved in producing said result.

So yes, people working for someone who is doing “bad things” are also responsible for that “bad thing”. Which is why everyone is encouraged to take action in Copiosis which ensures positive net benefit. Including whistleblowing and watchdogging.

Do you think this is fair or unfair? Either way tell us why.

Questions about Necessities
Is there a list of what constitutes necessities?

Yes. The list is: Food, Clothing, Shelter, Education, Healthcare. The categories are intentionally broad. There are some items that could fit into these categories that are, in fact, NOT necessities. Those products and services would be luxuries or perhaps capital goods.

What about the Internet? Will it be considered a Necessity?

Some things will be decided upon and some decisions will change over time. Transportation, for example, might get included among necessity categories in the future.

The internet, like the devices used to access it, are an intrinsic part of Copiosis. It is neither a necessity or a capital good. Maximum bandwidth technologically available is made accessible to all.

There’s no reason to restrict it. This means current infrastructure has to get better. Fast. Of course this is only possible up to the limits of technology. So there may be advances needed to provide robust connections to all (like fiber world wide or some other technology that may be invented). In the meantime, all access currently provided could be provided at no cost.

Clearly this could cause bandwidth congestion. All problems create NBR markets. So it’s likely some smart people will come up with net-beneficial solutions.

Would transportation be considered a necessity?

I personally think it will as society evolves with the system and more innovation makes transportation more a commodity. I can see it happening in stages, with certain “public” transportation becoming a necessity, while “personal” transportation still requiring one to trade NBR for things like fuel and repairs and obtaining the vehicle. Still other transportation would likely fall in a kind of middle: Moving companies, for example, might offer their services at 0 NBR. That’s a kind of transportation that has high utility. And high benefit outcomes (moving labor around).

Who/what decides what is Necessity or Luxury?

Necessities in Copiosis are: Food, clothing, education, shelter and healthcare. Those categories were decided at the beginning of the innovation. Of course, if you think about it, there are goods and services in these categories that aren’t truly “necessities.”

Boob jobs (in most cases) and caviar might be examples.

Luxuries are those things that are not necessities (or capital goods). A face lift, or a pleasure boat might be examples of Luxuries.

Producers decide whether their products and services are classified as Necessities or Luxuries,  depending on how a Producer wants her good or service to influence society. A Producer tags her product or service and that’s that. Producers are only able to tag products and services they create. They have no ability to tell anyone else what to do with their product or service. Neither does anyone else.

The way I understand Net-Benefit Reward, it is an incentive to first and foremost provide necessities to the community, and only after necessities are fulfilled, then provide luxuries. Is that the case?

NBR is a reward people get when they do something to make the planet and people better off. That can include offering necessities OR luxuries. But it could also be creating riparian zones for anadromous fish, or innovations which keep bees from dying, or innovations which keep domestic cats from killing so many birds. NBR is not ONLY an incentive to motivate people to provide necessities. Although it does serve that purpose.

Is there is a guarantee in any given community that all necessities will be supplied?

There is no guarantee of anything. But that’s the case everywhere throughout history. In Copiosis (the organization) we believe the basis of humanity is goodness. It’s an important baseline.

You may not agree with it. But it is accurate from our perspective. When people are freed from having to earn a living, they will fall back on this basic goodness and provide all manner of things, not just necessities.

But that doesn’t mean you will get your necessities. That depends on what kind of person you are. Are you a kind person? Are you peaceful? Are you loving? If you are, you’re more likely to get the necessities you need. If you aren’t, you may not get them.

But, since people are basically good, even if you’re a turd, somebody is probably going to give them to you. And those who haven’t tapped into that basic goodness yet may do so if only to get more NBR.

Don’t believe people are inherently good? Tell us why. Let’s have a conversation.

If a necessity is missing in a given “community” how and why would someone rush to provide it?

Because that person would get a lot of NBR doing that. How they would do that depends on all kinds of factors too numerous to talk about here. Generally though I would imagine the following scenario:

A community member realizes a great need within his community. He realizes no one provides what’s needed. So he reaches out to a coordinator, someone specializing in connecting people with people and people with opportunity.

He explains the situation to the coordinator. The coordinator might have some planning tools (software) or a team of planners he works with. They’ll analyze the situation seeing if the potential NBR payoff is enough to merit their involvement.

They may pass. But there’s more than one coordinator in the world. So another might get involved. Alternatively, the community member himself might organize a team to provide the need. He may identify and contact suppliers, middlemen, manufacturers, etc. He may identify someone with property in the community who is willing to offer space for the need.

If this community member succeeds, he will get a lot of NBR for organizing the solution. Others joining him would be rewarded too. Those rewards will keep flowing so long as the need exists and the solution fulfills the need.

That’s how I see a missing necessity provided. Why it would happen is simple: a person realizes a need is present and is passionate about doing something to fill that need.

It appears you class 'Necessities' as separate from Capital Goods, is there a 'Net Benefit Reward' for producing Capital Goods too?

Producing a good generates no NBR because a good sitting on a pallet is not creating benefit. It’s when the good is consumed (put to use) that benefit is created. So, it doesn’t matter what the product or service is classed as from the NBR perspective. What matters is “how much benefit is produced?” When a person consumes/uses the good or service. So, so long as a good or service creates net benefit the producers gets rewarded.

So yes, when capital goods are made and put to use, capital goods producers get NBR.

How will people get their necessities in the early stages of this idea? Will they have to rely on those rich people to provide these at the beginning?

At the beginning, anyone with necessities can provide them to anyone else and receive NBR. But it’s likely at the beginning that necessities will be provided by the big providers, the same ones that provide them now. However, understand that the playing field will have been changed dramatically.

First off, “rich people” don’t have all the necessities. Nor are they responsible for creating them. It’s “working people” that make necessities. They staff production facilities and rendering plants. They farm fields and pick crops. They deliver produce and other goods to retail facilities. The rich people aren’t really doing much other than making a bunch of decisions about logistics, finances, strategy and policy. Meanwhile, working people are making the things.

So in Copiosis, those working people, instead of being paid minimum wage or whatever, start getting a LOT of NBR. Why? They are feeding, clothing, sheltering and providing care to a LOT of people!

Instead of “profit” going to the top, everyone who contributes to necessity consumption is rewarded in proportion to their contribution (measured by a number of factors). Salaries meted out based on scarce financial resources go away. Organizational hierarchies in these larger companies are flattened as people refuse to work with power-hungry, insecure managers or in bloated organizational structures.

I think there will be a huge shift of the labor force from bullshit jobs to jobs that matter. So some of these companies will see huge workforce shrinkage causing them to have to rethink and reorganize what they do and how they do it.

Corporate personhood will be eliminated, leaving managers directly responsible for their decisions as to how much net benefit is produced. Instead of a nearly automatic pay check coming in every two weeks or something like that, they will have to demonstrate that their contribution merits the NBR they receive. Corporate Boards of Directors will have no influence on how much a CEO gets. His NBR will be determined the same way everyone else’s: How much net benefit do his acts creates as measured by the algorithm?

It is likely people currently at the “bottom” of such organizations will find themselves receiving far more NBR than they do income today in absolute terms. They will be more prosperous than before given they are no longer in debt and their necessities are provided to them at no cost. Their direct contributions to providing necessities to millions of people will cause them to be quite wealthy in NBR terms. That’s my guess based on how much I know about the algorithm.

Costs no longer exist in these organizations. People who are passionate about things like renewable energy, environmental protection, net zero impact operations, and sustainable and ethical supply chain management can implement their plans and make companies more green. They get NBR doing so. I think we’ll see organizations change from the inside out.

All this means traditional providers such as monopoly conglomerates will, over a relatively short amount of time, become flatter, more environmentally friendly and more socially responsible.

Over time, as more people learn to work in Copiosis, inventors will invent ways to do a lot of the necessity production through technology. Amazon, google and others are already exploring such approaches. It’s just a matter of time before a lot of necessity production gets automated.

In the meantime, who cares where the necessities come from? They will be high quality and cost nothing!

What happens if a person is unable to work, will they only be given the necessities?

That’s not up to Copiosis. It is up to producers. Necessities aren’t generally something given in return for work. That wouldn’t be “no cost”. Some producers still indoctrinated in the idea that people must earn their living might refuse to give necessities to those they think aren’t working.

But it’s equally likely there will be producers who don’t think that way. They will provide necessities the first group refuses. And guess what? When the second producer group does provide those necessities, they’ll get NBR. The first group won’t.

Do you think that, over time, the first group, seeing the second group getting so much NBR, might start looking at their thoughts and consider changing them?

What if I can’t contribute? How do I get Necessities?

All necessities are private property. While they are available at no cost, the person who owns them must be willing to give them to you. In most cases that’s not a problem. But in some, the owners might want to be sure you’re creating net benefit for others before they give you necessities. There will always be lots more people who don’t care what you’re doing because whether you contribute or not, when someone gives you their necessities, they’ve created net benefit (giving you necessities), so they get rewarded.

All that said, Copiosis isn’t just about tabulating cold inputs and compensating with cold outputs. It’s designed to bring out the best in people, while making other people’s lives and the planet better.

Of course, there will be people who will not want to contribute to others’ lives, and there will be people who can’t.  For the former, people will still provide them shelter, clothing, healthcare, food, and education.  Except in the most extreme cases, most communities today support even the most introverted and anti-social, so long as that person is not harming anyone.  In Copiosis that will happen even more.  Why?  Because those providing necessities will be rewarded.

Those who can’t contribute are probably treated even better.  Why wouldn’t they be? Anyone who takes care of people unable to provide for themselves will receive more rewards than people who do so today.  Some people who do this work today, I think, get paid minimum wage. In Copiosis, their necessities are covered. So any NBR they get goes a long way. It’s difficult to say how much NBR they get because we don’t know all the algorithm inputs.

But even if it is equivalent to minimum wage figures today, because necessities are provided, every NBR that person gets is essentially like profit: free to be used how the owner sees fit.

I imagine they’ll also get much more satisfaction from the work, because people will be doing it out of love or compassion for others or a desire to express themselves this way—it will be their passion.

Back to your question: We have to look at what it means when we think someone “can’t” contribute. Usually, there is a world-view behind that statement that limits what is possible. For example, a quadriplegic still has mental faculties. How can those faculties benefit others? For the mentally challenged, there are other ways they can contribute, and through better means than simply sweeping streets, cleaning offices or assembly work. We just have to be more creative! In Copiosis, we can be.

And perhaps you as the person asking the question might want to look at why you think you can’t contribute to the world and other people. Everyone can contribute because each person brings unique interests and skills (a combination that creates “passion”) to the table. So you may just need to explore to see how you best can contribute. Which is not a problem because you get your necessities at no cost to you. You have plenty of time!

Back to others: Today, many people do caretaker work as a “job”.  They have to earn a living, and they have chosen to this work for that purpose, not necessarily because it’s their passion. Some do it as their passion, but many of those people get bitter or jaded for a number of reasons.

Politics, bad regulations, bad bosses, dictums from their higher-ups, having to work with people who don’t care, who are just working there to earn a paycheck, and interpersonal conflict with peers often sour the emotional return.

Capitalism also pushes companies to make choices that are not in the interest of those being cared for. Or those working for the companies. Regulation tries to fix that, but we often see stories where that process fails.

In Copiosis, there will still be personality conflicts within organizations.  But there will no longer be higher-ups who tell you what to do.  They can try, but you don’t need that work, so you can tell them to shove it.  Businesses don’t have to generate profit and actually can’t own NBR at all. So the profit motive, which often conflicts with doing the right thing, is eliminated.

In Copiosis people working in organizations that take care of people who can’t contribute to society get paid only when they do things that make other people and the planet better.  There is no cost restriction keeping them from doing whatever they can to help other people, so care for these people can improve dramatically.

In Copiosis, those who think they can’t contribute to society still contribute something significant that is invisible in traditional capitalism: the opportunity for a compassionate person to express that compassion and get rewarded for it. I can see Copiosis rewarding people who, on the surface can’t contribute, for the contribution of a means through which others can contribute.

Parents get rewarded for raising their children.  Adult children get rewarded for taking care of their parents. Those who care for the disabled are rewarded for their efforts.  Income from this real work today is either nonexistent or paltry. But in Copiosis is wouldn’t be.

In Copiosis, there will always be something you can do to “contribute”.

Do you believe you can’t contribute? Do you know someone who can’t? We’d like to hear your story.

Questions about Luxuries
What is the purpose of Gateways on luxuries?

From the producer’s perspective, gateways’ main purpose is to influence consumer demand. If Producers want to generate high demand (and have the ability to meet that demand) they may set a lower gateway. If they don’t have the ability to meet high demand, then they may instead want to set a high gateway.

There are two other Gateway functions. First, they tell consumers how much the producer values her creation. A producer’s hand-made hats, for example, made of the finest materials and tailored for each head, may have very high gateways because she only wants those who appreciate her work to own one. And, it would be challenging to make large quantities in the way she makes them.

Second, high gateways help stimulate more benefit in the world. The higher the gateway, the more benefit you would have to produce for others to meet it. In this way luxury producers control Net Benefit production.

From the producer’s perspective too, a higher gateway manages resource consumption on the production side. Fewer people having the NBR “means” to obtain the luxury would mean fewer resources being used to create the luxury thereby limiting the NBR downside of consuming too many resources in production.

Gateways are one of the tools producers have to control many things about Copiosis. Including their process impacts, their consumer type and size, their individual rewards and how much net benefit people produce.

So Producers have a lot of power and influence.

Think Gateways are just another kind of price? Tell us why you feel that way. We want to hear from you.

To get Luxuries, people have to make societal contributions, correct?

In a word Yes. But everyone pretty much does this today. By existing you’re making a societal contribution. You just don’t get money for highly valuable acts you do which “contribute”. You’re only paid for the ones the capitalist markets say have value. In Copiosis there’s more “room” to make societal contributions in Copiosis because nearly anything you do can generate net benefit.

I understand that necessities are free. How are prices set for luxuries?

Prices or, Luxury Gateways are set in a way to encourage maximum consumption of the Luxury all other things being equal. Producers decide how high gateways will be, but only for their products and services. No one tells anyone what they can or can’t do. So there’s no one telling producers how much to set their gateways at. However, there may be consultants and Copiosis Organization members who suggest recommended Gateways for Producers looking for some advice.

Questions about NBR, money, etc.
But using money is so much easier!

Well, wait a minute. Is it really easy? Yes, you can buy whatever you want with money, eliminating the need for human interaction, eliminating the coincidence of needs economists talk about, when they speak of the virtues of money.  It’s easy to just hand over some paper or metal and get what you want.

But there are complications, huge ones, that are invisible to that “simple” transaction. There are environmental effects that have to be “cleaned up”, or we have to live with the damage resulting from them. Is that “easy”? There is the physical and psychological trauma that occurs when using money. Yes, the tip of the iceberg makes using money look easy. But the huge chunk hidden under the surface clearly shows that using money is not easier. We must consider the cost and the effects of using money when we are considering its ease of use.

Got a yeah-but? Share it. Let’s talk about it.

Isn’t NBR just another form of money?

Many people first think Net Benefit Rewards (NBR) is just another form of gussied-up currency. But it’s not. I realize some die-hard people will argue to the end days that NBR is a currency. I’m ok with that. As far as I’m concerned, NBR doesn’t function at all like money, so how can it be money?

For one, it is a moral form of reward. It is rewarded only after the effects of an action are known, and the reward is only made for actions that benefit the planet and or people. Money doesn’t work that way.

Secondly, NBR is non-transferrable. That eliminates the two-party transaction dilemma that naturally exists as part of the zero-sum game simulation money creates. When a consumer wants a product, she doesn’t hand her NBR over to the producer of the product. The producer offers the good, the consumer accepts it, and gives up her NBR. Her NBR goes out of existence. Once the effects of consuming that good show up in the real world, i.e the consumer uses the product and sees some results from using it, the NBR algorithm (via the Payer Organization) rewards the producer with NBR based on several inputs used in the algorithm. These inputs look at the results and measure how “beneficial” the results are to the consumer, to society, and to the planet. Assuming the “net” benefit is positive, the producer is rewarded. This three-way transaction is unique to NBR. There is nothing at all similar to that process tied to money’s function, is there?

Money is a store of value. There is no concept of value in NBR as value is meaningless. Net Benefit is what NBR measures, not value. NBR by itself is a store of nothing. It just represents how much benefit you’ve created and the world has enjoyed.

There are a lot more reasons why NBR is not money. I go into pretty detailed explanation about this in this post.

NBR is not backed by debt, gold, or other standard. Money may not be backed by these things any more, but it is backed by the promise of a government. NBR is backed by nothing.

Other critical differences include the following: no one is forced to earn NBR to afford necessities. You can’t get into NBR debt. Your NBR can’t be taken from you (they’re non transferrable, remember?) so you are far more free in Copiosis to choose what you do with your time.

If you were free to do whatever you wanted with your time, if you had no debt, and you can’t get into debt, if all your necessities were provided to you at no cost to you (including education and medical care), what would you do with your time? My guess is most people (far more than not) would do things that benefit others or the planet. That’s what we are hard-wired to do. This unleashes humanity to follow their hearts, their passions, their desires. The vast majority in the world today are decidedly NOT doing that at their “jobs.” Money does not promote this ethos in any way.

NBR and the system it is embedded in does.

YOU’RE JUST TRYING TO CREATE ANOTHER FIAT MONEY/CURRENCY!

That’s news to us! Let’s define these terms you’re using:

Fiat Money: "Inconvertible paper money made legal tender by a government decree."

Money: "a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively."

Currency: "a system of money in general use in a particular country."

All money/currency today is fiat. It fits every definition above.

Copiosis NBR is not fiat, nor is it money, nor is it currency. It functions nothing like money as it can’t be exchanged, isn’t issued by a bank or government, does not take the form of coins, banknotes, and is not “legal tender”. I suggest you look at our answers to other questions comparing NBR to money. That way, you’ll see how NBR is different from money.

Money is the best way to motivate people. Why do you think NBR is better?

Right now, money is the best way. But we can do better. Net Benefit Rewards can do what money does far better. NBR doesn’t have the negative consequences money has. And, since necessities are available to all at no cost, no one starves, is involuntarily homeless, shamed or sick for lack of NBR.

Copiosis offers compassion, whereas the monetary system rewards anybody for doing anything that’s profitable. With money, compassion’s not included.

There’s a lot of benefit money inspires. But there are lots of bad things too. Bad things I’m sure you’d agree we’d rather not have in our society: Social, communal and individual destruction through the drug trade, women and child exploitation including kiddie porn and animal poaching, are all examples.

Most agree these aren’t positives. Yet they happen because people can make money off them.

None of these can happen with NBR because NBR is rewarded after the facts are known. NBR also is non-transferrable. Those two features alone makes profiting from the drug trade or any other illicit business activity impossible.

That’s just scratching the surface of why NBR is better. Read more about how NBR works and how the algorithm works. You’ll realize NBR is much different from money. It’s also better.

Why don’t you consider ''net-benefit reward'' a medium of exchange/money?

Because NBR doesn’t work that way.

NBR, unlike money, can’t be exchanged from one person to another.

When you use it, it disappears into thin air where it came from.

There is no Fed regulating NBR quantities. The amount of NBR is unlimited.

NBR is just a recognition of the amount of Net Benefit you’ve created.

Unlike money, NBR can only be used to buy one thing: luxuries.

You can’t get into NBR debt.

You can’t get an NBR loan.

You can’t meet a Gateway “on layaway” or in installments.

NBR functions nothing like a medium of exchange, or money.

Finally, NBR is used in a three-way transactions, where you the consumer, the producer of the good you want and the algorithm represented by the Copiosis Organization participate together when goods and services are transacted.

When you give up NBR to get the (luxury) good, your NBR doesn’t go to the producer. It just disappears. When you consume the good, presumably, Net Benefit is produced. When that becomes measurable, the producer who provided you with the good receives NBR from society at large (again, not you), represented by the Payer Organization. So there is no exchange between a buyer and a seller. That’s a very good thing.

There can (and should) be a delay between your consumption of a good (or service) and the producer’s reward. Money/mediums of exchange don’t operate this way. A lot of our problems result from this.

For all these reasons, we not only don’t consider NBR a medium of exchange or money, it’s patently not that. It’s different. It’s new.

It’s the future!

Read more about how NBR works and how the algorithm works.

Why do we need to motivate production when overproduction is the primary cause of most of our ecological problems?

Because overproduction is not the primary cause. The primary cause isn’t even consumerism. The primary cause of our ecological problems is both how we produce and how we consume.

Imagine a world where all production is neutral to positive on the environment. In other words, no matter how much was produced, the effect on the environment was either neutral or regenerative. In that case, there would be no problem, would there?

In fact, one could argue that production should always increase. As the more production, the better the environment gets!

Same with consuming. Consider a world where consumption had either neutral or positive effect on the environment. In such a case, we might want to increase as much consumption as possible. And see the environment get better and better.

With this understanding, let’s now look at why motivating production is necessary.

Most people in the world today are conditioned to be extrinsically motivated. So until all those people change back to being intrinsically motivated, or die off and are replaced by other generations who don’t accept extrinsic-motivation conditioning, we must motivate people that way.

Another reason: tiresome, laborious, life-threatening jobs (such as coal mining) are either going away or they are being automated.  That’s a gradual process. In the meantime, some people must  do that work. Work no one wants to do that must be done merits very high NBR rewards according to the algorithm. So motivating production ensures work needing to be done gets done.  And instead of today, where shitty jobs pay even shittier, in Copiosis jobs no one wants to do, but must be done, when they’re done, those doing them get a lot of NBR.

A producer can’t get rich overproducing in Copiosis. The algorithm balances production by rewarding producers up to a point. At that point, rewards diminish, thus encouraging producers to do something else.

Ecological problems are handled by those passionate about those causes. When they are handled the people handling them are rewarded NBR. So overproduction (often stimulated by artificial demand created by producers) is eliminated and ecological problems are solved.

So in many cases we must motivate production. And if production also improves the environment, I say let’s have as much production as possible. Same with consumption!

Still not convinced? Tell us why.

I disagree with how awards are handed out in the military, why would I want a similar system that I already view as inefficient?

This is a question addressing an analogy I used in describing how NBR is a reward. In it I used the example of how medals are rewarded after the fact for acts of valor, heroism and the like.

In Copiosis, if your disagreement with how the algorithm works is solid, you can give input.  If that makes the system better you are rewarded with NBR.

Is there any direct relation between NBR awarded to the producer and the NBR spent by the consumer?

No.

People often conclude this is the case and then conclude (wrongly) that NBR is just another currency. Or that there is little difference between Copiosis and what we have today.

There is NO relation between an NBR Gateway (How much NBR a consumer must have to obtain a luxury) and the reward the producer receives. The former is simply a threshold expressed as NBR (a number).

If you don’t have that number in your NBR account, you don’t get the luxury. Presuming of course that the Producer owning the Luxury requires you to meet the gateway.

Producers get rewarded for the benefit their good or service produces. They don’t get the Consumer’s NBR. NBR goes out of existence when it is used. The algorithm doesn’t even consider a gateway when rewarding Producers.

So, once a consumer uses her NBR to meet a Gateway, that amount gets subtracted from her account. The software does this automatically once both Producer and Consumer agree to transact.

Prices today determine how much a consumer must pay to get something. The price covers the cost of a good plus a return (profit) to shareholders for their investment used to make the good.

Gateways aren’t prices. They don’t measure anything related to the resources used to produce the good. Nor do they guarantee shareholder profit. They don’t determine anything related to producers. A Gateway is only a number chosen by the producer based on a number of factors the producer likely considers. That might include:

  • How many people the producer wants to have the produced thing
  • What kind of people the producer wants to get the thing
  • How much benefit he wants to see created in the world
  • How much he values his craftsmanship

This kind of transaction is more like a gift (economy) transaction, not an “exchange”. That’s because the consumer is not giving anything to the producer in return for the good. However, society is rewarding producer willingness to provide gifts (by engaging their passions…the best of what producers can offer the world) with NBR.

How do we make sure everyone gets the NBR they deserve for every good deed they do, for example you help out in gardening or something?

The framework is designed to do just that. Producer incentives, consumer feedback incentives and automated observation all help ensure everyone gets the NBR they deserve.

But remember, if you don’t get what you deserve, you’re not going to starve. You’re not going to lose your house. You’re not going to lose access to medical care. That’s a huge improvement over today. In other words, your life is not at risk just because you’re not getting paid.

That said, any producer or consumer observing an act may report it. So can any Payer Organization member. In a full-blown Copiosis economy, the system itself can monitor and report acts based on resource consumption and use, then have that report confirmed by humans.**

The person most likely to report a beneficial act is the actor. That makes sense, right? They want to get their reward. They want to make sure they get all they deserve. So I don’t think we’ll have trouble getting people the NBR they deserve.

The trouble may be sifting legit acts from fraudulent ones. But the framework is designed to do that too. Even if we err on the side of giving out more than people deserve, who cares? NBR is infinite. So over rewarding is not that big a deal. What’s more, big rewards will require big results. That will be hard to fake.

Smaller rewards for things, such as helping with gardening, are not going to make a person unfairly rich. Once we understand benefits helping with gardening produces, the algorithm will ensure the reward is made whenever it’s reported. If an inordinate number of reports are made that seem fraudulent, it’s easy to flag that (through software) and have Payer Organization members, accompanies by Peace Offers, pay the actor a visit.

It should be added that not every act needs to be rewarded even if it merits one. If I tell a person they have something in their eye, that benefits them. Do I need to be rewarded NBR for that? Strictly, yes. But come on…

Most acts will be accounted for by the system in some way or another, but some don’t need to be.

**Before you freak out about Orwellian overseers, life is going in that direction now. Cameras are everywhere. And people, for the most part, are getting used to that. So by the time Copiosis gets implemented, I don’t think people will be all that worried about being on camera most of the time.

Tracking both necessities and luxuries for each person, tracking net benefit produced by each producer and associating that with a reward is a complex technical problem involving both computers and high levels of security.

This is true. And it is being done today. We currently track production of goods and services. We measure how much of nearly everything is being produced and consumed. The pervasive nature of computer devices and surveillance now enables us to track each person's movements and consumption patterns. We now have the ability to know exactly what everyone is buying and how much of it they buy.

As they used to say in "The Six Million Dollar Man" "we have the technology" and we're using it for who knows what. That is scary in our current economy, but in the transparent and open Copiosis economy, this knowledge becomes extremely community-beneficial.

Balancing security with transparency will be an interesting dance, but not a dance that can't be learned. Lots of work to do! 🙂

Is there transparency around how NBR is calculated for any given action?

Yes. The algorithm in its current form and how it works is publicly available on our website and elsewhere. It is Version 7.1.

Is the algorithm publicly available?

Yes. Here.

Is there transparency around the history of NBRs awarded for any given person? E.g. is such a log publicly available?

Yes and no. The accumulation of NBR and the acts meriting such rewards will be known because large NBR must mean large (and therefore obvious) benefit produced either to a lot of people, or a large part of the planet. Those results, by definition, must also have required a lot of people involved producing the benefits.

It’s very difficult these days for one person to generate a lot of benefit solo. So it will be easy to identify what people did to produce such large rewards.

Reward histories are recorded in a kind of black box. Each person has this record in their handheld device (it also is in the "mainframe”) but that information is not publicly available unless the owner of that device allows it to be seen.

Will you stop people from using whatever medium of exchange they want?

Many times people ask questions while not really understanding the question they’re asking speaks to their current reality. For example. As much as you like, you’re probably not going to get into the Super Bowl easily by trying to barter a ticket with a dozen (or even two-dozen) chicken eggs. Nor are you likely to satisfy your state or local tax obligation with firewood or bread. Or even your labor. Your taxes can be settled with one thing: money.

So you’re already “stopped” from using whatever medium of exchange you want to get things.

In Copiosis, you’re free. You can use whatever medium of exchange you want.

But why would you do that?

Why would you try to exchange something in return for necessities, which are given to you as gifts, with no expectation of exchange?

Same for Capital Goods. Why try to “trade” for them when people will simply give them to you?

In Copiosis, it makes no sense using media of exchange in every case. Even if you want a luxury item, in some cases people will give them to you. But in all the other cases, all you have to do to get the item is do something(s) that benefits another person or the planet.

Is that really that difficult? 🙄

I believe when people understand the major inherent problems of money, they will strongly desire something else.

Bottom line is: if you want to exchange things, then go for it. But in a Copiosis economy “exchanges” are a figment of the past. A concept created from ideas that a person who gives is somehow injured and therefore must be given back to to make them whole. The opposite is true: a person is made BETTER when they give. Copiosis just happens to also reward that person for giving. By rewarding them NBR.

Questions offering examples of how NBR gets rewarded
Are people provided any Net Benefit Reward for free?

No. To get NBR you must benefit others.

Necessities will be super high quality and will allow nice livings. However, human beings being what they are, they will strongly desire luxuries. Especially luxuries a Copiosis economy will produce!

“Work” is an interesting word. To me it implies doing a job. Particularly a bullshit job. There are a lot of people on the planet today, who can not “work” that kind of a job. However, they have innate talents tied to their passions that, when uncovered and shared, delight other human lives.

This is the kind of output every human comes into the world with. Our purpose at Copiosis: to get people to express their passions and be rewarded for THAT. Not create a world where people work.

Pursuing one’s passion, delightfully, does not occur as “work”. It feels like fun, flow, absorption. Everyone has a passion in them. Express that passion and you get NBR.

All that said, there is tremendous value (priceless value) in every human being. Just by their being on the planet they create value. No system can adequately reward people for that. However, Copiosis will provide NBR to everyone, a base level, for benefits they produce by simply being.

Notice though this is not “for free”. It’s reward for a person choosing to come into life experience, which is a challenging adventure. One few nonphysical beings take on.

Let’s suppose giving someone an apple means I am rewarded with 1 NBR (arbitrary number). Does that mean that if I plant an apple tree and give away all the apples, I will be receiving hundreds of NBRs every year after it starts to make fruit?

Yes. So long as you own the apple tree and people are nourished by the apples you provide. If you grow and use that apple tree for multiple purposes, you are rewarded with even more NBR. If you use the fallen leaves, dead branches (wood) and apples people won’t take (such as rotten ones or highly blemished ones) in a beneficial way, you get NBR for that.

Got an example you’d like an answer to? Please share it. We may use it on our website.

Say I'm a jazz musician. Do I get NBR every time I play a song? Very difficult to measure whether it “helps the planet or people.

In addition to receiving a reward for playing music, every time your music is played (whether you’re playing it, a recorded version of it is playing, or someone “covers” it) you also get a reward.

At first is seems hard to measure creating and playing music as beneficial. But that’s because you may not be used to thinking this way. But most people listen to music all day long. Why? Because it makes their life better. They enjoy music. Music heals. Music brings community together. Music tells stories in ways few things do. Music connects people.

That’s huge net benefit.

It is very easy to measure and reward musician output. Our algorithm does it easily. All we need is research on how music benefits. There’s a lot of that out there already. Why do you think music is offered in schools? And you can bet there will be more research in Copiosis. That’s because people doing this research can be rewarded for their contributions.

Then we need a way to track when a musician’s song is played. The music industry does a pretty good job of this already. I can imagine improvements on this.

So yes, as a jazz musician, you’re rewarded every time your jazz creations benefit others. Whether you’re involved or not.

Got an example you’d like an answer to? Please share it. We may use it on our website.

What about large scale projects, like say overhauling the US road system. How would that happen?

Wouldn’t it be harder to make sure there was consistency if it's not one project? Especially something like that, which would basically effect everyone in the country? How would something like that be handled? I understand, it would be by professionals, but how would you achieve some form of consensus for things of that nature, that utilize a lot of resources, are on a vast scale, and require a fair degree of consistency? Or would it go to each region can have their own systems?

It is not necessary for everyone to be under the same roof. They just need to be on the same page.  Computer software design, aircraft manufacturing, auto manufacturing are examples. These days, even movies and music are made by collaborators living in different places around the world. There are plenty of examples.

What ensures consistency is a standards system, which ties together many activities, while at the same time leaving room for natural creativity. And a way for everyone to communicate.

Let’s look at overhauling the US road system. Today, there are hundreds of thousands, if not more, people working in road transportation. Some work in government. The Department of Transportation is an example. Your state department of transportation is another. But many, many more work in private companies. Companies that do on-the-ground work. Not just laying asphalt and painting lines, but also designing where roads should go, planning how wide lanes should be. Deciding many lanes there should be. They also predict space requirements for future roads, based on predictions of future growth, etc. A lot is happening today.

Those hundreds of thousands of people are not all working for the government today. They’re not all working for one company today. And yet, they all work together, making our roads work…mostly 😀.

A large scale overhaul of the US road system, would not actually be that. It would be a large collection of smaller projects, all “tied together” with a common, agreed upon standard for things like road thickness, width, opportunity for expansion, etc. Today, despite large numbers of participating governments, companies, and individuals, our roads are pretty good.

But a lot of that goodness was put there many years ago. That’s why you’re wondering about an overhaul. It costs too much right now to do a total overhaul. But in Copiosis, where cost doesn’t exist, only desire prevents the system from being overhauled.

Desire and resources.

Once the Copiosis Organization estimates the NBR value of a systemic overhaul of the US road system, however, resource allocation wouldn’t be a problem. It would be such a large NBR opportunity, all kinds of resources would get thrown at it. The same goes for many of our larger-scale problems.

These problems can’t be solved today because they cost too much to solve. So they get deferred. Not in Copiosis. In Copiosis, they get done. Why? Because people can get extremely rich solving big problems. But only in ways that benefit the rest of us.

Would a haphazardly designed and put together large scale project benefit us?

Probably not.

Got an example scenario you’d like us to respond to? Please share it. We may use it on our website.

When is a thing considered ‘consumed’? Is it the point of transfer or the point of actual use? A bottle of wine, for instance, might sit around for many many years.

This is a very good point. There is a small amount of subjective benefit (and perhaps a TINY amount of objective benefit) produced when a bottle of wine is bought and sits in a wine cellar.  Especially for those who really enjoy wine.

But the real benefit occurs when someone drinks it. “Consumed” means a human being is using the good or service. If the good is a consumable (such as wine) it is consumed when drank. The point of transfer is only important for tracking ownership. Other than that, it has no effect on NBR.

Got an example you’d like an answer to? Please share it. We may use it on our website.

How do complex services / products get measured? E.g. a website can have a great degree of range in its value, depending on its complexity and purpose. Also, this can change over time, e.g. if the website is used heavily, it would need to be transferred to a better server, etc. How is this taken into account?

A website’s value is measured just like any other product/service: by the benefits it produces in people’s lives. The way the algorithm is designed easily accounts for the benefit a website produces. Even if that benefit changes over time.

The Payer Organization collects data on the website’s use and customer satisfaction with the site. This is easy to do. It’s already being done to a large degree. And it’s being done in real time.

That data is fed in to the appropriate variables in the algorithm. As benefits increase, NBR increases (up to a point). The opposite is true too.

Transferring to a better server is consuming more planetary and societal resources. That is not a societal benefit, so there is a relatively (but noticeable) decrease in rewards distributed to the site owner and her co-workers, unless either benefits also increase (which is likely, right?), or website owners work with other producers to increase server efficiency. So that decrease, if the site is hugely beneficial, is probably overshadowed by the increase in rewards due to benefit. So increased server capacity is not detrimental.

Server operators, especially those who have cutting edge efficient ones, will be looking for these kinds of sites to host. And, since they’ll get NBR for hosting them, they’ll of course, offer their hosting at no cost (as a capital good). Should there be temporary capacity bottlenecks, it makes sense that those sites providing the most benefit (not the ones best able to pay) will head the priority list. They offer server operators the highest potential NBR outcome.

That said, server technology will likely rapidly increase, as will energy sources, so the detrimental effect of increased server needs will likely be small. That’s a good thing.

So complex services and products are measured the same way everything else is: in real time, constantly. Changes in net benefit cause real-time changes in rewards.

Got an example you’d like an answer to? Please share it. We may use it on our website.

Do people who work for someone doing bad things also lose net benefit for being associated with that business?

People don’t “lose” NBR because NBR once rewarded is non-transferrable. However, if net benefit produced by a given action is really bad, people can lose future NBR. This includes everyone who is involved in producing said result. So yes, people working for someone who is doing “bad things” are also responsible for that “bad thing”. It’s likely the bad thing gets uncovered anyway because rewards aren’t made until all the effects are known.

Wouldn’t the potential bad outcome of putting your time into something that produces negative net benefit encourage or inspire you to make sure what you’re getting involved in, or are involved in creates the best outcomes possible across the board?

It would for me.

I think it would for anyone. So imagine a group of people come together to do a business. Every one of those people are now - in a sense - natural whistleblowers. They’re going to make absolutely sure what they’re doing generates net benefit. Not harm.

And, because there’s no cost at all for doing the right things (net benefit-wise), it’s easy for people to do this.

We’re all in this together. Copiosis makes that obvious.

Does feeding a starving person merit greater NBR than feeding a non-starving person?

Short answer is the algorithm is designed to allow short term or immediate adjustments in awards for things such as crises and emergencies of all kinds. So in situations such as an earthquake or the tsunami, those who took time out of their normal routine to assist would be rewarded "more" than someone feeding someone I their community. In dangerous situations, such as that mining disaster where 33 miners are trapped, the emergency responders who may be risking their own lives, if they succeed in saving people, receive much higher rewards. So, yes, in certain situations feeding a starving person DOES merit a higher reward than someone who is not starving.

CERTAIN SITUATIONS don't include someone claiming to be starving because he forgot to eat that day. It’s emergencies only. I think that makes sense, yes?

Question about reputation accounts
What are these Reputation Accounts?

Reputation accounts are encrypted records of everything you do in a Copiosis society. Reputation accounts contain biological data, work history, and education and skill information, including certifications and awards. There are also declarations, which are statements people make about you and that remain with you permanently.  It’s kind of like a Yelp review for you as a person.

Declarations are serious business. Since people can’t compel you to do things, including being honest, the declaration component of your reputation account allows people to decide whether they want to interact with you based on what’s in there.

Declarations are positive or negative.  As the owner of your reputation account you get to approve all positive reputation declarations.  You also have input, as well as the ability to review and contest all negative declarations.  After the review and verification process is complete, if the declaration is accurate as determined by that branch of the payer organization, that declaration sticks. Forever.

Reputation accounts work alongside NBR accounts. NBR motivates people by rewarding them for taking positive, net-benefit producing actions. Reputation accounts help the NBR system by holding people accountable for their actions and the results of those actions. They also help people understand whether other people they meet and might work with are trustworthy.

Many people have fears about our reputation accounts. Please share yours if you have one. We’d like to understand what people are worried about.

So, Reputation Accounts are like testimonials?

Yes. But unlike those, there is a detailed process for vetting declarations. Particularly the negative ones. That process includes a period whereby investigation takes place, and the subject has a chance to rebut, refute or challenge them. If the negative declaration is proven false, the responsible submitter receives a negative declaration on their account.

What if the submitter didn’t know he/she was wrong all along?

They benefit from the same process used to vet the negative declaration. However, declarations are serious business. People should be VERY CAREFUL when making a negative declaration on someone. If they are careless...they own the repercussions.

Many people have fears about our reputation accounts. Please share yours if you have one. We’d like to understand what people are worried about.

Questions about cheating
Can’t people easily lie about what they do and receive NBR?

Yes. They can try, but they will be found out.

Nearly everything someone could do that would benefit another person requires the transfer or consumption of resources, or someone’s time. It also includes another person or interaction with the physical environment, such that the environment changes.

Any act that benefits another person produces some sort of tangible results. Therefore, anyone who is lying about the benefit they produce for others would need to also manufacture “false” results or “false” records of consumption of or resource transfers.

In other words, if someone is lying about a significant benefit produced, they must also manufacture an equally significant amount of benefit. This is a lot of work for someone to do in order to get fraudulent NBR.

One way a person can get rewards in this fraudulent way is by reporting small acts. Acts producing small results that are easy to falsify. It might be easy to involve one other person, or a group of people willing to verify a false benefit.

But are such small fraudulent rewards worth going after?

I don’t think so. When the risk of losing necessity access, being kicked out of your community, or getting negative declarations is so high.

Bigger rewards are much harder to falsify.

All necessities are provided at no cost, so there really is no need to falsify benefit. Today, people do such fraudulent acts, because in many cases, it is easier to get money this way than it is to do something and earn the money. Others do it for the thrill, yes. Or to see if they can get away with it. The do it for fun. That will happen in Copiosis. People are people and Copiosis is not Utopia.

But it is much easier to just do things aligned with your passion that benefit others and receive reward. Heck, as mentioned in a question above you can just be and get rewards.

Your necessities are provided at no cost, so there’s no rush in figuring out what you can do to benefit other people.

But if you are one of those people with a penchant for doing the wrong thing, there are incentives to keep you from doing that. One of those is the Reputation Accounts. Another is Copiosis’ inherent design: if someone notices you trying to fraud the system, and they report you, they receive NBR. There’s no real way you can harm that person without the system knowing and you getting yet another declaration or worse.

Whistleblowers are prevalent throughout society today. The only reason why we don’t see whistleblowers taking more action in today’s world is because of severe repercussions they  face in today’s society. A society where money stands between them and their basic necessities. So if they can’t make money, they are harmed. That’s why having your reputation ruined today is so harmful. And why most whistleblowers don’t blow the whistle. It’s too risky. And yet, some still do.

Those consequences don’t exist in Copiosis so the likelihood of a whistleblower taking action is much greater.

It’s possible to lie to get NBR. But why do that when it’s so easy to get it legitimately?

Can’t someone defraud the system by claiming household chores that actually didn’t happen?

Some questions must be speculated on because I don’t know specifically how people in the Payer Organization would decide some things. My GUESS is the Payer Organization will standardize some rewards.

For example, parents would receive a kind of NBR fixed amount for raising children, so long as some basic standards are met. Which should be easy because all necessities are no cost. Kids, at a certain age (10?) would receive NBR for “chores” as determined by the Payer Organization through an average estimation of what kids generally do at home for chores. Parents would confirm such rewards.

They would for example confirm RECEIPT OF BENEFIT (a clean house, lawn mowed, dog fed, etc). This process could be abused, but remember: we’re talking about NBR that is so small in quantity, who cares? What is the magnitude of benefit of a vacuumed floor? It’s tiny.

Copiosis has an interesting effect on family relationships, effects which merit further study. Since everyone gets necessities at no cost, including children, parents will have to create a new kind of relationship with their kids. Particularly parents who dominate their children like possessions. Or parents who use possessions and money to control their children.

Same with the workplace. Bosses will have a hard time getting satisfaction from bossing people because all the boss’ leverage disappears when NBR replaces money. The boss will no longer have the leverage to fire people, restrict pay or reward pay to others. There are a lot of social changes that will need to happen.

Got a concern about cheating the system? Please share it. It might help us improve Copiosis!

Questions about the Copiosis Organization
Is the Payer organization a monopoly and what about people who have disagreements with its management?

Interestingly, you’re already pretty much in a governed monopoly.

The Payer Organization is a Stigmergic Monopoly. But, unlike government today, anyone can become part of it and contribute to its work.

If someone disagrees with how it is running things, that person or group can join and make changes within or participate in one of many Citizen Juries to make the system better from the outside.

The thing is though, the Payer Organization only does one thing: rewards people NBR for producing Net Benefit. Everything else they do is to support that one and only task.

It has no other authority.

Copiosis’ Payer Organization is just another form of government

The Payer Organization is not a government. Its members don’t tell anyone to do anything. They don’t prevent anyone from doing anything. They set no laws. They control no resources. They don’t act on behalf of a nation to other nations. Does that sound like a government to you?

The only thing they do is ensure producers are fairly rewarded with NBR. Of course, thinking about that, there are a lot of “supporting actions” they must do. But all those actions accomplish one thing: feeding the NBR algorithm data so it can make rewards.

There’s a complete discussion of the Payer Organization on the Copiosis website: If you take the time to read this post, you’ll see the Payer Organization is nothing like a government.

The Payer Organization has not been modeled after the government and operates nothing like any government on the planet. It is even distinct from Coop and nonprofit Boards in its form and function. There is no government in Copiosis of any significance.

Is the payer organization a central entity? Would it need to be a global organization? Or can the NBRs be calculated in a distributed fashion?

On the central entity question: Yes and no. The payer organization is massively distributed organization. There will likely be a central location for core functions, but the vast majority of functions (data gathering, reporting, providing an interface for the citizens, etc.) will likely be spread throughout the world.

The Payer Institute, where people will learn to become payers, could be in the same location, but it may not be. Even some core functions would likely be distributed since people who do things like answer phones, and process data could probably choose to work from home (or in a location they prefer).

Is it global? Yes.

As for the calculation: this gets tricky because different cultures and communities will likely have different priorities, so the algorithm will need to operate recursively using many versions of itself. Not an impossible task and likely necessary. So NBR for a given act in Antigua may be different for that same act performed in Bandar Seri Begawan.

Got a concern about the Payer Organization that we didn’t answer here? Please share it.

What motivates members of the Payer Organization to do that work?

All kinds of reasons. They may want to make sure the system works. They may want to make sure people don’t corrupt it. They may want to make sure artists are fairly rewarded (or some other specific group). Perhaps some are fascinated by algorithms, are data geeks, passionate about the environment or people or both.

In short, for as many people doing that work there could be that many reasons for doing it.

Who is going to monitor and keep an eye on the “volunteers” to make sure that their decisions are in the best interest of all and not their own?

Seems you’re very passionate about making sure Copiosis Organization members do their jobs in fair ways. You’re the perfect person to do that job inside the organization or from the outside!

If you’re worried about this, but don’t want to back your concerns with actions, you can bet there are plenty of people willing and eager to do this work. Why? They get NBR for it!

Copiosis Organization membership is open to anyone. There are no elections and only self-selection causes people to leave. Inside the organization, members are governed by the same thing that governs any producer: the NBR algorithm, wanting to work with other people, and the Reputation Accounts.

If you do crappy work or try to screw others, it’s probable no one in the organization will want to work with you. They want to be rewarded like everyone else: by doing beneficial things.

Decisions that make the planet and people better off are the only ones that merit a reward, so people working there will want to make sure their decisions are net-beneficial. If the decision the people making the decision get no rewards.

Besides systemic safeguards, there are a LOT of people who will be interested in policing the organization. People who are worried about it like you are. Look at today. Look at people who blow the whistle, at great personal peril, yet do so anyway. Many of these people’s lives are ruined in this economy/society.

In Copiosis your life can’t be ruined. You don’t rely on anyone for NBR. And your necessities are provided at no cost to anyone. Don’t you think under those conditions whistle blowers and watchdogs would come from everywhere to monitor the Payer Organization? I do. I think Copiosis Organization members would be constantly watched!

Essentially, this question reveals one of the many conditionings we adopt living in capitalism: an inherent mistrust of people. In capitalism this mistrust is prudent: there are a lot of ways you can be screwed by others, so you have to be on guard. In Copiosis none of that is possible, but it’s good there will be people like you around making sure people do the right thing.

Got a concern about the Payer Organization that we didn’t answer here? Please share it.

How do these “volunteers” get chosen?

Payer Organization membership is open to anyone. There are no elections and only self-selection causes people to leave.

How long do these “volunteers” get to stay in these voluntary positions before they are replaced?

They get to stay as long as they want to be there. If you want to, you can become one and stay there too. 🙂

How will the Payer organization know that someone has done a good deed to another person or the planet in order to award NBR to that person?

Currently, the software rewards NBR after the producer creates a record in the software reporting the act they took. The consumer must “confirm” that record. Once that’s done the calculation is run and NBR rewarded.

This is how it has worked in our test demonstration projects.

In the projects Producers must register the good or service in the software. After that the Payer Organization assigns an item class to that good or service, which has in it the values for the variables for that good or service. The algorithm takes those variables and calculates how much NBR is awarded once the good or service is consumed. So when the consumer confirms the transaction, the software immediately rewards the producer for the completed act.

In a full-blown Copiosis economy, we all have handheld devices similar to our smartphones. Through those devices we log and confirm transactions. Producers will still have to register their items (goods or services) or, even better, the Payer Organization would likely offer such a service (it makes producers better off, and so Payer Organization members who create such a system would be rewarded for doing so). Now this sounds like a lot of work, but producers register their products today in a very similar fashion. That’s what UPC codes, product numbers, inventory codes and product descriptions are: a form of product registration.

With the product or service recorded in the software, it’s easy for consumers and producers to link up, set up and confirm transactions, not matter what kind of transaction it is.

Once recorded it’s a simple act of completing an online record, like an invoice detailing what happened. Once accepted by the consumer the reward is made.

It’s possible early on that some events will be missed. No one starves, loses their home or goes bankrupt in Copiosis because of this. And, eventually all events get recorded. There’s built in incentive ensuring that happens: Producers want their NBR.

In some cases, certain acts that merit very large rewards, with large impacts will need verification. There will be people who will ensure that happens. I know this because doing that is one of the early ways producers can receive NBR: making the framework work better.

See “every problem is a market” in The Basics (link) page for more on this.

That’s how we’ll ensure good deeds are rewarded.

Got a concern about the Payer Organization that we didn’t answer here? Please share it.

Questions about the algorithm
Who gets to build the algorithms?

The algorithm was developed by me (Perry) and refined by a PhD in Mathematics a Computer Science PhD candidate and several others. They are a done deal, but will undergo constant revision via the Citizen Jury Process. However, I expect the basic tenets behind the algorithm to remain constant. These are:

  • We want maximum diversified deployment of human activity along human passions
  • We want minimum duplicated effort across the board
  • We want maximum use of renewable resources
  • We want maximum resource efficiency
  • We want maximum sharing of intellectual property
  • We want actions that maximize benefit to society
  • We want maximum increases of human resiliency
  • We want maximum benefit to individuals
  • We want maximum benefit to the environment
You don’t see room for abuse?

There is room for abuse of course, but those instances are quickly caught and fixed making the algorithm and the software stronger for every incident of abuse. That’s because anyone who catches and fixes such problems makes the planet and people better off, right? So they are rewarded with NBR. People can get very rich by catching such problems and fixing them.

How and why do you think the algorithm works?

I know the algorithm works because we have tested it repeatedly both in our early demonstration projects, and in scenario tests. So I’m convinced the current version is robust enough to work.

That answers why I think it works. Now let’s look at how it works.

Have you looked at the algorithm proposal? Understanding how it works requires using you noggin. The document itself doesn’t directly answer this question. It lays out the details. You must know a bit about math to understand the “how” and the “why”. That’s why I got help from two experts in high-level math. I’m not math expert! But they are!

Generally, here’s how the algorithm works:

The algorithm has in it variables which allow both subjective and objective input into the algorithm calculation. “Variables” are place holders. When the algorithm is “turned on” these variables are replaced with numbers. The numbers come from pre-determined tables. They get created when investigators observe and record what happens when a good or service is created and then consumed. Society (your community) sends representatives to help determine what those numbers look like. Over time though, the algorithm and the data set get pretty complete. So the values get better and better at representing actual outcomes. The numbers in these tables replace the variables when the algorithm is run.

The algorithm’s output is two things, a measure of a beneficial action’s “net benefit” as defined in the video. And the actual amount of NBR the actor gets.

The document describing the algorithm variables and the algorithm itself in detail cant be downloaded here:

In the algorithm, the variables or place holders are compared and weighted against each other mathematically to favor preferred human actions. That’s what the math symbols explain: how each variable compared with the others. Again, understanding math here is important.

For example, variables with a + sign between them means the two variables are treated equally and should be combined (added).

The way we’ve built the algorithm, including the math and what we chose to measure in the world, allows us to figure out what actions are “preferred” and therefore rewarded, and which actions aren’t “preferred” and not rewarded. What does “preferred human actions” mean?

For example, I’m sure you’ll agree with the following. If you don’t agree, please contact us and let us know why. It’s important we understand what people are thinking…

  • We want maximum diversified deployment of human activity along human passions
  • We want minimum duplicated effort across the board
  • We want maximum use of renewable resources
  • We want maximum resource efficiency
  • We want maximum sharing of intellectual property
  • We want actions that maximize benefit to society
  • We want maximum increases of human resiliency
  • We want maximum benefit to individuals
  • We want maximum benefit to the environment

We want all these things while minimizing negative outcomes: to society, people, prosperity, the planet.

Would you agree with all that?

By the way, the variables also include a subjective variable, which is used by consumers to give their subjective input into the algorithm. So when many consumers weigh in on that variable over the course of their consumption experience, we learn subjective satisfaction of a given product or service.

But that subjective input is not significantly weighted compared to the other variables for obvious reasons (I think anyway): While subjective experience is the only experience, we know subjective human experience includes many flawed premises. Flawed premises causing negative human behavior and resultant cravings. So we at Copiosis don’t want those resultant cravings dictating what society prioritizes.

So “good” or as it is said in the video “beneficial outcomes” are those actions that score a greater-than-zero result in a NBR algorithmic calculation. The greater the result, the more “good” it is and the bigger the reward. The opposite is true for “bad”. Bad is a less-than-zero calculated result and merits no reward. “Bad” means an act creates more less desirable outcomes, according to the algorithm, and so the actor receives a reward commensurate with that (a zero reward).

Contact us if you’d like to share a specific example we could walk through. We’ll walk though the the algorithm calculation and show you how “good” is determined. Or, you can go to our more detailed algorithm page and play with our simulators.

If you send us an example, we may include it in our advanced section to help others understand how the algorithm works.

Questions about miscellaneous topics
What about people no one wants to be around?

The mother of a friend of mine died.  She was “the bitterest woman ever”, according to her adult daughter who was my friend.  The mother smoked incessantly, always complained about and criticized her children, and generally made them miserable.  And yet the daughter I know regularly visited her, taking care of her right up to her death.

Even the most nasty or boring, annoying, unfriendly people have people who love them or at least are family to them. For those who are estranged from their family, their estrangement offers opportunity for someone to get NBR:  there are plenty of people who would love the opportunity to crack open hard-hearted people, help them heal, and get reward for it.  Currently they work in social service agencies and nonprofits earning squat.  Copiosis changes all that.

A person no one wants to be around is that way usually because of something that can be changed with professional help. Others may be happy with how they are and don’t want to change. Both types of people thrive in Copiosis because you don’t need to be liked to get your necessities.

And besides, just because you don’t want to be around someone doesn’t mean other people don’t.

What do other people think about Copiosis?

Most who have thoroughly understood Copiosis believes it’s preferable to what we have and can deliver on the promises it makes. Some of those people are now supporters. They are promoting Copiosis around the world in ways most appropriate to them.

Some are still skeptical about how we make Copiosis a reality. But that doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

Others think the idea is crazy and will never happen. Still others make fun of Copiosis and talk negatively about it to others. These people are as valuable as supporters. Their negative opinions still pique other people’s curiosity, causing them to look into our work.

Take a look at our testimonials to find out what some are saying. Or join our Facebook social group. There you can talk directly with those following our work.

How do I get involved?

Copiosis is an implementation organization, focused on making Copiosis a reality. There are lots of areas where involvement is possible. Our priorities are on technical development. People having skills in computer technology, math, research, data collection are needed. So are writers, graphic designers, animators, social media-skilled people and people who understand digital marketing, outreach and communication. Clarify where your skills match, then contact us. Let’s see if there is a fit.

How does one organize a demonstration project? It sounds a lot like a sharing circle with the addition of software. What is required?

Our Demonstration Project approach is suspended while we implement our current outreach/implementation effort.

Where does the concept of the commons and community property fit in?

There’s no community property in Copiosis as everything is privately owned. There are “commons” such as the air, the oceans and space, essentially anything that has not been claimed as owned by someone (for stewardship purposes).

A lot of this is talked about in the question above about Private Property. Please see that question.

What takes the place of a corporation?

“A corporation is in its most basic form a group of people who come together to achieve a common goal. The problem with current corporations is the lack of accountability for externalities and their profit profile (how the profit is distributed to the various members of the corporation). Why would anyone who owns or runs a current corporation buy into this plan?”

Nothing takes the place of a corporation. People working in a corporation still do so. The corporation’s customer-oriented mission remains.

There are differences however. Entity-wise, the corporate personhood concept no longer exists. All acts of those within the corporation are accountable to the people taking the action. No one can hide behind a corporate veil or corporate personhood as a shield against bad decisions.

As far as the wealth an organization generates, that wealth is far more equitably distributed. People in the corporation whose actions best benefit people and the planet are rewarded the most. Also, since there are no managers determining how much you can make or not make, everyone in the corporation enjoys equal wealth-generating opportunity.

People formerly known as “employees” are no longer that. They are individual contributors who get their “income” based on the net benefit algorithm, not their former manager, the Human Resources department or a corporate board.

Speaking of a boards of directors, such board members receive NBR just like everyone else in the system instead of a stipend or salary. So their decisions must result in benefits to people and the planet, just like everyone else. Same goes with the President/CEO and other C-suite officers, SVPs and VPs.

The reason people owning or running corporations would buy into this plan are the following:

  • It’s much easier to get things done. There are no laws or other regulatory constraints on the organizations operations.
  • Operational costs drop to zero. There are no costs at all incurred from running or owning a corporation no matter what it is the organization does.
  • Nothing constrains the owner/corporate officer’s wealth generating ability. Competitors, social expectations, market conditions, stock price, operational costs/constraints…none of these things effect how much NBR the owner of a corporation can make because NBR is unlimited. What’s more, the only thing keeping the owner from enjoying as much NBR as he wants is the ability to make decisions which create that result. That’s true for everyone in the organization.
  • Innovation across the board is available at no cost. It doesn’t cost anything to implement a idea that makes the corporation more net beneficial. Those with such ideas happily share them because doing so increases their NBR. They’ll also help install the equipment or train those working in the corporation…or whatever else is needed. In short, everything necessary to maximize the corporation’s operations is provided at no cost. What CEO would resist that?
  • As an owner, you can get off the short-term, quarter-by-quarter focus corporations must currently operate with. This short-term focus, with its companion focus on quarterly stock prices and earnings per share, makes it challenging to run companies with long term vision. Not so in Copiosis.

Of course there are drawbacks too.

  • It’s harder in Copiosis for a corporate owner to dictate the direction of the company. That’s because no one works for the owner anymore. They’re all independent contributors.
  • It will be harder for a corporate officer to lead in the old way. He or she will have to up their game as a leader to keep people following them.
  • The owner will have to change their focus from being product and service oriented or profit oriented to also focusing on creating the best workplaces possible. In other words, corporate leaders will have to mean it when they say their employees are their greatest asset. And such statements will have to be backed up by actual results (top-notch working conditions, lavish perks, etc) or they’ll risk losing their best and brightest.
  • It will be harder to keep the best and brightest. That’s because these people will be in high demand, they can’t get in debt, so they are never economically constrained, and they can move freely anytime because necessities are available at no cost. For sure, it’s likely a high value contributor would likely go out on his or her own offering her ideas to all takers. That way he or she maximizes her NBR.
  • They may get less compared to what they’re paid now. That’s because their contribution as an owner may be small compared to what people in the organization, below the level of manager, are doing. That said, their total NBR compensation may be higher. By creating and running a large, well-organized and efficient company, they offer opportunity to others. That is an important, net beneficial outcome.

But most of all, I think many corporate owners and operators see the writing on the wall as far as what we face as a species. They know, often better than the run of the mill employee, what’s coming in the future. So they may see Copiosis offers a way out of many social, economic, industrial and financial, and environmental problems looming on the horizon. Some may see what Copiosis promises for their children. These things may overwhelm their short-term ideas of keeping the status quo and the power and status that comes with that.

Some won’t care about the future. Some may resist Copiosis as the future. That’s ok. We don’t need everybody.

Got a question you can’t find here? Contact us. We’ll send you an answer and add your question to this page!