(Refered mainly to the dialogue in Homo sapiens in the 21^st century ver.2 and also to S. Toda's Dobutsu kodo ni manabu ningengaku [Learning About Humans from Animal Behavior] (Nihon Jitsugyo Shuppansha, Tokyo); K. Karatani's Sekaishi no Kozo [Structure of the World History] (Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo); S. Gesell's Jiyu-chi to Jiyu-kahei ni yoru Shizen-teki Keizaichitsujo [Establishing a Natural Economic Order Through Free-Land and Free-Money] (Paru Shuppan, Tokyo); and K. Mizuno's Shihon shugi no shuen to rekishi no kiki [The End of Capitalism and the Crisis of History] (Shueisha Shinsho, Tokyo).)

1. What is Currency?

   Special materials like silver were used around 400 BC in ancient Greece as the first form of currency. Previously, people had bartered, but currency was useful because it does not decay (depreciate), unlike other items typically used in bartering exchanges of the time.(For example, bowls of wheat may have been used as a natural extension of bartering; generally, they must have depreciated in value due to decay, rust, or rot.)
   　　Therefore, compared to other products, currency such as silver does not especially decay or depreciate in value, and thus acquired a special status because of its exchange value.

2. The Self-Replicating (or Self-Proliferating) Nature of Currency and the Origins of Capitalism

   Currency had advantages over other goods because of its special status: Other goods depreciate, but currency always has the same value, and people were therefore able to buy the same things with the same amount of currency at any time. Thus, people began to seek currency and desire money. The idea to take advantage of currency’s special status via interest or the desire then emerged. Currency thereby was able to self-replicate. In other words, just like the nucleic acids (genes) of organisms, money was able to freely increase itself. If its nature were to eliminate itself, money would have become obsolete by now. Just like nucleic acids make living things (i.e., its vehicles) to help self-replicate, money makes its holder do the same.

   Capitalism takes advantage of this self-replicating function most efficiently.
   　　Marx speaks of "G-W-G'" in Capital (1867), translated as "capital-goods-capital'." This refers to the surplus profit-producing cycle by which raw materials and labor are purchased with capital, goods are produced, and capital is retrieved by selling these goods. In capitalism, money self-replicates through this G-W-G' cycle. Capitalists were able to acquire a monopoly on surplus profit by taking on the risk of production or sales losses, rather than by exploiting workers, as Marxists often say. Marxists would also say, that perhaps this profit should be returned to the workers; however, particularly recently, nearly anyone, even a worker, can become a stock-holding capitalist by purchasing stock in a corporation. I therefore think that it is inaccurate to view workers as being exploited.
   　　(If you take the view, however, that workers are "goods," then they are being ruled over by capitalists; in other words, they are in a weak position. I think that while this might be better than slavery, serfdom, colonization, and so on, in a capitalist system, people are still not fully liberated as humans. If Marx is saying that workers "selling" part of themselves (their time) to capitalists is exploitation, then I agree with him. It must be said that Marx had a pretty great mind, engaging in profound analysis in the context of capitalism during his time.)
   　　Money (capital) is pressured to self-replicate; thus, capital seeks beneficial interest, hunting for that which can serve as the basis for economic growth. It is the same principle by which nucleic acids follow the pressure to self-replicate and reproduce selfishly. This is why capital follows the prisoner's dilemma game theory (refer to Fig. 2): Surplus profit arises because it follows money's pressure to self-replicate. (Of course, we humans created this capitalist system of self-replicating money.)

3. In a capitalist system, what is the basic principle of the behavior of people, who are manipulated by not only their selfish genes but also self-replicating currency?
   1. The Birth of Capitalism

      In medieval European feudalism, a restricted environment reached an impasse when population, land, and productivity peaked. Feudal lords were no longer able to satisfy serfs and the rest of the masses just by ruling-protecting governing system.
      　　Often, when a deadlocked situation emerges, wars are started in order to satisfy people's desire for cooperation against a common enemy, capitalizing on people's feeling of loyalty toward the group to which they belong, making their enemies clear. When this happens, wars typically destroy the existing system, and provide a new environment that is almost unrestricted. This also occurs when companies go bankrupt due to economic failures (such as during the Great Depression). Like the evolution of living things, a diverse set of new business activities formerly suppressed by a restricted environment are liberated to freely follow the good-natured strategies of the masses (as if forming a new species), thereby satisfying people's desire for cooperation.
      　　However, in any case, at the European feudal age, the lords were supposed to be unable to organize wars to involve their people in.

      Medieval Europe may be a special case, as only one kind of religion, Christianity, dominated Europe at the time (the 12^th century), and kings were unable to go against the Pope. In Italy, there was not a single unified state but rather multiple flourishing city-states. Merchants and others in Venice, as well as people from other regions, who were able to acquire Constantinople enjoyed massive profits by dealing in spices and perfumes obtained from eastern countries, which were valued highly in Europe. (Also, around this time, an interest system already existed. In other words, this could probably be seen as the beginning of commercial capitalism.)
      　　Since normal citizens were able to accumulate and control wealth, they could liberate and satisfy their desires. In order to establish their supremacy, they invested their money into the arts and sciences, and a movement to return to humanism (i.e., that which makes the human race unique) began and has been termed the Renaissance. However, when the Ottoman Empire emerged in the 15^th century, distribution routes were obstructed and it became difficult to acquire spices, perfumes, and other highly tradable goods. This probably made people feel isolated at the Western European edge of the Eurasian continent. In other words, it was a restricted environment. Since they were shut off from the East, they sought liberation in the West. Based on the idea that the Earth was round, the Age of Discovery via Columbus and Vasco da Gama began.

   2. Why Was Capitalism Valued, and Why Did it Spread?

      The Age of Discovery is a typical example of free competition-based capitalism bringing about happiness.

      It appears that since people thought they were in an unrestricted environment, they followed the nature of freedom inherent to organisms and humans, which is living a life based on the good-natured strategy of not interfering with one another. The French Revolution's idea of freedom, equality, and fraternity was the spirit and philosophy of this age. It liberated people's hearts and minds; furthermore, since economic activities, which were carried out in a way that followed the self-replicating pressure of money (capital and currency), did not contradict humans' inherent desire to cooperate, free competition-based capitalism was valued.
      　　(In other words, the logic of humans' selfish genes, their inherent nature (including the desire for cooperation), and the logic of money (capital) in economic activities all aligned. In capitalism, insofar as there is an unrestricted environment, people freely compete with each other and can accumulate wealth (or exchange value). People did so in accordance with their selfish-genes' good-natured strategy without going against their cooperative nature as humans. This is why free competition-based capitalism spread.)
      　　However, it is clear that this is limited in the sense that the main condition for its existence is the presence of an unrestricted environment.

      (Repeating the above)
      This was an era in which people thought that even if they failed in the Old World, things would work out in the New World; therefore, there was no need for people to betray each other, and everyone felt that they could benefit by being cooperative. This then led to Adam Smith's idea of the "invisible hand" (1776), the 1789 French Revolution's idea of freedom, equality, and fraternity, and other similar philosophies.
      　　(Of course, the native inhabitants of the New World met a tragic fate, as the people of the Old World appear to have not seen these people as brethren, or part of the group to which they belonged, and they eliminated them as an enemy group. However, today, with the spread of education, all people are on Earth are considered companions; therefore, they know that people in other countries are companions and not to be, for example, killed based only on their foreign status.)
      　　It can be imagined that around this time, humans, being manipulated by inherently selfish genes, straightforwardly followed organisms' general strategy for survival (i.e., fulfilling their four primary desires: food, danger avoidance, sex, and cooperation), and adopt a good-natured strategy. Humans of this time believed in each other, everyone fulfilled their four basic desires, and lived in harmony. This is probably the reason why this free competition-based capitalist system existed for a long time and was supported by people from many walks of life. However, in a restricted environment, the number of cases increases in which living things (selfish genes) and money (capital) have to and as the result the humans as being manipulated by such selfish genes and selfish money have to adopt a selfish strategy. This is because if one does not snatch up something first, one will most likely be left in the cold.

   3. General Principles

      Money's principle of behavior for survival is the same as that of living things.

      Ultimately, in an unrestricted environment, money (capital) is viewed as taking a good-natured strategy. On the other hand, in a restricted environment, money also tends to be seen as part of a selfish strategy. This is because if one does not take one's lot first, one may not be able to survive (finally this gives rise to economic panic and the like). This behavior, however, goes against people's desire to cooperate, and they feel unhappy. It is clear that such a capitalist system in the context of a restricted environment does not align with the logic of organisms, particularly humans. Surely this system will sooner or later reach a deadlock, and the time for a revolution will approach.

      Evolution in business occurs in the same way as it does in the case of living things.

      In a restricted environment, industry seeks new profits and engages in many undertakings. (Consider, for example, the Toyota Corolla as described by S. Toda in his book Dobutsu-kodo ni manabu ningengaku. When a car-based society first emerged, the only car on the market was one model made by Ford. However, once the car-based society matured, and it became difficult to acquire large profits, Toyota adopted an approach of changing car types (i.e., introducing variation), and made a completely novel car that would appeal to the masses.) This kind of small effort (variation) can become wholly assumed by large companies, and cannot grow larger in a matured society. However, when a restricted environment appears, governments of various nations are likely to seek war, and economies experience periods of economic depression, during which the business world is hit heavily and dies out.
      　　When this happens, a considerable number of new industries, companies, corporations, and so on (including those that had begun to sprout in the previous era) appear, and start growing freely and equally in a new unrestricted environment. This is free competition based on a good-natured strategy, which also follows the logic of living things, and everyone feels happy. Amidst all of this, businesses, corporations, and so on that are suited for the environment end up surviving; however, due to increased competition, a restricted environment subsequently emerges. When this happens, large and mature companies go extinct as a result of the slightest environmental changes, just like dinosaurs went extinct at the time of an asteroid impact. However, the new companies and types of jobs (e.g., variation) that arose in the process and managed to survive can find paths to begin their growth. This repeatedly happens.

      Do credit and currency evolve? (This might just be my imagination, as I could have mistaken from the poor perspective of economics. I welcome opinions from specialists on the matter.)

      While I am not an economic specialist, I just can imagine that what I said about money can, in general, be applied to stocks, bonds, and so on, because by exchanging them, one can acquire more substantial assets such as money and goods. If this is the case, considering their similarity to living things, can they not be seen as being the same as things like plants or even herbivores that can adopt a good-natured strategy? However, of course, these forms of credit can be increased to any extent, and (as expressed as my concern in the last paragraph), hyper-hyper-inflation might arise when they continue to exist without the existence of any actual goods. A nation itself is the collateral for government bonds; they are a nation’s assets. The path is wide open for people to turn these assets into simply scraps of paper.
      　　The derivatives, securitization of loans, and so on (part of the recent financial revolution) is a method by which credit is made into collateral again. By nature, credit has no substance; making credit collateral and thereby producing more credit is like a carnivore that eats money. Just like such carnivores, credit can be called a selfish strategist. Until now, capital (money) has freely engaged in replicating activities under a good-natured strategy that does not conflict with people's desire for cooperation. With the appearance of selfish strategies like derivatives, however, the economic activities carried out by people have come to contradict their inherently cooperative nature. Moreover, if there are more carnivores than the herbivores that carnivores eat, it seems that the only thing that could happen is a cannibalistic extinction. The financial products sweeping the world bring to mind this kind of situation.
      　　(In fact, even when the environment is not restricted, if this new type of pseudo-money (credit) runs rampant, people can no longer behave based on a simple good-natured strategy regarding money. It is my hope that economists can analyze these issues and suggest solutions. To me, such derivatives or carnivores appear to be the same as fraud or as crime. "Money" is or at least such "derivatives" seem as if it is "The Emperor's New Clothes" itself in the fairy tale by Andersen. Because since money cannot be exchanged with gold any more, such money and the above derivatives/securitization loans (credits) created just on other credits without any substantial products or goods are only substantiated by the people's belief that everyone believes there is, but eventually without anything.)

   4. When Societies Are Created: Apart from Capitalism and See an Example of Ancient Rome; also refer to Human Evolution

      When a society was created, a division of labor was necessary in which leaders were generated. This is because members of groups of more than 200 people cannot be aware of everyone else in the group; they suffer from a lack of information. When this happens, different measures were used to judge whether or not someone is good-natured and cooperative. Historically, these metrics have evolved as money, fame, and power. I included some examples in Homo sapiens in the 21^st Century. When there were enemies, little food, and low productivity, in order to survive the group to which one belongs had to be clear. Think about, for example, Ancient Rome (refer to Fig. 4). There were probably no issue surrounding people's desire to be cooperative. Insofar as one's group was clear, one was happy, and those who led and contributed to society were recognized and rewarded with money, fame, and power.

   5. When Societies Are Created: Contemporary Capitalist Society

      The Micro (Individual) Level (refer also to Human Evolution)

      Today, with increased overall productivity, one person alone can survive with just a "convenience" store. There really is no need for family, in the historical/survival sense. Because people can live without a clearly defined "member group," there are few opportunities to fulfill their desire for cooperation. Of course, if there is an unrestricted environment, everyone adopts a good-natured strategy and is cooperative, so they are happy; however, in a restricted environment (contemporary times), people adopt a selfish strategy. It is almost like everyone is an enemy, because the groups to which people belong are vague owing to today's high productivity. Insofar as people see every nation and everyone on the planet as part of the same human race, they believe they should not kill each other. Since one cannot fulfill one's desire for cooperation and everyone should be considered an enemy who might betray you, one raises the walls around his heart, feels isolated and lonely, and continues to feel dissatisfied and uneasy. This is unhappiness itself. While it is natural to be unhappy if one loses a war or a competition (or, in the past, was a slave, serf, or colonized subject), even victors will have difficulty finding meaning in living if they have a pronounced awareness that their activities have made people suffer. Of course, in society, money, fame, and power are seen as indicators of cooperativeness, so people compete primarily to acquire them; however, since they must try to obtain this recognition using selfish means, those around them begin to feel envy. This is how everyone becomes unhappy.

      The Macro (World Economy) Level

      Even though money (capital) has an inherent pressure to self-replicate, resources run out. When this happens, new resources and material, or, in economic terms, "peripheral" spheres (places, people, situations, and so on) are likely to be sought or created; however, with globalization progressing, such new areas are disappearing. Of course, various endeavors based on technological development (new technologies, the energy revolution, the information revolution, the finance revolution, etc.) have been created in search of various "peripheries," in other words, places where money can be made (where surplus profit can be obtained by G-W(W')-G') and mechanisms that make money. Each time this happens, perhaps a prosperous and somewhat unrestricted environment is created, and liberty, equality, and fraternity-based good-natured strategies become possible; however, due to competition-based efficient and optimizing behaviors, a restricted environment inevitably arises. When this happens, people started to feel uneasy regarding W(W')-G'-based collection of credit, and selfish money (capital)-based strategies in which people try to rapidly obtain their lot first (runs on banks, etc.) become predominant, leading economies to crash.

   6. The Trickle-Down Lie: In a Restricted Environment, the Wealth Gap Expands
      (The "Trickle Down" Economic Theory: If the Wealthy Increase their Wealth, it Will Naturally Trickle Down to the Poor)
      

      Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013) engages in a statistical analysis of the expanding wealth gap. Above, I proposed that the principle/behavior of capital (money) in the economy and that of organisms' selfish genes are similar. Based on this hypothesis, I would like to examine the veracity of the trickle-down theory, following Shuichi Toda.

      Elephants and giraffes eat different foods: the former, low-lying grasses, and the latter, leaves of tall trees. In comparison, lions are carnivorous, selfish strategists. In an unrestricted environment, there is plenty of food, where all animals can increase their numbers, and there is no need for them to betray one another. Selfish strategies, then, leech off of this situation. What happens in a restricted environment?
      　　On television the other day it was reported that acacias on the savannah are growing old and falling over. Giraffes wrap their tongues around even thorny leaves of young trees and can eat them. But since grass has also run out, elephants, which prefer soft old tree leaves, push them over to eat their leaves. Thus begins a scramble for food. On the other hand, lions survive by easily capturing and eating weakened giraffes and elephants. The weak will decline first, even though in the end, all of these species will dwindle in numbers.
      　　In the same way, most humans are exposed to a harsh battle for survival, where the rich survive by manipulating self-replicating capital amidst competition in a restricted environment. Conversely, the masses incur the greatest losses. While possible in an unrestricted environment, normally, wealth does not trickle down; rather, the wealth gap increases.

      (Another aspect of similarity between selfish genes and money: Normally, nucleic acids use the bodies of organisms as their hosts, or disposable vehicles, one after another in order to multiply. We could perhaps say that nucleic acids try to flourish by using temporal differences. With regard to spatial differences, animals move around and increase their numbers in good environments, that is, environments with lots of food. In this way, nucleic acids reproduce while using spatial and temporal differences. This is the same as the self-replicating logic of capital.)

   7. Economic Growth to the Present

      Ever since the Age of Discovery in the 16^th century, despite the existence of a restricted environment, several times of nearly unrestricted environments have emerged in some places and economies have developed efficiently. This is due to the Industrial Revolution, oil (the energy revolution), and technological innovation like the information revolution (IT). However, perhaps this development has been too efficient, leading to the immediate emergence of restricted environments, and periods of panic in which economic bubbles burst. This has been experienced multiple times. Today, with global warming and the like, a crisis-level drying up of resources draws near. In such a situation, will the characteristics of money be maintained under free competition-based capitalism?
      　　As various writers have shown, this is no longer possible. Kazuo Mizuno (2014) argues in his Shihon shugi no shuen to rekishi no kiki [The End of Capitalism and the Crisis of History] that, due to the interest revolution, no longer can the ingredients (material and goods) for capital's (money's) self-replication be found everywhere on the globe. For example, only 15% of the global population today is said to be part of the rich class. Countries like China and India are developing and more of their citizens are joining the ranks of this group. While in the past there was a situation in which there were so-called "peripheral" areas and people (e.g., developing countries) that were "outside" the wealth-accumulating, developed countries; however, due to globalization there are no longer peripheral areas. Mizuno argues that now the worldwide general public is becoming part of the "periphery," but that this is necessary due to capitalism's pressure to self-replicate and accumulate. This kind of wealth gap is discussed frequently. With things as they are, a world has emerged in which both the poor and the rich feel unhappy because they have no choice but to engage in selfish behaviors that go completely against humans' desire to cooperate. Humans, as evolved organisms, did not appear to create a world like this.

What should be done? First, if the number of people in a group are limited around 50-200 which is the limit everyone can be aware of in the group, then the substitute indicators of money, fame, power, and so on are surely unnecessary. Second, if in a restricted environment, however, the logic of living things is allowed to take its course, without fail, a selfish strategy will become predominant. Due to such behavior, in today's era in which productivity is high and humans can survive on their own, everyone can be seen as an enemy. This goes against humans' inherent desire for cooperation, and makes people feel dissatisfied. They become unhappy. If this is the case, in a restricted environment, the logic of living things (and currency) should be somewhat restricted and we should place limits on competition. In other words, there is nothing that can be done but to halt capitalism.
　　What about establishing self-sufficient and self-supporting spheres that, aided by the spread of robotics and other technologies, are as close to 50 people as possible? We could create a single world country, whereby information via internet could be spread throughout the globe.
　　(There are also other proposals besides self-sufficient and self-supporting spheres, such as "local production for local consumption," and the "associations of associations" that Kojin Karatani proposed in 2005.)
　　At the current stage of technology, things might be able to work out if these spheres are around 5,000 people. They could become the ideal "Isonomia" (i.e., the ideal social organization system) villages Karatani mentions in his book.

The groups of 50-member people would gather into small self-sufficient and self-supporting spheres (their scale can be calculated based on level of science and technology; for the time being, I estimate it appears to be 5,000 people), which would then come together to form a single world country. How should this world country be organized? I think that we could imitate the world of the Internet; in other words, it would be a system that has no center but still allows its constituent parts to exchange information on equal footing. I would expect that such a system would be the most efficient and lead to happiness. Why network-based information exchange? What I have in mind is the processing of complex information systems, from the molecular level to organisms and to society, by having multiple information pieces from other members go simultaneously to each member at the same time and by having each member decide how to act by itself and for itself, then each member proceeds to the next step. I think that this approach should be used because it is likely to be the most efficient. This is the case for matter, cells, the nervous system, the evolution of organisms, ecosystems, development, and differentiation. In other words, rather than a hierarchy, a network. (See note below.)（refer to M. Asano et al: Quantum adaptivity in biology: From genetics to cognition.）

Note: While I use the phrase "self-sufficient and self-supporting spheres," I do not mean that they should be completely closed off from the outer world. Each sphere would generally aim for self-sufficiency and self-support while contributing to the world as a whole through activities that take advantage of their own characteristics and strengths. While DNA giving orders to create RNA and proteins (and thereby cells) might bring to mind a top-down hierarchical system with DNA at the top, in cells, each member interacts with one another. Thanks to an information network (e.g., genetic expression being controlled by the mutual functioning of proteins and DNA, also known as “feedback”), cells are able to live. In the case of individuals, one might imagine a hierarchical system in which all orders from the brain spread to various systems. However, by creating an information network based on the feedback from the parts/structures/cells of the body, individuals are similarly able to efficiently handle information on a broader scale. In other words, rather than completely independent closed-off, self-sufficient, and self-supporting spheres, I have in mind a network-style system that takes advantage of the strong points of each area. (Between a completely top-down method and completely equal and closed-off spheres there is surely a system in which humans can live happily.)

What About Currency? Around 1911, Gesell proposed that people adopt "free money"; in other words, depreciating money. At the same time, he also presented the idea of "free land," namely, people paying rent to use land based on the notion that the Earth's land belongs to the planet itself, not individuals. While it might be impossible to change the world's system immediately, I think it is a good time to begin working to improve it based on Gesell's philosophy.
　　(In other words, there is nothing that can be done besides restricting or eliminating the freely self-replicating nature of selfish currency (money, capital), which operates based on the same logic as selfish genes. If we do not do this, then things will become too efficient, and we will end up wholly consuming the Earth. On the other hand, the self-replicating pressure of nucleic acids/genes will definitely not go away insofar as humanity is comprised of only one type of organism created on selfish genes. Even so, in order to counter restricted environmental conditions as much as possible, efforts such as self-sufficient and self-supporting spheres are necessary.)

Does it make you happy to imagine what it would be like if there were 10 additional Earths? Did not the people of the Old World during the Age of Discovery feel like this? (That is why I really want space exploration to be successful. However, right now it costs too much money.)
　　However, humanity and the world today have reached a deadlock, as there are not 10 Earths, but only one. It appears that the planet, in terms of the prisoner's dilemma, is in extreme poverty and cannot bring about any more blessings. This is worrisome. Despite this, today we have gone away from the gold standard, and money and various forms of credit such as bonds are being limitlessly issued, enlarging our bubble. It appears that we are reaching a situation in which there is only money; no substance, no products, nothing that the money is worth. Does this kind of money really have value? Will it continue to be able to have value despite the gradual disappearance of the exchange value it originally held? This situation is pretty scary; we are facing a future that is nearly hyper-hyper-inflation.

"Will Earth be destroyed, and only money (paper) left to flutter about?"

I pray that we will be able to aim for a society in which "anyone can live happily based on the confidence that they are being of use to those who are around them".

山登のホームページ(back to IYamato homepage)