This is clarifying and honestly kind of thrilling, Tracy. I’ve been working on a framework that maps how different systems—and even beings—operate along a spectrum of community-aligned "we" vs extractive "me first" behavior. What you describe here feels like the rise of a new intelligence infrastructure rooted in what I’d call “Type 1” values.
Your vision for lifting the fog and realigning decision-making to serve the many (not the few) resonates deeply. Watching you lead the way here gives me real hope.
Wow, Heather. Hearing you feedback the resonance you felt in my piece is so exciting to me. Thank you. Many in the tech world, the business and wealth creation and accumulation world assume you cannot be in the abundance "we" mindset and also have all the "we" achieve extreme benefits. It not only isn't (IMO) anti-capitalistic to operate with the mindset that "we" can and should account for "me" in any shared system, if the system respects that everyone should have both their protection and growth needs met it is the way to widen the pie and accelerate and increase throughput (abundance, wealth, highest aspiring impacts).
I believe the the one overriding rule should be that positive-sum ethics requires systems to work to achieve those outcomes. And that truly democratic governments (local, state, federal, international) and people who share those ethics (note not values or ideologies or politics - we're talking basic human rights to exist, to be valued the same in the systems we build and that serve us) will now begin to build new systems of government and AI and data models that reflect those ethics.
When it comes to data - be it personal (all the data about me is personal and I should own it/benefit from it whether I capture or it or not) in the same way a government who collects data about the people it serves as a government is of the people, by the people, for the people (and we need to get back to that) that data is not the government's, but it is in their care and that relationships should also benefit people and not elected leaders or corporations who manipulate politics for financial gain. It should be fraud and fiducial acts of negligence if government fails to provide the services our tax dollars pay for or if they abuse our data in the process of serving us. That script needs to flip (I believe). This is a whole other bag of conversation, but it also applies here.
In the same way when a private corporation or business collects data about me it should be my data and if I want to lease it or sell it, I should be the decider/controller and I should be compensated for it as the first beneficiary of it. My real data (validated) - digital or otherwise - my knowledge and wisdom and IP cannot exist without me. When it comes to knowledge and the assets we create/own to trade and create with and the markets those assets are managed within, the same can be said about "our" money, like "our" data is an asset (as others have certainly defined).
We will see commercial alternatives and government actually start to operate this way, and that day is soon.
Thanks for this response, Tracy. I appreciate how you're drawing the connection between data, agency, and accountability, especially when it comes to both governments and private systems. We need this more than ever.
I’ve been thinking along similar lines in my work too, designing systems that allow individuals to stay in control of their data and benefit directly when it’s used. This is how collaboration wins. It’s validating to see this concept in the advanced real-world systems you’re helping shape, which can transform how we operate as communities and countries. Congratulations on putting this in motion.
Hi Whirly. I don’t think we can trust either dominating scenario - what’s happening feels like we’re replacing a thing that “is” the economy with another thing that “is” the economy, and concentrated power regardless of the kind - private fiat to private data - is just another centralized source of power without a ballast that ensures most people are at the whims of a few. In this case it’s trading value control around money to value control around knowledge to limit who can create economic value. It’s a tough one.
This is clarifying and honestly kind of thrilling, Tracy. I’ve been working on a framework that maps how different systems—and even beings—operate along a spectrum of community-aligned "we" vs extractive "me first" behavior. What you describe here feels like the rise of a new intelligence infrastructure rooted in what I’d call “Type 1” values.
Your vision for lifting the fog and realigning decision-making to serve the many (not the few) resonates deeply. Watching you lead the way here gives me real hope.
Wow, Heather. Hearing you feedback the resonance you felt in my piece is so exciting to me. Thank you. Many in the tech world, the business and wealth creation and accumulation world assume you cannot be in the abundance "we" mindset and also have all the "we" achieve extreme benefits. It not only isn't (IMO) anti-capitalistic to operate with the mindset that "we" can and should account for "me" in any shared system, if the system respects that everyone should have both their protection and growth needs met it is the way to widen the pie and accelerate and increase throughput (abundance, wealth, highest aspiring impacts).
I believe the the one overriding rule should be that positive-sum ethics requires systems to work to achieve those outcomes. And that truly democratic governments (local, state, federal, international) and people who share those ethics (note not values or ideologies or politics - we're talking basic human rights to exist, to be valued the same in the systems we build and that serve us) will now begin to build new systems of government and AI and data models that reflect those ethics.
When it comes to data - be it personal (all the data about me is personal and I should own it/benefit from it whether I capture or it or not) in the same way a government who collects data about the people it serves as a government is of the people, by the people, for the people (and we need to get back to that) that data is not the government's, but it is in their care and that relationships should also benefit people and not elected leaders or corporations who manipulate politics for financial gain. It should be fraud and fiducial acts of negligence if government fails to provide the services our tax dollars pay for or if they abuse our data in the process of serving us. That script needs to flip (I believe). This is a whole other bag of conversation, but it also applies here.
In the same way when a private corporation or business collects data about me it should be my data and if I want to lease it or sell it, I should be the decider/controller and I should be compensated for it as the first beneficiary of it. My real data (validated) - digital or otherwise - my knowledge and wisdom and IP cannot exist without me. When it comes to knowledge and the assets we create/own to trade and create with and the markets those assets are managed within, the same can be said about "our" money, like "our" data is an asset (as others have certainly defined).
We will see commercial alternatives and government actually start to operate this way, and that day is soon.
Thanks for this response, Tracy. I appreciate how you're drawing the connection between data, agency, and accountability, especially when it comes to both governments and private systems. We need this more than ever.
I’ve been thinking along similar lines in my work too, designing systems that allow individuals to stay in control of their data and benefit directly when it’s used. This is how collaboration wins. It’s validating to see this concept in the advanced real-world systems you’re helping shape, which can transform how we operate as communities and countries. Congratulations on putting this in motion.
Check out Katalin Bartfai-Wolcott. She has built an enabling part of the sovereign data solution. https://www.linkedin.com/in/katalinbartfaiwalcott/
Also we really need to talk more about your framework!
The eclipsing of the banks seems like a good thing. I've long thought they should exist to enable the economy, not be the economy.
Hi Whirly. I don’t think we can trust either dominating scenario - what’s happening feels like we’re replacing a thing that “is” the economy with another thing that “is” the economy, and concentrated power regardless of the kind - private fiat to private data - is just another centralized source of power without a ballast that ensures most people are at the whims of a few. In this case it’s trading value control around money to value control around knowledge to limit who can create economic value. It’s a tough one.
The dark underbelly of capitalism.
Ps thanks for reading. Liking your economic analysis’ by the way. 👊
:-)