I’m putting together a series of posts, each serving as a component of a global-scale solution to the economic challenges already unfolding - a narrative outlined in books such as The End of the World Is Just the Beginning by Peter Zeihan. In his book, the author illustrates how the interconnected web of demographics, geography, and history, intertwined with the impending forces of climate change and deglobalization, will dramatically reshape the economic and political landscape, resulting in significant challenges for many countries across key sectors including agriculture, energy, finance, manufacturing, materials, and transport.

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2500/fc02418.htm

There’s a tale you may know, one of unsuspecting monkeys and a baited ladder. A group of primates find themselves the actors in an experiment of societal control. Above them dangles the promise of reward—a ripe banana—just out of reach atop a looming ladder. Yet the ladder is a trap. A brave monkey’s ascent is met not with sweet victory, but with a harsh, electrifying jolt. And the surprise isn’t theirs alone. This jolt reverberates through each monkey in the room, sparking a harsh response—they assail the ambitious climber until he descends.

It doesn’t take long for a grim lesson to take root. The banana, once a symbol of desire, becomes a haunting specter of collective pain. An unspoken rule is born: no one climbs, no matter the allure of the prize. New members replace the old, yet the rule is unchanging. Veterans enforce it with swift retribution, silencing any naive attempts to climb. When asked, their response is hauntingly simple: “That’s how we do things around here.”

If we look closely, isn’t this a stark reflection of our own economic and political landscapes? They exist in their current forms, but are they the best we can have? It becomes disconcertingly clear that these structures, much like our monkey experiment, have been cleverly engineered to cater to a privileged few perched atop everyone else. Whether it’s our economic roles in consumption and production, or our political roles within the governing structures, we dutifully conform to the established norms, just because “that’s how we do things around here.”

History provides us a panoramic view of countless governance systems, from feudalism to Roman imperialism, all of which were thought to be the zenith of human achievement in their respective eras. Today’s governments, much like those of the past, operate under the conviction that they represent the pinnacle of socio-political evolution.

But, imagine for a moment—a world where we dare to question, to challenge, to reshape. A world where the script isn’t prewritten, but one we write ourselves.

Decentralized Autonomous Communities (DACs).

As we proceed, we’ll unpack the core principles of DACs, illustrating how this novel perspective could question the existing world structure and prepare us for future challenges. Right now, it’s purely a theoretical exploration - a stimulating intellectual experiment. But remember, all ideas originate from such playful investigations. Are you ready to step off the beaten track and scrutinize these innovative concepts? Can you hear the overture?

Loser

So what is a DAC?

A Decentralized Autonomous Community is a novel paradigm of socio-economic organization that leverages blockchain technology, peer-to-peer networks, and consensus decision-making. In a DAC, each member, no matter their geographical location, contributes to and benefits from a shared, global economy. The transparency and security offered by blockchain technology ensure that every transaction and decision are traceable and tamper-proof.

Coupling this with the application of modern emerging technologies, such as AR, Metaverse, robotics, and AI, DACs foster an environment ripe for innovation and creative growth. These technologies not only revolutionize the way we work, but they also redefine how we interact, learn, and connect, enabling seamless collaboration and exchange of ideas across geographical boundaries.

In a DAC, wealth is redistributed in a way that prioritizes access to fundamental needs. It propounds a Universal Basic Income model, effectively assuring that everyone’s basic needs—housing, education, healthcare—are met, thereby eliminating poverty. Moreover, the DAC environment naturally attracts intellectual prowess and forward-thinking individuals, creating a global braintrust that powers the community and drives unprecedented levels of innovation and growth.

By transcending traditional borders and fostering a sense of global citizenship, DACs encourage unity and shared prosperity. In essence, the DAC model is not a mere theoretical concept; it is a pragmatic blueprint for a future where technology is harnessed not as an instrument of control, but as a tool for enhancing human dignity, fostering collective prosperity, and assuring a dignified life for all.

What exactly is a DAC composed of?

Open-Source Knowledge Ecosystem

In DACs, knowledge, creativity, and innovation are communal properties. Whether it’s a new AI algorithm, a more efficient building design, or a breakthrough software update, all are shared freely among the network of DACs. This community-wide open-source approach fuels rapid progress and the spread of beneficial developments.

Anything contributed that proves beneficial for one is immediately available for all. Hardware designs, digital artworks, software enhancements, AI models, architectural blueprints, community improvements - they are all documented and shared openly. This rich exchange empowers every DAC, promoting collective learning, adaptation, and advancement. By cultivating a culture of sharing and cooperation, DACs ensure that each new discovery or creation benefits the whole, fostering an ever-evolving ecosystem of knowledge and innovation.

Global Workforce in the Metaverse

Through the Metaverse, anyone in the world could virtually “go” to work, collaborating with colleagues, and serving clients from different towns, countries, or even continents. This allows for a truly global workforce that isn’t restricted by geography. For instance, a specialist surgeon could perform complex surgeries through a robotic interface controlled via the Metaverse, allowing them to treat patients worldwide from their home town.

Remote Work Centers

To facilitate these new ways of working, each town could have a shared office or co-working space equipped with the necessary technological infrastructure, such as high-speed internet and AR/VR equipment. This could serve as a hub for remote workers, providing a space for collaboration and community, even when the work itself is being done for distant organizations or clients.

Augmented Reality Training

Augmented Reality (AR) can be used to provide practical training for various skills. For example, a carpenter in one town could use AR to teach carpentry skills to people in other towns, who could then practice these skills in their local context. This would allow for the transfer and sharing of specialized knowledge and skills across the network of towns.

AI and Robotics

Robots, guided by artificial intelligence, have the potential to handle ever increasing amounts the manual labor in each town, from farming to manufacturing, leaving humans free to engage in more creative, strategic, or interpersonal tasks. AI could also handle much of the administration and organization in each town, from scheduling appointments to managing public services. This also offers an interface for

Community Contributions

The community contribution model could be expanded to include digital contributions. For instance, a software engineer could contribute to the community by developing open-source software, or a digital artist could create virtual artworks for public spaces in the Metaverse.

The vision

As we traverse the path of an increasingly centralized world, fraught with inequality, we’re driven to challenge the status quo, summoning a socioeconomic paradigm shift. Herein lies the battle cry for DACs - Decentralized Autonomous Communities - a revolutionary force in a world where collective power dethrones the autocratic rule of the few.

This growing network of communities, each one governing itself through a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), is like a well-devised battle plan, poised to disrupt the stronghold of traditional economic structures. By amplifying the essence of the peer-to-peer economy, it ensures each interaction isn’t confined within the walls of a single community but ripples out across the globe. Smart contracts, much like the unwavering rules of engagement in a battlefield, ensure transparency and fairness, fostering seamless trade and exchange across these communities.

The strategic vision of DACs breaches the confines of mere economic reform. It echoes across continents, offering the tangible reality of Universal Basic Income (UBI), safeguarding fundamental human rights, and crafting a housing model that serves the people. In each of these autonomous communities, housing ascends from being a status symbol to becoming a basic right - a fortress for every individual. These aren’t monotonous concrete towers or sprawling estates; they are thoughtfully designed residences, an ode to individual needs and community spirit. Housing in DACs isn’t about ostentatious display of wealth but about creating a sanctuary for the inhabitants, truly a home. Thus, DACs symbolize a fortress where life’s basic needs, from food to fair housing, aren’t a war waged daily but a victory secured.

At the core of DACs, there exists a perfect symbiosis of pioneering technology and steadfast ethics, the result of which is an economic landscape where human welfare takes precedence. This paradigm shift challenges the long-standing socioeconomic constructs with pragmatic and sound tactics. Blockchain technology and smart contracts, the foundations of each community’s economy, assure transparency and fairness in every interaction. Further, the advent of Artificial Intelligence and robotics has redefined labor, absorbing repetitive tasks and administrative duties and enabling humans to engage in roles that require creativity, strategy, and the human touch.

Each community, under the banner of its decentralized autonomous organization, crafts collective decisions by consensus, fostering a sense of shared ownership and destiny. DACs’ introduction of a basic income is an innovative move that converts economic participation from a survival necessity into an empowered choice, allowing individuals the freedom to pursue fulfilling lives.

The design of these forward-thinking towns prioritizes sustainability. They harness renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, embodying a smart approach to energy use. Waste is managed in a circular system, reducing the towns’ carbon footprint significantly. The infrastructure of these communities mirrors an ethos of respect for nature and embraces technological progress.

The housing model in DACs resolves the traditional conflict between extravagance and scarcity. In these communities, housing is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and every home is designed thoughtfully to prioritize flexibility, adaptability, and comfort. DACs, therefore, are not utopian fantasies but feasible blueprints for a world where technology amplifies human dignity and fosters collective prosperity, a beacon for a world that is compassionate, equitable, and harmoniously technologically advanced.

In the grand scheme, DACs are not mere constructs of wishful thinking. Rather, they stand as logical, viable drafts of a new world order where technology shifts from being a mechanism of control to an instrument uplifting human dignity and encouraging shared prosperity. It’s not just a proposition—it’s a heartfelt invitation to partake in a journey towards a more empathetic, just, and technologically harmonized world.

Counter arguments

Before moving on to the details of each component, let us start be exploring various counterpoints to what we’ve currently discussed and then address them one by one.

  • Economic Viability: Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a significant economic undertaking. Funding UBI sustainably might require substantial revenue sources that could prove challenging for a newly formed community. While tax revenues, profits from community-owned businesses, and potentially, value generated from the community’s digital presence could help, the financial feasibility of UBI in this context is not guaranteed.

A critique of economic viability underscores a fundamentally limited understanding of the DACs model and the transformative economic potential of UBI. An evaluation that views UBI as a mere burden, instead of an investment, fails to grasp the inherent dynamics of this economic innovation.

To deem DACs as financially challenging presupposes the maintenance of existing economic structures within which UBI might indeed seem untenable. However, the creation of DACs signifies a fundamental paradigm shift, a restructuring of the very mechanisms of wealth creation and distribution.

Consider the community-owned businesses, the profits of which are integral to the funding of UBI. These enterprises, free from the pressures of external shareholders, are enabled to prioritize long-term sustainability and community wellbeing over short-term profits. The increased financial security afforded by UBI encourages consumer spending, stimulating economic activity, and in turn, generating more revenue for these businesses and the community.

Moreover, the value generated by the community’s digital presence, dismissed as a mere potentiality, should not be understated. As we progressively delve into the digital age, the economic value of digital assets and virtual labor is set to rise exponentially, suggesting a vast untapped reservoir of wealth that DACs are primed to exploit.

The uncertainty surrounding the financial feasibility of UBI within DACs is merely a reflection of the uncertainty inherent in any venture that dares to venture beyond the familiar. It is not a definitive judgment of the model’s validity, but a challenge to be met with ingenuity and perseverance. DACs, in their audacity to envision a different world, accept this challenge.

  • Technology Dependence: DACs rely heavily on advanced technologies like blockchain, AI, and robotics. These technologies, while promising, are not infallible. They require rigorous testing, maintenance, and updates, and their malfunction could disrupt community operations. Furthermore, they are susceptible to cyber threats that could lead to significant losses or damages.

To point out the dependence on technology as a critique of DACs betrays a selective view of our modern reality. Is there a realm of human endeavor today that does not lean heavily on technology, an institution, industry, or infrastructure that operates independently of it? By this metric, every facet of contemporary existence would crumble under critique.

Yes, DACs embrace the usage of cutting-edge technologies such as blockchain, AI, and robotics. However, these technologies, while subject to testing, maintenance, and updates, also possess inherent attributes that serve to mitigate the risks involved. Blockchain technology, by its very design, offers a decentralized and distributed system that is resistant to single points of failure or control. In other words, the system is resilient, reducing the potential impact of malfunctioning components.

Regarding cyber threats, the technology adopted in DACs does not make them more vulnerable than any other modern institution. On the contrary, blockchain technology is inherently secure by design. Each transaction is encrypted and linked to the previous one, making unauthorized alterations practically impossible. Further, emerging advancements in cybersecurity, such as quantum cryptography, offer even more robust protections.

DACs don’t shy away from the challenge of technological dependency; they confront it head-on. These communities represent a purposeful intertwining of human society and technology, a vision where technology serves the people rather than the other way around. The critique of technological dependence, rather than a condemnation of DACs, offers a reminder of the importance of robust technological frameworks and cybersecurity measures - considerations that are at the core of DACs’ design.

  • Legal Challenges: The legal framework for decentralized autonomous organizations is not fully developed in most jurisdictions. Without legal recognition, DACs might face hurdles in interfacing with existing legal and economic systems, potentially affecting their global ambitions.

While it’s accurate that the legal frameworks for DACs are not yet fully developed across all jurisdictions, this observation fails to acknowledge that legality is not a static concept, but an evolving one. History is replete with instances where legal norms have been modified to accommodate technological and societal changes, from the recognition of digital signatures to the regulation of the Internet itself.

Undoubtedly, the path to legal recognition for DACs might be steeped in complexities, involving legislative debates, policy revisions, and regulatory adjustments. However, these legal challenges are not insurmountable barriers but milestones in the process of innovation and societal evolution. They do not discredit the potential and ambition of DACs, but instead underline the necessity for comprehensive, future-oriented legal frameworks that keep pace with the rapid advancements in technology.

Furthermore, the lack of legal recognition does not render DACs inert. There are numerous examples of digital and decentralized entities operating in the current legal landscape, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. These digital entities interface with existing legal and economic systems, regardless of the lack of a fully-fledged regulatory framework.

Instead of stifling their global ambitions, the legal uncertainties provide opportunities for DACs to demonstrate their inherent resilience, adaptability, and the robustness of decentralized, peer-to-peer governance models. They serve to emphasize that DACs are not merely about creating novel economic models, but about catalyzing systemic change in how we perceive community, governance, and legal frameworks in the face of technological innovation.

  • Inequality: Despite UBI and progressive housing initiatives, inequality could still arise in other forms - for example, digital divide, skills gap, or differential access to opportunities within the DACs. A complete solution to inequality is complex and would require addressing these and more nuanced issues.

The assertion that inequality could still thrive despite the UBI and innovative housing initiatives fails to grasp the holistic vision of the DACs. It is not a panacea for all forms of inequality, but it is a foundational step in addressing systemic inequity.

Indeed, new disparities, such as a digital divide or skills gap, could arise. However, these are not insurmountable obstacles, but areas for continuous improvement and growth within the DAC system. The model is designed to be responsive and adaptable to evolving challenges.

With regards to the digital divide, the foundational infrastructure of DACs relies on providing all members access to the necessary technology. Therefore, addressing the digital divide is not an afterthought but an inherent aspect of the system. By ensuring technological access, DACs do not merely offer a solution to the digital divide but prevent its manifestation.

The potential skills gap is a valid concern in any economic structure. However, by providing a Universal Basic Income, DACs afford their members the freedom to pursue education, training, and skills development without the overhanging worry of immediate survival. The focus shifts from merely surviving to thriving, from immediate gain to long-term development.

It’s important to understand that DACs are not about creating a utopian society devoid of challenges, but about building resilient and adaptive communities equipped to address these issues proactively. The challenge of inequality is not unique to DACs. Instead, it is a problem faced by every economic system in history. What sets DACs apart is their commitment to transparency, adaptability, and continuous evolution in response to these challenges.

  • Human Nature and Conflict: The idea of a decentralized autonomous organization hinges on the assumption of rational, altruistic behavior from all participants, which might not always hold true. Conflicts and disagreements are inevitable, and their resolution in a DAO setting might prove challenging.

The critique of human nature and the potential for conflict within the DACs seems to rely on a somewhat pessimistic view of humanity. While it is true that no human society can be entirely free of discord, DACs offer a novel approach to managing such issues.

Rather than presupposing the inherent altruism of all participants, DACs take into account the complex spectrum of human behaviour. The system isn’t naively banking on everyone’s unwavering rationality and goodwill. Instead, it provides a transparent framework and clear incentives that encourage cooperation and fairness.

The concern about resolving disagreements within a DAO setting is indeed valid. However, it is worth considering that our traditional methods of conflict resolution, often bogged down by bureaucratic processes, are not without flaws. Blockchain technology offers an opportunity to innovate in this field by providing transparent, tamper-proof records and programmable smart contracts that can execute agreed-upon terms without bias.

DACs also encourage participatory governance, where everyone has a voice and a stake in the community. This fosters an environment that naturally discourages conflict, as it is in everyone’s best interest to maintain harmony within the community. When disagreements arise, they can be addressed in a transparent and democratic manner, with the community deciding on the resolution.

So, while conflicts are inevitable in any social structure, DACs propose a different and potentially more efficient and fair approach to handling them, leveraging technology and decentralization. Instead of viewing human nature and conflict as an insurmountable problem, DACs use it as an opportunity for innovation.

  • Economic Interdependence: The global economy is interconnected, and any significant disruption could have ripple effects. If DACs were to become a major economic force, their failure could lead to a global economic downturn.

The worry of economic interdependence and the potential ripple effects of a major disruption in the DAC system on the global economy, while theoretically plausible, fails to fully grasp the inherent resilience and versatility of the DAC model.

Economic interdependence is not an exclusive concern to DACs; it’s a characteristic of all modern economies. It’s true that any significant entity, if failed, could ripple into a global economic downturn. Yet, this risk is considerably mitigated in the DAC model due to its decentralized nature.

In traditional economies, a central point of failure - like a major financial institution or a government - can indeed lead to widespread disaster, as seen in numerous crises throughout history. In contrast, the decentralized structure of DACs means that each community operates autonomously. While they are interconnected and can trade and interact with one another, they are not so dependent that the failure of one would inevitably bring down the others.

If a single DAC were to fail, the damage would primarily be localized, and the robust network of other DACs would continue to function. Therefore, the risk of a global economic downturn triggered by the failure of one or even several DACs is considerably lower compared to centralized systems.

Moreover, the flexibility and adaptability of DACs mean they can learn from any failure and quickly implement changes to prevent similar future scenarios. In a sense, the DACs, much like a natural ecosystem, would continuously evolve and adapt, enhancing their survival in various economic climates.

This is not a dismissal of the possible risks but rather an affirmation that the decentralized, adaptable, and resilient nature of the DACs is a credible response to them.

  • Environment Impact: Even with a commitment to sustainable practices, the environmental impact of building new towns and infrastructure could be significant. Moreover, the energy consumption of blockchain technologies is notoriously high, which could counteract the communities’ sustainability efforts.

To address the concern of environmental impact and the energy consumption of blockchain technologies, we must dissect these aspects carefully.

First, it is pertinent to note that any form of human settlement, whether a sprawling metropolis or a small town, has an environmental impact. However, with thoughtful planning, use of eco-friendly materials, and commitment to sustainable practices, this impact can be considerably reduced. DACs are not simply reproducing the resource-intensive model of existing towns and cities. Instead, they are reimagining the blueprint for human habitats, designed to work in harmony with nature rather than against it.

DACs aim to harness renewable energy sources and employ circular economy principles, which further mitigate environmental impact. The closed-loop waste management system reduces the towns’ carbon footprint. While there will be an initial environmental cost to build these towns, the long-term sustainability gains are expected to outweigh this.

As for the energy consumption of blockchain technologies, it is indeed a well-voiced concern, mostly stemming from the proof-of-work consensus mechanism used in Bitcoin’s blockchain. But, not all blockchain technologies are energy-intensive. Many new blockchain technologies, such as those using proof-of-stake, delegated proof-of-stake, or other consensus mechanisms, are far less energy-consuming.

The DAC model would favor such energy-efficient blockchain technologies. Furthermore, the energy used by the blockchain could come from renewable sources, aligning with the overall sustainability ethos of the DACs.

Thus, while environmental concerns are valid, they are not insurmountable. DACs represent a radical rethinking of how we organize our societies, with a commitment to preserving our natural environment at its heart.

  • Experts’ Views: Prominent economists could argue that the assumption of a universally scalable DAO model ignores the nuances and complexity of real-world economics. Lawmakers might caution that a global network of DACs could create a parallel system, posing challenges to national sovereignty and international law. Sociologists might question whether a fundamentally digital and transactional model of community could foster genuine human relationships and a sense of belonging.

Lastly, let us turn our gaze towards the apprehensions of experts in economics, law, and sociology. The skepticism surrounding the scalability of a DAO model, its implications on national sovereignty, and the fostering of genuine human relationships in such a community, are valid points of discussion.

Economists who argue against the universally scalable DAO model should bear in mind that DACs are not advocating for the abandonment of traditional economies but rather propose an alternative, complementary system. The world of economics is not monolithic but is a complex web of diverse systems coexisting and influencing one another. New economic models such as the DAO do not simplify the real-world economics, but rather enrich it, adding a new layer of complexity and potential for innovation.

As for the challenges posed to national sovereignty and international law, it is crucial to note that DACs do not operate in a legal vacuum. They are subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they are located. The existence of a global network of DACs does not undermine national sovereignty but rather highlights the need for clear, robust international regulations for decentralized autonomous organizations. DACs might even prompt a much-needed evolution in our understanding of sovereignty in an increasingly interconnected world.

Finally, the concern raised by sociologists regarding the fostering of genuine human relationships in a fundamentally digital and transactional community is noteworthy. However, DACs are not proposing a solely digital existence. They advocate for a harmonious blend of digital and physical realities. Technology is not the end but a means to enhance human dignity and collective prosperity. The use of DAO and blockchain technology doesn’t preclude the formation of genuine human relationships; instead, it provides a framework that facilitates fair interactions and collaborations.

  • Resource Scarcity: Certainly, the construction of entirely new towns raises valid concerns about resource scarcity. The argument here is straightforward: as our world grapples with the impacts of overconsumption, do we have the means, both in terms of raw materials and energy, to build these DACs without exacerbating environmental degradation?

The apprehension is understandable, but consider this: DACs can serve as an opportunity to reframe our approach to resource usage, incorporating the principles of circular economy and sustainability from the outset. Instead of viewing construction as an extraction-based, one-time process, we can design our DACs to continuously reuse and recycle materials.

What’s more, embracing innovations in construction technologies like 3D printing and modular buildings can significantly reduce resource needs. These methods not only limit material waste but also lessen the overall environmental impact through increased energy efficiency and reduced construction times.

As for energy resources, the DACs’ commitment to renewable energy sources and energy-efficient technologies can create towns that generate more energy than they consume, thereby contributing to rather than draining our energy resources.

So yes, while resource scarcity is a challenge, it also presents an opportunity - an opportunity to revolutionize our resource consumption and management, to make the construction of new towns a showcase for a sustainable, circular economy.

The DAC model does not promise a utopia without challenges. Rather, it proposes a system that can learn, adapt, and evolve in response to these challenges, driven by the collective intelligence of its members and the transformative power of technology.

Similar work is already underway, for example CityDAO.