Comments below:

-----Original Message----- From: Tim May [mailto:tcmay@got.net] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:51 PM To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: Re: Questions of size...

<snip>

By the way, one topological aspect of a geodesic dome, to go back to that, is that each node is surrounded by some number of neighbors. Applied to a "geodesic economy," this image/metaphor would strongly suggest that economic agents are trading with their neighbors, who then trade with other neighbors, and so on.

Tribes deep in the Amazon, who deal only with their neighbors, are then the canonical "geodesic economy."

I would disagree with the supporting logic here. You could theoretically conclude that such systems were geodesic in nature if you really wanted to, but it would be due to the fact that there is a minimum economic distance (cost, perhaps) in dealings between participants. I don't think it is safe to say that these transactions are canonically geodesic, unless you are also willing to propose that the "surface" of the economic structure is bound inseperably to the geography of the planet. I believe that when we are talking about a distance metric associated with the structure of economic transactions (we are talking about transactions, right?), the most natural metric to be used in geodesic economics would be cost. That's not to say that I have, at this point, read any material that makes a great logical case for the geodesic nature of the economic transactions that Mr. Hettinga describes. I am currently operating on a little blind faith and a big hunch when assuming for the sake of conversation that Mr. Hettinga's proposed transactions would be reduced-cost. It just seems to make sense. I agree with you, Mr. May, that a seemingly geodesic economomic system can be achieved through localization of the market and direct trade. I do not believe that localization is a defining element of a geodesic economy. It seems that a broad move toward localization being in-efficient in our own economy (one would have to prove this, and why), the concepts that Mr. Hettinga proposes may provide a working substitute for localization, by proposing a means of direct interaction between parties that breaks geographical limitations, and thereby reducing E.D. (economic distance). Again, one would have to prove that cost is a good metric for E.D., and then one would have to prove that Mr. Hettinga's proposals result in reduced cost in transactions. It's a tough case, but my hunch sides with Mr. Hettinga.

This is precisely the _opposite_ of the mulitiply-connected trading situation which modern systems make possible.

So, aside from the cuteness of suggesting a connection with geodesic domes, with buckybits as the currency perhaps?, this all creates confusion rather than clarity.

--Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)