humus.io is digital reality in process: however long it takes to turn individual fair access to life, liberty, and property, into an open accounting social network for everyone.
"You can't manage what you can't measure."
The nonprofit mission of humus.io is to help build a planetary social network that functions as a Common Resource Management System (CRMS), to provide:
- Individual access to resources in the distribution network.
- Public accountability for resources and participation in the network.
- Sortition governance for efficient, informed decision-making.
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. — Ansel Adams
In the real world we know for certain that it is physically impossible to manage earth and human resources, responsibly and equitably, without first understanding how our unique individual inputs and outputs impact one another relative to the ecosystem we are born into, and from where we all too quickly disappear.
Before the digital age of network computing, humans simply lacked the technology for open public accounting and participatory state/market systems of economy at scale. No matter the ideals of any form of governance past, economies of scale have always been plagued by a ruling class who hold central control over the power of money creation and the issuance of "Capital" as a debt; the setting of salaries and benefits; and denying ownership to the average wage slave, under the pretense of providing a fair and functional, democratically determined system of economy to the public at large.
Tally Stick Accounting was the most advanced system of accounting widely in use prior to the industrial manufacturing of paper. It is somehow lost on us today that less than two hundred (200) years ago paper bookkeeping was not available to the average person, and writing slates were not replaced with paper in school classrooms until near the turn of the 20th century. Paper bookkeeping reached its apex in 1964 with Xerox's patenting of the analog fax machine. But fax machines and paper bookkeeping are to digital network accounting what the horse and carriage are to satellites and starships. Eighty-five (85) percent of human activity prior to the Industrial Age was devoted to food production. Today it is just two (2) percent, and with the economic disruption of computing automation, AI and IoT, we are now beginning to universally perceive the socioeconomic implications of transition into the Digital Age, i.e., the obvious application and imperative for participatory economics and openly accounting for resource distribution.
Digital accounting completely revolutionizes governance, either by imposing Surveillance Capitalism (Zuboff, 2019) to obstruct our public right to organize and share information, or through truly open social networks that provide real-life security by accounting for fairness, efficiency, and the management and distribution of resources at scale; bringing to all humans everywhere, and many other species, a quality of life previously only imagined in the arts and literature, although never possible in practice using tally sticks and paper bookkeeping.
"Liberty produces wealth, and wealth destroys liberty... The majority have never been able to buy enough of anything; but this minority have too much of everything to sell."
Wealth Against Commonwealth (Lloyd, 1894)
Notwithstanding Das Kapital (1867), the most internationally cited work in the social sciences published before 1950, one should seriously consider the facts presented by Henry George, Progress and Poverty (1879), the most influential American economist to foreshadow the Great Depression of the All-American Dream, followed by the eloquent proofs of the American polemicist, Henry Demarest Lloyd, Wealth Against Commonwealth (1894).
To claim that participatory governance and resource-managed economies cannot work because tally-stick governments of the past were state/market vehicles of corruption and violence, inherent to all monopolies of private capital, or that personal privacy and property rights are somehow threatened or at odds with public transparency, where everyone has direct decision-making rights, and a dividend share of GDP, is to fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent capital, human society, history, security, and digital accounting technology. Private enterprises are critically depend on accurate accounting, verifiable information and competency. Why would anyone, in the digital age of computing accountancy, advocate trying to manage a vast multi-sector economy of scale using agrarian-age popularity contests, run every two to four years by a private ruling class that prevents open access to the information necessary for informed public decision-making and accountability?
Our pandemics and continuing environmental and socioeconomic crises reveal to us that relying on the arbitrary issuance and unaccountable trickle-down of debt-money into the economy, to sell life-critical resources to the public at large for the unregulated personal profits of enriching a small class of billionaires, is the same old recipe for scarcity, violence, destruction and servitude repeated throughout our short Agrarian Age, and shorter Industrial Age. Digital technology opens to us for the first time in human history the real opportunity to discover our collective human potential for open source development and public access accounting to easily meet the fundamental individual life, liberty and property needs of every human being, most fairly, securely, and sustainably.
By the turn of the 21st century the World Bank had officially acknowledged four requisites to sustainable human ecology long recognized in the arts and literature:
- Open access to information.
- Inclusive participation.
- Accountability for resource management.
- Organizational capacity for consensus governance.
Upon these immutable requisites CRMS ontology seeks to relate seven familiar variables: Place— Power— People— Projects— Process— Protocol— Promise— in a peer-to-peer (P2P7P) matrix ledger that accounts for key inputs and outputs throughout our complex ecosystem, and to interface these relationships most functionally and fairly for inclusive participation and informed public decision-making. Agreeing on immutable elements of fairness and governance for efficient cross-platform public access and participation at scale, is crucial; and opening existing State/Market data pipelines our highest priority. To differentiate CRMS protocol from Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and sundry FinTech and DeFi cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin), we have proposed using the term, Public Ledger Technology (PLT). See: > Process > Errata
CRMS Public Ledger Technology:
- Public p2p Open Source Hardware
- Public p2p Open Source Software
- Public p2p Resource Ledger API
- Public p2p Participation Ledger API
- Public p2p Sortition Governance
We know that it is technically trivial to build CRMS social networking platforms on open source public infrastructure to manage inclusive, fair, efficient access to essential human-life resources, and to openly account for individual socioeconomic freedom, participation, and resource security. Social networks are not very useful or sustainable apart from providing social inclusion and participation for the accounting and management of what everyone needs. To the extent money can buy what we need when we need it, everyone must be able to obtain enough of it at the time they need it to meet their needs, or we have a social problem; and social networks should be designed to solve social problems. CRMS accounting allows society to coordinate direct access to vital resources throughout the distribution network, and/or, in the interim, a functional distribution of debt-free currency for securing vital human-life resources from the social network most fairly.
Humans do not eat money or use it to shelter ourselves.
This is not a computing problem. It is a human cognition, governance and management problem— a question of what we do with what we've got— not that we must call it a CRMS, but that we understand what CRMS is and how social networks can and should be used. Attributes of the social economy described by Thomas More in Utopia (1516) are only known to have existed among egalitarian hunter-gatherer/agrarian societies, and the society that he fictionalized was not technically, religiously, or politically possible at scale in 1516. Nor was any such participatory vision of governance fully attainable using Industrial-Age paper and analog technology.
Bookkeeping was a significant improvement over Agrarian-Age tally stick accounting, but brought with it two World Wars of mass death and destruction. It would clearly be suicidal to repeat the war history of the 20th century in the Digital Age. If over three thousand (3000) licensed architects and engineers, upon whom we depend to build safe bridges and skyscrapers, told us our office building was about to collapse, would we ignore them and continue $crapping for early passive retirement in some money bubble dream, or pause to step outside our box and look more deeply into the real world?
Digital computing solves resource access and use conflicts through public accountancy, competency participation, responsibility rotation, and sortition algorithms that make traditional ballot-voting in ruling-class bipolar popularity contests as undemocratic, costly, outdated, and unsustainable at scale as paper bookkeeping and tally stick taxation.
When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about British culture, he replied, "I think it would be a good idea." In the Digital Age it is both practical and imperative to actually practice liberty and justice for all— to meet everyone's basic needs for life, liberty and property, by restoring our lands and water, infrastructure, ecology and security the world over; turning the struggle of capital-driven, Debt Class vs Wealth Class, nuclear-germ, drone-powered social conflict into inclusive economic participation and population stability through personal freedom and fairness for everyone.
How easy is it these days to drone-deliver a micro-canister of BLS-4 or garage-hacked pathogen with "gain-of-function" into an unwanted population, maybe into some tax haven community of healthcare and "social" media billionaires, to whose Plague of Corruption (Mikovits, Heckenlively, 2020) oppressed peoples tend to react? Apart from the fear caused by unverifiable information combined with brute force, why would the so-called herd consent to a minority of unaccountable profiteers who claim virtue in "herd immunity" and "giving back" what they have unfairly taken for personal gain, especially when the herd they purport to care so much about is denied fundamental access to safe housing, water, food, and inclusive socioeconomic participation?
Universal open accounting and participatory fairness in the Digital Age seems like a pretty easy to understand, science-based, common sense approach to mitigating herd conflict, poor health, unsustainable growth and ecosystem failure (Dr. Francis Boyle, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. David Katz, et al). Certainly there is no lack of hands and minds willing to participate in restoring our lands, waters and food supply, and in the building and maintenance of sustainable infrastructure. Our capacity for openness and fairness will determine how successful humans will be in adopting and adapting to digital reality on this finite planet of its sun.
Remember Kropotkin's scientific treatise in response to Social Darwinism in 1902, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (how species turn struggle into cooperation), or the sci-fi fantasies of human flight and trips to the dark side of the moon? How ridiculous.
Let it be... let it be..?