<div class="text-justify">

Better doesn't just happen. There is always a cost. 

It is implied in the word, as *better* requires change from one position or state to another, so there is an energy spend of some kind. We all want *Better* in some way, but we aren't all willing to spend the same amounts of energy to get what we want, nor do we necessarily have access to the same kinds of resource batteries we might need to accomplish what we want to improve. 

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23xAM9AZmgap9HkYpMvUXTnAe31qss9JyRux17qFdvPAPRQ4WxxViCmfjUEwTF14c867n.png)

>But I am an optimist.

*Just.*

I used to be far more optimistic than I am now, but I reckon I am sitting around 51/49 in favor of optimism. I think things can be better and I work toward that in the ways that I can, but I also believe that the chances of there being a positive outcome are slight. This is because it takes a lot of people willing to *spend* their resources on improvement activities in a way that aligns to actually make a difference. 

So much can happen when people work together toward a common goal. And so much can happen when a lot of distributed activities are aligned for a common outcome. This can be in the positive or negative, and I feel a lot of the current distributed alignment leads us to a negative result, such as the social algorithms that ultimately lead to polarization, exclusion, disconnection, compartmentalization and group identity based violence. All in the name of *improving* corporate profits and governmental controls. It is better.

>Not better for everyone. Better for the few.

And the better it gets for them, the *better able* they are to improve their processes to capture more of what they want from us. Power. We are their power source, their energy, their battery. And we are complicit in the process, because we keep the connection to our terminals open, we give them constant access to us. And rather than spending on improving ourselves, we keep buying the convenience they offer, leaving nothing left and even going into debt, making us slaves to convenience. 

> We could do different.

But, that would take a lot of people spending in ways they aren't comfortable in spending. For instance, if we wanted to really build a more equitable economy, the only way is to do it through distributed systems, where technology plays the middleman, rather than a central authority. And then, there would have to be many such systems in place, because the algorithms of one will ultimately be imperfect, making it a risk for failure, and changing risky, because of the broad scale impact it would have. 

A network of Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO) that both work together and are in competition with each other, act like governing bodies with one crucial difference - they are opt-in. The current governance landscape is all forced, where we are born into it without choice or approval, and it is up to luck whether the algorithms are going to be somewhat kind to us and give a chance at a quality life, or brutal, forcing us into suffering. We don't get to choose whether the culture or the government we have, is trying to be benevolent, or wholesale corrupt.

> And we can't opt out. 

Many talk about opting out, but the *cost* of opting out means to lose everything we may believe is important to us. Most likely, we can't opt out and live off-grid in the forest, and keep all of our friends, keep our comfort, keep a job and colleagues we may like, and have access to hobbies we enjoy. The cost of opting out is incredibly high in this regard. Even if there is a level of autonomy gained, we can never do quite what we want, there is always loss.

But, the loss doesn't have to be hours. Instead, we can redirect our *spend energy* into setting up systems and processes to keep access to the things that we value, but get rid of the sinkhole that is pulling the majority of power. Essentially, it would be possible to unplug and *defund* any corporation and any government, just by turning off the tap.

>Scary. 

The shift in energy direction would be monumentally disruptive in terms of governance control, because it relies on us not cooperating together and deciding what is valuable and what gets our energy. It is not by accident that the algorithms that provide the most energy to the few, are those that dissect and disconnect us from each other in all ways possible. The business models are set for individual consumption, impersonal, stranger-based interaction, and discourage collusion. 

>Collusion
/kəˈl(j)uːʒn/
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.

Governments and corporations collude all the time in secret, but it isn't necessarily illegal, because they make the rules. Yet, if a large enough group of people get together and do something that isn't illegal, but the government doesn't like, they will look to legislate it, to bring it under their rules, so they can set and *change* the boundaries t gain and maintain control.

>What right do they actually have?

*The one we grant them.*

If enough people want to opt out of centralized governance, all they have to do is walk away and use a different system, effectively making the government they had, irrelevant. No violence is needed, no army, just *walk away.* 

> Walk away to what?

And herein lays the problem, because in the past we didn't have anything to walk to, nothing that could replicate what we need from an economy and a government, without centralized control. But now, we are building the systems that can do this, that are able to take over the functions of a government in a system where people can opt in and opt out of as they see fit, even at the global level. 

I am *optimistic* it is possible to build a working distributed economy, but only slightly so. The models are there for it and people know that they want better than today, but what holds us back is our inability to come together on this. Rather than collaborating for improvement, we fight against the each other, across the lines that have been created to divide us. 

I might not give it a very good chance of a positive outcome, but I think it is *better to try for better,* than keep investing into staying where we are. The faster we can shift the direction of our energy flow to align for our betterment, the dimmer the centralized machines become, the slower they move to the point, they stop moving altogether. Dead.

But for us to live a better life, centralized control has to die. 

*Sounds optimistic.*

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>

Posted Using [InLeo Alpha](https://inleo.io/@tarazkp/51-optimist)