Aaah... median-human not.
median PRODUCTIVITY of a human-hour.
Measured in what? Q's? Which kinda means 1 Q could never ever become 0.999Qs or 1.0001Qs. So it would never inflate or deflate for that matter.
So it can't be Q's. It has to be horse blankets for folks who make horse blankets and peas for those who grow peas and, um, ideas for those of us on the hairy edge of things who fling them around with wild abandon.
Which leaves us with the gargantuan problem of having to figure out what N of one are worth relative to M of the other. For any of an infinite array of ones and others. Yikes!
But let's go there, because with a large enough computer, any such thing is possible. All we need is some relative worth-measuring system. The planet is divided (to the point of war) on how to best measure worth. Some say "free market", others say "according to need". Still others say "finders keepers", or "it doesn't matter as long as I am worth the most". And so on and so forth. Each of these methods is backed by some "currency" which is further generally backed by the good faith (or muscle) of the 'country' of origin. In other words, trust (free will or otherwise).
So the Q as you suggest it already exists. It is merely the human-hour weighted average of all the planet's currencies.
I will have to ponder the merit of circularity - ref the creation of a point average distinct from the global average in which it floats. And get back to you on that.
Hmmm...
As far as progression up Maslow's hierarchy of needs obviating the need for money? Hmmm... Personally, from what I have seen of how fundamentally "keeping up with the Joneses" is burned into human DNA, we will ALWAYS need some method of keeping score. If not on Maslow's hierarchy then on one of Maslow's descendants' hierarchies. Or one produced by a distant relative, that is. Call this score keeping "money" and we aren't so far removed from where we are today.
Having parsed through your proposed Q, for example, why bother?
Isn't it merely "I could do better" in a different guise, which when peeled away is merely one set of imperfections substituted for another? Differing as much in authorship as in relative merit?
Personally, I'm more simple minded.
I'll take from you some tokens, and I'll take from him some tokens. And from her and from them. And I'll be on the giving end of token exchange too. Within this set of people and beyond. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that matters is that whomever I encounter will accept from me the tokens I took from you.
We can get all wrapped up in devising "better" tokens as an academic exercise. But the bottom line is that there are many which are "good enough". By the only objective criteria that count: they are accepted in exchange, and the basis of acceptance does not change so fast as to render accumulation, savings, distribution and score keeping as irrelevant activities.
John |
