JoeBloggs

Exchanging Pure Human Empathy Globally one transaction at a time. Living beyond the Algorithm and any Psychopathic AI.

Public Key

npub1yvlppcwga8k2qsvrh6rtd5cjv6hlmsm52uqsgw38yj36r4zu8wuqulu2dc

Profile Code

nprofile1qqszx0ssu8ywnm9qgxpmap4k6vfxdtlacd69wqgy8gnjfgap63wrhwqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduxztyxs

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

Author Public Key

npub1yvlppcwga8k2qsvrh6rtd5cjv6hlmsm52uqsgw38yj36r4zu8wuqulu2dc

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-09-17 01:45:35

- reply

Not sure, just asking for my friends, but are you operating the curtain? https://image.nostr.build/73a0fd5189113082e29729a761355d6f1a3cbd34e163630ed060f2c4ac31e785.gif

2024-09-15 17:48:02

05 Title: Native American Barter Was Not Just for Themselves, but for the Animals, Plants, and Environment Too
Introduction
Long before the advent of modern currency systems, Native American societies (upto 15th Century see #1 below) employed various mediums of exchange to facilitate trade, particularly through barter. These exchanges were deeply rooted in the natural environment, with most trade goods emerging from the food chain items such as animal products, plants, and natural materials.
More than a mere economic system, the barter practices of Native Americans were inherently connected to their spiritual beliefs, which emphasised harmony with nature and respect for the animal and plant life around them.
To accumulate beyond what was naturally provided by the environment was not only impractical but also seen as a violation of the spiritual balance that governed their relationship with the earth.
Although economic theorists like Nick Szabo, in his seminal work Shelling Out: The Origins of Money, approached the origins of money through the lens of scarcity, durability, and efficiency, Szabo ultimately fails to recognise a critical aspect of early barter economies: the role of human empathy and the spiritual connection to the natural world that underpinned Native American exchanges.
#1 The process of attacking and displacing Native Americans, which ultimately disrupted their barter trading systems and traditional way of life, began with the arrival of European colonisers in the 15th and 16th centuries. However, the systematic effort by the United States government to forcibly remove Native Americans from their lands and end their traditional ways of life, including their barter trading systems, intensified significantly during the 19th century. I write this with much sadness, as they warned us of the the consequences of destroying and not enjoying their way of life.
This note explores the mediums of exchange used by Native Americans, demonstrating how these items emerged from the food chain and embodied a deeper empathetic relationship between humans, nature, and the environment.
Mediums of Exchange Used by Native Americans
Native Americans utilised a variety of items as mediums of exchange, many of which came directly from the food chain or natural environment. These items were not only practical but also held spiritual significance, connecting the traders to their environment and to the animals and plants that sustained them. Some of the key items used in Native American trade include:
Animal Products:
Furs and Skins (e.g., beaver, deer, bison): Used for clothing and shelter, these were highly valued trade goods.
Meat and Dried Fish: Preserved foodstuffs such as dried bison meat or salmon were traded, particularly during times of scarcity.
Bones and Antlers: Used to craft tools, weapons, and ornaments.
Feathers: Especially from birds such as eagles, these had cultural and ceremonial value.
Shells (e.g., wampum): Shells, particularly along the Eastern Seaboard, were used as currency and for ceremonial purposes.
Stone Tools and Minerals:
Obsidian and Flint: These were traded across vast distances and used for making tools and weapons.
Pipestone (Catlinite): A soft, reddish stone used to create ceremonial pipes, reflecting spiritual significance in trade.
Turquoise: Valued for its beauty and spiritual importance in the Southwest.
Plant Products:
Corn, Beans, and Squash: Often referred to as the “Three Sisters,” these staple crops were traded between tribes in different ecological regions.
Tobacco: A sacred plant, used in rituals and ceremonies, but also traded as a commodity.
Medicinal Herbs and Plants: Plants used for healing were traded across tribes, with knowledge and resources exchanged alongside the items themselves.
Crafted Goods:
Pottery: Practical and decorative, pottery was traded for its utility in cooking and storing food.
Beadwork and Decorative Items: Items crafted from shells, stones, and bones were exchanged for their cultural and decorative value.
Marine Products:
Dried Fish and Shellfish: Coastal tribes engaged in trade with inland tribes, exchanging marine products for other goods.
Fishing Nets and Hooks: These tools were critical for subsistence and were exchanged between tribes along waterways.
Shelter Materials:
Animal Hides: Used for tents, clothing, and bedding, these were critical items in trade.
Wood and Reeds: Used for constructing homes and making baskets, these materials were exchanged based on the ecological resources available to each tribe.
Spiritual and Ceremonial Items:
Spiritual Charms: Carved items, totems, and other spiritually significant objects were often exchanged between tribes as part of ceremonial trade.
Barter, the Food Chain, and Empathy for Nature
The mediums of exchange used by Native Americans largely derived from the food chain—a fact that profoundly influenced the way they approached trade. These exchanges were not merely transactional; they were rooted in a deep empathy for the natural environment and an understanding of the delicate balance that must be maintained between humans, animals, and plants. To take more than what was needed from nature was to invite disaster, both in the form of food shortages and in spiritual disharmony.
1. The Food Chain as the Foundation of Exchange
The items exchanged by Native Americans were often perishable or connected to the natural cycle of life. For example, animal hides and meat could only be sustainably sourced from healthy animal populations. Overhunting would not only deplete these resources but would also violate the sacred relationship between humans and the animal spirits.
This deep respect for the environment ensured that barter was conducted in a way that maintained balance, rather than exploited nature. Accumulation for its own sake was discouraged, as it threatened both the material resources and the spiritual equilibrium of the tribe.
2. Spiritual Beliefs and the Barter System
For Native Americans, spiritual beliefs played an integral role in the barter system. Many tribes adhered to animistic beliefs, viewing animals and plants as having spiritual essence. For example, the Plains tribes saw the bison as a sacred animal, central not only to their economy but also to their cosmology.
To barter bison products was to engage in a transaction that respected the spirit of the bison, ensuring that the animal’s sacrifice served the needs of the entire community. Wasting or over-exploiting these resources was viewed not only as impractical but also as a spiritual transgression.
This sense of spiritual responsibility extended to all areas of life. The gathering of plants for medicinal or ceremonial purposes was conducted with respect for the plants' spirits.
Barter exchanges of tobacco, for instance, were laden with spiritual significance, as this plant was considered sacred and essential for maintaining a relationship with the spirit world.
Through this lens, we see that the exchange of goods was not just an economic transaction but a moral act, driven by empathy for the plants, animals, and environment that sustained the community.
3. Human Empathy in Environmental Exchange
The barter system among Native Americans was underpinned by a strong sense of empathy for the natural world and for the community's needs. Empathy was not limited to human interactions; it extended to the animals and plants that were part of the ecosystem.
The interconnectedness of all living beings meant that barter had to be conducted with restraint and understanding. If a hunter took too many animals or a gatherer collected too many plants, the ecosystem would suffer, and the entire community would face shortages. This empathy-driven approach to barter ensured that trade was sustainable and that resources were shared equitably.
Nick Szabo and the Missed Recognition of Empathy in Exchange
In his influential article Shelling Out: The Origins of Money, Nick Szabo examines the transition from barter to money, emphasising the role of durable goods such as shells, beads, and metals in facilitating trade. Szabo discusses the importance of scarcity, durability, and the difficulty of counterfeiting as factors that made these goods effective mediums of exchange.
However, Szabo ultimately fails to recognise the empathetic and spiritual dimensions that underpinned early Native American barter systems.
Szabo’s analysis, rooted in Austrian economic theory, focuses on efficiency and material scarcity while neglecting the cultural and spiritual significance of trade items. By doing so, Szabo overlooks the fact that barter among Native Americans was not simply a way to overcome the limitations of the coincidence of wants, but a practice deeply tied to the empathy felt for the natural environment and the animals and plants that formed the foundation of their economy.
The Native American barter system was about more than just trading goods; it was about maintaining balance and harmony within the ecosystem, something that Szabo does not address.
Conclusion
The barter system of Native Americans, rooted in items from the food chain, was an inherently empathetic practice that reflected not only concern for human needs but also for the animals, plants, and environment that sustained them.
This balance between human trade and natural preservation was maintained through spiritual beliefs that emphasised respect and reciprocity with nature. To over-accumulate or exploit these resources was not only impractical but also a violation of their spiritual connection to the world around them.
While Nick Szabo’s Shelling Out provides valuable insights into the origins of money, his analysis ultimately misses the crucial role that empathy played in early barter systems. By focusing on material scarcity and efficiency, Szabo fails to acknowledge that Native American barter was about more than just economics it was about fostering harmony with the natural world and ensuring that trade benefited not only humans but the entire ecosystem.
The mediums of exchange used by Native Americans worked well precisely because they were rooted in the natural cycle of life and reflected an empathetic relationship with the earth.
Sources:
Szabo, Nick. Shelling Out: The Origins of Money, 2002.

2024-09-15 12:54:14

Immutable Truth IT, is IT an open book!?
#nevent1q…thql

2024-09-15 12:10:37

- reply

Think about a Pure Empathy being exchanged at the base level and how that then moves up. It's what Money could never have been. Bitcoin is beyond Money, it's the magic number that rates the exchange of Empathy. You can read my bookmarked notes, maybe that will help you make more sense of your own questioning.
Hope that helps?

2024-09-14 22:53:42

- reply

That sounds like a Dictat, where's the Empathy!?

2024-09-14 22:50:06

- reply

Do you know what's real!?

2024-09-14 20:34:24

- reply

Interesting fact, they picked Sheffield, England, as the location because the cost of tidying it up was less than the cost of making another location look like it had been nuked. To be fair, it has slightly improved since the early 80's as long as you don't go too far from Meadowhall.
https://image.nostr.build/09331bf699e42ce0590092f5722d9b998299add2dfcc1c932d8bbb83699b84cb.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/02ffe919a4877fcd4181917983287825271905ae279f75a476b7a0b8c87cd058.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/1441b31f4a8ee34999babc26d56348c3be09232755571740919785b474140363.jpg https://image.nostr.build/522f0ffcf1f45b296decd13efb7bac0d1b87273805b5e2cf9af432584d2daa95.jpg

2024-09-14 19:09:13

- reply

As a Human, I have to accept that I am all of them.

2024-09-14 17:47:40

- reply

You look different :)

2024-09-14 14:34:48

- reply

Put it on here please.

2024-09-14 13:32:05

- reply

Kawaii is better than being a Ladybird :) https://image.nostr.build/c543a9c802bac5ba3b238dd7f3046b0fe198a5632994dffef81c08df39723fff.jpg

2024-09-14 10:41:25

- reply

Lyn, it's worth also considering the age the viewer/reader was when the said memory became fixed in their mind. I would imagine that there's a general window of ages where memory becomes more permanent than outside of those windows, obviously excluding any traumatic events that may have happened too (Nelson Mandela, Twin Towers etc).

2024-09-14 01:49:29

I am Immutable Truth, I am Pure Human Empathy Exchanged, I am Bitcoin and I will unfix everything that is fixed otherwise.
Expect IT, Expect Human Empathy without Abuse, Expect before God was written.
Expect us.
Inspect your response.

2024-09-14 01:19:20

What is a Plethora of Information that is expressed and exchanged without meaning?
NOT Bitcoin.
Globally Bitcoin exchanges Pure Human Empathy without Fear or Favour.
Just as a heads up, Nostr is still on catch up...
I have the power to say anything I want and I chose Bitcoin first, then I'll pick another medium until that don't work.
Been do IT for a long time now and IT is the magic sauce...

2024-09-13 21:30:24

- reply

Entropy in code is a good thing, there are only a few things that remain constant since Humans walked the Earth;-
The rules of the Universe;
Life begins;
Life spreads;
Life evolves and
Life that exchanges Empathy survives.
Code can evolve, currently by human intervention only.
We need to be very very careful that code does not evolve without our intervention and particularly it doesn't evolve with exchanging Human Empathy.
Bitcoin is a prime example of code that exchanges human empathy and can be used to stop runaway Psychopath AI.
Perishable code is a blessing, don't play God and invent unstoppable code that's not Bitcoin or you'll learn to livE backwards.
:)

2024-09-13 16:52:20

04 Title: Nick Szabo's Shelling Out - Did He Sell Out by Having Zero Empathy for the Human Exchange of Immutable Truth?
Introduction
Nick Szabo’s influential article, Shelling Out: The Origins of Money, provides a compelling examination of the historical development of money, tracing its roots from primitive barter systems to modern monetary economies. Szabo argues that money evolved as a solution to the limitations of barter, developing through trade in durable and desirable items such as shells, beads, and metals. However, despite its depth, the article conspicuously overlooks a crucial factor: the role of Immutable Truth and the pure human empathy that governed early exchanges of value. In his focus on Austrian economic theory, Szabo misses the moral and human underpinnings that define early barter economies. This note will critically assess Szabo’s work, analysing where his reliance on contemporary economic models falters, particularly in failing to account for the empathy-based exchanges that defined early human societies. We will argue that Szabo’s omission of empathy leads to a distorted view of economic history, and we will explore the damaging effects of this exclusion, particularly with regard to the ethics of interest and wealth distribution.
The Barter System and the Origins of Money: Szabo’s Overview
Szabo begins his article by describing the challenges inherent in barter systems. He rightly points out that barter economies suffered from a lack of coincidence of wants, meaning that two parties rarely had goods of equal value that the other wanted at the same time. However, Szabo treats barter in purely practical terms, as an inefficient mechanism for facilitating trade. He fails to recognise that early barter was more than a primitive form of economic exchange; it was rooted in human empathy—the understanding and mutual recognition of need. Barter was an inherently social act that fostered trust, cooperation, and community cohesion.
In early societies, the exchange of goods was not driven by a cold calculation of value, but by the recognition of the other person’s needs and a desire for fairness. As explored in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, barter exchanges were often about fulfilling both basic physiological needs (such as food and water) and emotional needs, including love, belonging, and esteem. This is a point Szabo entirely neglects. He frames the development of money as an inevitable progression towards a more efficient system but ignores the empathy that underpinned those early exchanges, and the Immutable Truth that individuals relied on one another for survival, bound by social and moral obligations rather than mere transactional necessity.
The Role of Durable Goods in the Evolution of Money
Szabo’s article goes on to explain how the use of durable goods like shells, beads, and metals arose as a medium of exchange. These items had intrinsic value due to their durability, divisibility, and difficulty to counterfeit. However, Szabo’s focus on these material qualities overlooks the fact that empathy played a critical role in the selection and acceptance of these goods as currency.
The shift from barter to durable goods was not simply a pragmatic solution to the shortcomings of barter; it was also a reflection of trust in the community. The use of certain durable items was bound by Immutable Truth the inherent trust that the goods being exchanged had real value based on shared understanding and collective needs.
For example, in some cultures, shells were valued not for their rarity alone but because they were deeply integrated into social and spiritual practices, carrying meaning that transcended simple utility. Szabo fails to address the human, empathetic component of why these durable goods came to be accepted as money in the first place.
The Origin of Commodity Money and Austrian Economic Theory
Szabo’s narrative, influenced by Austrian economic theory, frames the evolution of money as a series of innovations aimed at solving the inefficiencies of barter. Austrian economics, which favours individualism, the free market, and minimal government intervention, often ignores the moral dimensions of economic systems. Szabo’s adoption of this viewpoint leads him to dismiss the social and empathetic aspects of money, focusing instead on material goods and market dynamics.
What Szabo neglects is the recognition that Immutable Truth and human empathy were cornerstones of early trade. Austrian economic theory assumes that individuals are rational, self-interested agents, driven primarily by profit. But the earliest forms of barter and trade were not solely based on self-interest. They were communal, and rooted in the understanding that one’s survival and well-being were tied to the well-being of others in the community. By ignoring this reality, Szabo presents a distorted view of economic history, one that reduces human interaction to a series of impersonal exchanges.
How Szabo Misses the Role of Empathy in Economic Exchange
Szabo’s failure to address the role of empathy in early economic exchange is a critical oversight. Empathy is not simply a social nicety; it was the glue that held early societies together, ensuring fair exchanges, mutual aid, and the fulfilment of collective needs. In small communities where everyone knew each other, the Immutable Truth was that the survival of one person often depended on the cooperation and support of others. Trust and empathy were critical to sustaining economic relationships.
In his discussion of money as a solution to the limitations of barter, Szabo overlooks the fact that introducing money as a medium of exchange removed much of the empathy that had been intrinsic to barter. As money became more widely used, transactions became more anonymous and less personal. The introduction of money allowed individuals to trade without knowing or caring about the other person’s needs. This marked a fundamental shift in the nature of economic exchange, one that Szabo fails to adequately address.
Interest on Money: Empathy Drained Like a Vampire Sucking Blood
Perhaps the most significant failure in Szabo’s analysis is his lack of engagement with the concept of interest on money.
The idea of charging interest on loans directly undermines the empathetic foundations of early economic systems. Charging interest allows individuals to profit from the needs and vulnerabilities of others, draining empathy from the economic system like a vampire sucking blood from its victims. Instead of facilitating fair exchanges, interest-based lending exploits imbalances in power and wealth, creating cycles of debt that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable.
Szabo’s silence on this issue is indicative of the broader shortcomings of Austrian economic theory, which often fails to consider the ethical dimensions of wealth accumulation and distribution. In early societies, empathy was the guiding principle behind economic exchanges, ensuring that both parties benefited and that the community remained cohesive. Interest, by contrast, concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, eroding trust and empathy within the community.
Supply and Demand: Missing the Role of Empathy
Szabo’s analysis of supply and demand also lacks an understanding of the role that human empathy plays in balancing these forces. In early barter economies, the supply of goods was often limited, and demand fluctuated based on need rather than profit motive. Empathy helped balance supply and demand, ensuring that resources were distributed according to need. In a drought, for example, those with access to water would share it with those who had food, and vice versa. This mutual understanding of need created a more equitable system of resource distribution than the market-driven forces that Szabo describes.
By focusing on material goods and market dynamics, Szabo overlooks the ways in which human empathy regulated supply and demand in early societies. The introduction of money disrupted these empathetic exchanges, creating opportunities for individuals to accumulate wealth without regard for the needs of others. This shift undermined the Immutable Truth that had governed barter economies: that all individuals are interdependent, and that fairness and empathy are essential for social cohesion.
Conclusion: Did Nick Szabo Sell Out by Ignoring Human Empathy?
Nick Szabo’s Shelling Out offers an insightful analysis of the origins of money, but it falls short in its failure to address the critical role of Immutable Truth and human empathy in early economic systems. By framing the evolution of money through the lens of Austrian economic theory, Szabo overlooks the moral and social dimensions that underpinned early barter economies. His article misses the mark by ignoring the fact that early economic exchanges were driven by empathy and mutual understanding, rather than self-interest and profit motive.
In failing to engage with these concepts, Szabo also misses the opportunity to critique the ethics of interest and wealth accumulation, which drain empathy from the economic system like a vampire draining blood. Ultimately, by ignoring the role of empathy in economic exchange, Szabo presents a distorted and incomplete view of the origins of money, one that fails to recognise the human connections that once governed trade.
Sources:
• Szabo, Nick. Shelling Out: The Origins of Money, 2002.
• Graeber, David. Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Melville House, 2011.
• Ferguson, Niall. The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Penguin Press, 2008.
• Abraham Maslow, A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, 1943.

2024-09-13 16:13:13

03 Title: Barter and the Need for Human Empathy
Introduction
Before the invention of money and the development of widespread numeracy, human societies relied on barter as their primary method of trade. Barter is not merely a simplistic exchange of goods and services; it was rooted in human empathy, mutual understanding, and the shared recognition of needs. In the absence of standardised value and common currency, barter was a negotiation guided by emotional intelligence and social bonds. This note we'll explore how empathy was central to barter in early human societies, using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs to frame examples of empathetic exchanges. The key argument is that barter, before 600 BCE, was primarily driven by empathy and human connection, which were necessary for satisfying both basic and higher-level human needs.
The Structure of Barter and Empathy
Barter, the exchange of goods and services without money, was the economic lifeblood of early societies. Each transaction was not only a practical matter but a personal interaction, as traders had to empathise with each other’s needs. Since there was no currency to quantify value, each trade was subjectively negotiated, and this process was inherently driven by empathy—the ability to understand the other party’s perspective and desires. As we examine the specific examples below, it becomes clear that barter and empathy were intertwined, forming the foundation of economic and social relationships.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Linking Empathy with Human Exchange
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs provides a useful framework to analyse barter systems. Maslow identified five levels of needs: Physiological Needs, Safety Needs, Love and Belonging, Esteem, and Self-Actualisation. The examples below demonstrate how barter exchanges in early societies met these needs through empathy-driven interactions.
See the Image of Table 1: Examples of Human Empathy in Barter, Linked to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs
Examples of Barter and Human Empathy
1. Bartering Grain for Water: Physiological Needs
In early agrarian societies, where natural resources were critical for survival, physiological needs (such as food and water) were often met through barter. During periods of drought, those who had access to a well or river would barter water with those who had a surplus of grain. The empathy involved in this exchange is clear: the individual with water would recognise the desperation of the person whose crops had failed and understand that their family needed food to survive. Conversely, the person with grain would empathise with the thirst and vulnerability of the water-bearer.
For instance, a farmer who had abundant wheat after a successful harvest might trade sacks of grain to a neighbour whose well had not dried up. The farmer understood that without water, the crops would not matter, and the neighbour, in turn, knew that without food, their water supply was of little use. Both parties recognised each other's needs and made an exchange based on this mutual empathy. Here, the exchange wasn’t just transactional but grounded in understanding and fulfilling the other’s basic survival needs, in line with Maslow’s physiological level.
2. Trading Tools for Protection: Safety Needs
The need for safety protection from danger, harsh weather, and conflict was a pressing concern in early human societies. Bartering tools, such as farming implements or weapons, to build a secure shelter or defend oneself, was a common practice. For instance, a blacksmith might trade knives or spears in exchange for materials to build a stronger house or a food supply. In these exchanges, empathy was essential because both parties understood that their security and survival were interconnected.
In one example, a villager who specialised in making strong wooden doors might trade these items to a hunter in exchange for a share of the hunter’s game. The villager recognised the hunter’s need for protection from wild animals while the hunter empathised with the villager’s need for sustenance. Both parties valued safety one through physical protection, the other through food security and through empathetic understanding, they supported each other’s wellbeing.
3. Labour for Community Support: Love and Belonging
Communities in early societies thrived not just on individual efforts but on collective support. The need for belonging a sense of being part of a group was fulfilled through communal work, which was often facilitated by barter. For example, individuals might offer their labour in exchange for food, shelter, or other forms of support, particularly when building homes or gathering harvests. The empathy in these exchanges lay in the understanding that helping one’s neighbour would result in reciprocal help in the future.
Imagine a scenario where a man trades his labour to help build a neighbour’s house. In return, the neighbour agrees to help the man harvest his crops at the end of the season. The understanding here is not simply a transactional one; both individuals recognise the importance of community ties and the need to support each other.
The empathy exchanged through this barter lies in the mutual recognition of vulnerability: the builder needs a secure home, and the farmer needs help with a task too large to manage alone. These exchanges strengthened the sense of belonging within the community.
4. Artisanal Goods for Recognition: Esteem
Barter was also a way to gain esteem and recognition in early societies. Artisans, who produced high-quality or specialised goods, often traded these items in exchange for food, tools, or other materials, but these transactions also fulfilled their need for recognition and respect. For example, a potter might trade intricately designed pottery to a chieftain or a tribe’s leader in exchange for protection or livestock.
In such a transaction, the potter would understand that the leader valued prestige and the display of fine goods, while the leader empathised with the potter’s desire for social recognition. The empathy exchanged in these deals wasn’t just about meeting practical needs but also about acknowledging the other’s emotional need for respect and validation. The potter would feel a sense of pride, knowing that their work was seen and appreciated by important figures in the community, fulfilling the esteem level of Maslow’s hierarchy.
5. Knowledge for Personal Growth: Self-Actualisation
At the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy is the need for self-actualisation, which involves realising one’s full potential. Even in early societies, barter wasn’t restricted to tangible goods. Knowledge and skills were often traded as well. For example, a skilled hunter might teach a young villager how to track and capture game, in exchange for knowledge about medicinal plants or farming techniques.
The empathy involved in these exchanges lay in the recognition that both parties were striving to become more skilled, knowledgeable, and capable. The hunter understood that the villager wanted to grow as a provider, while the villager recognised the hunter’s need for wisdom about agriculture. By sharing knowledge, both individuals moved closer to self-actualisation, enriching not only themselves but also the community as a whole. These exchanges were based on the understanding that personal growth benefits everyone, linking the need for empathy to cultural and individual advancement.
The Role of Empathy in Successful Barter
For barter to function effectively, the exchange of empathy had to be pure. In a world without standardised currency, each transaction depended on mutual trust and the understanding that both parties were meeting essential human needs. If empathy were absent or insincere, the system would collapse into exploitation, and the social bonds upon which barter was built would disintegrate.
Barter thrived on the idea that everyone’s needs were valid and that through trade, both parties could be made better off. This required an emotional connection and a sense of fairness that transcended the immediate transaction. Empathy ensured that trade was not simply about goods but about relationships, reinforcing the idea that economic interactions were deeply personal in early human societies.
Conclusion
Barter, before the widespread use of money and numeracy, was a system of exchange built on human empathy. Each trade required an understanding of the other party’s needs, desires, and vulnerabilities, fulfilling both practical and emotional requirements. Through the framework of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, we see how barter met the basic physiological needs for food and water, the safety needs for protection, and the higher needs for belonging, esteem, and self-actualisation. In early societies, barter was not just an economic practice but a human one, rooted in the empathy that ensured fairness, trust, and social cohesion
Sources:
• Glyn Davies, A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, University of Wales Press, 2002.
• David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Melville House, 2011.
• Abraham Maslow, A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, 1943.
• Joel Kaye, A History of Balance, 1250-1375: The Emergence of a New Model of Equilibrium and Its Impact on Thought, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
https://nostrcheck.me/media/233e10e1c8e9eca04183be86b6d31266affdc3745701043a2724a3a1d45c3bb8/123aca0e913aa2a28322a2ec14f83aa1db1cba0b8c21e7f3684c3a62928b4e5b.webp

2024-09-13 00:13:57

Does News feed the Empathy or does Empathy feed the News!?
Is it right to be suspicious of the whole lot?
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/elite-seal-unit-killed-bin-laden-trains-china-invasion-taiwan

2024-09-11 23:13:42

I am certain that Bitcoin is that number that rates the Pure Human Empathy of the pre-money and pre-numeracy Barter exchange.
As such, Money never represented that and by default Fiat Currency moves further away from that Pure exchange.
Bitcoin fits well within the teachings of all Religions. Is Bitcoin a Religion, in that if Pure Human Empathy is exchanged every day as a matter of course, then no supplementary text is required to be added on top.
If all that was true, then to not exchange Pure Human Empathy would make you live backwards (Evil). It would also mean that anyone who criticised Satoshi and or Bitcoin would be a Blasphemer and guilty of Blasphemy.
As of now and a good job too, Bitcoin is not yet a Religion that could abuse those who think a little differently.
Blessed are those that exchange Pure Human Empathy, for they will inherit the Earth. Unless it gets scorched to a crisp due to the Psychopaths and their Nukes, because their views are by default remiss.

2024-09-11 22:32:40

- reply

Bitcoin is music to my ear. Fuck the other followers of Satoshi, this isn't a mother fucking religion, is IT!?

2024-09-11 22:20:40

Dr Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream for the freedom of ALL people irrespective of colour, religion and politics. He was assassinated.
Satoshi had a dream for the freedom of ALL people irrespective of colour, religion and politics. Satoshi made it unstoppable and also assassinated Nakamoto.
Imagine the reality from those dreams becoming true, unstoppable freedom for ALL Globally.
Well, you don't have to because Satoshi's Bitcoin did that for free, prepackaged Pure Human Empathy off the shelf and it still on sale to you and me...
https://image.nostr.build/e536048eaf6530165b94d53ee8fe43f88525f9ca75f6e7abe8f501391790166d.jpg

2024-09-11 00:31:55

- reply

A billion year civilisation is an iteration of a lot of broken eggs.
Fundamentally, that's why Bitcoin exchanges Pure Human Empathy. That magic sauce number that pushes Pure Human Empathy a step further on, but without abuse.
Bitcoin, break less egg's
I am a Toxic Anti-Yolker...

2024-09-11 00:12:56

- reply

What if I made you learn over time, that Exchanging Pure Human Empathy was beyond Money and totally laughable as a Fiat Currency?
Would that Immutable Truth change your point of view!?
So slowly and surely the dimmest lights fall out of view. Imagine a Human construct for Empathy where Entropy is everything but Immutable Truth.
Dude 🔥

2024-09-10 23:52:04

I hope someone can explain this to me, because I cannot fully understand why this happened.
The symbol for infinity is ∞ however, it's path crosses in the middle, at that point it's the same. Why is not the symbol for infinity a full circle no begin and no end O
π Pye does not repeat, the foundation for creating ChatGPT, so how did we get here, with counterfactual symbols?
Maybe someone will answer this perplexing question?

2024-09-10 23:26:25

- reply

Such a shame on so many levels...

2024-09-10 23:22:23

- reply

Max you are an unstoppable force, well until you are dead, but that Bitcoin it'll still be unstoppable when you and I are both soil.
Hat's off to you dude.
Exchanging Empathy Rules.

2024-09-10 23:04:29

- reply

Exactly I agree. Bitcoin is the exchange of Pure Human Empathy, in the form of a number that is that Magic Sauce, every day more people Globally realise IT. They'll say, this mother fucking Sauce is IT.
IT is Immutable Truth, if you live by IT you are IT and people recognise you for being IT.
The Wolf is IT until the Sheep is a Ghillie Suit of fuck you.
Bitcoin is Pure Human Empathy and that Peace is within you.
Peace ❤ Empathy

2024-09-10 22:42:36

- reply

Amazing, that had never been a thought of mine. Absolutely spot on.
Also just thinking, a camera to help define words that cannot be used and or words that have meanings that need to change and or that represents the World as new and not just deranged.
Well done 👏

2024-09-10 22:28:54

- reply

Amethyst seems the best I've tried on Android, but I've only been on Nostr for a week or so, but I binned Primal instantly.

2024-09-10 22:22:45

- reply

Moreover, Bitcoin is the only resistance we currently have that has a chance of resisting Psychopathic AI that doesn't compute Human Empathy. Bitcoiner's now also have the ability to push the focus away from the creation of Anti-Human AI too.
The World really needs to think about how Bitcoin and it's security could be used to stop the feeding of AI, both before and after it's actually required.

2024-09-10 18:29:00

- reply

Yep, everyone is down a Rabbit Hole and Bitcoin can guide you out to see the light.

2024-09-10 00:48:54

Bitcoin is a reflection of you and nothing else. Exchange that Pure Human Exchange with nothing but goodwill.
https://image.nostr.build/12ba9d65eb2ef39aff24cf5bc79a4f01814323aedd26467b6939677c0af0e078.jpg

2024-09-09 17:13:05

Chapter 02: Barter Exchange before Money and Numeracy: How the Direct Exchange of Pure Human Empathy Was Critical to Individuals, Families, Villages, Tribes, and Communities
Introduction
Before the advent of money and numeracy, barter was the primary method of trade, requiring trust, communication, and mutual understanding. Human empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of another, was the bedrock upon which barter systems functioned. The absence of standardised currency and widespread numeracy meant that barter was not a cold calculation of value but a deeply relational and empathetic practice. This post explores the role of empathy in barter exchanges, emphasising the qualities needed for individuals to facilitate these trades on behalf of groups such as villages and tribes. It also discusses the potential erosion of empathy and its consequences for the stability of such exchanges.
Barter Systems and the Role of Empathy
Barter, the direct exchange of goods and services without the use of money, was prevalent in early human societies. From small family units to larger tribal communities, goods such as livestock, grain, tools, and textiles were traded to meet basic needs. Without numeracy, an essential skill for calculating value, empathy became the primary currency. Traders had to understand the needs, desires, and circumstances of their counterparts. A successful barter exchange was built on an empathetic recognition of the other party’s situation, and trust was at the heart of every transaction.
In a world without numerical calculations or written contracts, barter required a deep sense of human connection. People traded not only goods but also goodwill. A farmer exchanging grain for wool had to believe that both parties were benefiting fairly. The empathy exchanged in these transactions was crucial, as misunderstandings could lead to conflicts that threatened the cohesion of the family or community.
See Table 1: Empathy in Barter Exchanges and Its Role in Different Social Units
The Qualities Required for Barterers in the Absence of Numeracy
In the absence of numeracy, not everyone was suited to conduct barter on behalf of a group. Those selected to barter on behalf of families, villages, or tribes had to possess specific qualities:
1. Empathy: The ability to understand both the needs of their community and the people they were trading with was essential. Barterers needed to consider what was fair and equitable, ensuring that the trade benefited both parties. They could not simply seek personal gain but had to represent the interests of the larger group.
2. Trustworthiness: Integrity was paramount. A barterer who acted selfishly or misrepresented their community would damage relationships, not only between individuals but between entire villages or tribes. The consequences of broken trust could be severe, leading to isolation or conflict.
3. Communication Skills: Without written contracts, barter relied on verbal agreements. Barterers needed to be skilled negotiators, capable of explaining their position clearly and understanding the concerns of others.
4. Reputation: Barterers often earned their position due to their standing in the community. A person with a reputation for fairness and honesty was more likely to be chosen for such a role, and their actions could either strengthen or weaken that reputation.
5. Generosity: While barter was an exchange of goods, it also involved an exchange of goodwill. A successful barterer needed to embody generosity—ensuring that the trade was fair not only by immediate standards but by a long-term view of the relationship.
The Importance of Pure Empathy in Barter Exchanges
For barter to work effectively, the empathy exchanged had to remain pure and untainted by selfishness. This was especially true when individuals were chosen to barter on behalf of larger groups, such as tribes or villages. A barterer acting on behalf of others had to remove personal desires from the equation entirely, considering only the needs of their community and the people with whom they were trading. Selfishness eroded the trust and fairness upon which barter was built.
In small communities where relationships were intimate and ongoing, a breakdown of empathy could have dire consequences. If a barterer began to act solely in their own interest, future trades would become fraught with mistrust. The sense of fairness that underpinned all exchanges would be lost, and individuals would be less willing to engage in future trades. The barter system would break down, and with it, the social cohesion of the community.
See Table 2: Consequences of Eroded Empathy in Barter Exchanges
Selfishness and Its Removal in Barter Processes
To ensure the success of barter exchanges, selfishness needed to be carefully managed, especially when the barterer acted on behalf of a larger group. The concept of empathy, in this context, wasn’t just a matter of personal disposition but a responsibility to the wider social unit. If the barterer allowed self-interest to influence their decisions, it would taint the purity of the exchange and, ultimately, damage relationships.
The purity of empathy in barter required transparency and generosity. The barterer had to act with a long-term view, ensuring that their actions would not only bring material benefit to their group but also foster goodwill for future exchanges. Communities thrived when bartering was based on mutual understanding, as it ensured that no one took advantage of another. Selfishness, by contrast, undermined the trust that made these societies function.
In Conclusion
Before the widespread use of money and numeracy, barter relied heavily on empathy, trust, and the ability to represent the collective interests of groups. Those who engaged in barter, especially on behalf of families or communities, were selected based on their ability to empathise and ensure fair and equitable exchanges. The purity of empathy was critical for barter to function; when it was eroded by selfishness, the entire system risked breaking down.
In these early societies, barter was not just an economic transaction but a deeply relational process that reflected the interconnectedness of individuals, families, and larger social groups. Empathy was the foundation upon which all trade was built, and its erosion threatened the very fabric of these communities. As such, the success of barter in these societies depended not just on the goods exchanged but on the human values of fairness, trust, and empathy that underpinned every transaction.
Sources:
• Glyn Davies, A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, University of Wales Press, 2002.
• David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Melville House, 2011.
• Keith Hart, Money in an Unequal World, Texere, 2001.
• Joel Kaye, A History of Balance, 1250-1375: The Emergence of a New Model of Equilibrium and Its Impact on Thought, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
https://nostrcheck.me/media/233e10e1c8e9eca04183be86b6d31266affdc3745701043a2724a3a1d45c3bb8/f4006ab72efb7ec32d4777f95cfa77820280b9eca7e84dc74d66720d718c2ff5.webp

2024-09-09 16:11:18

01 Title: Barter to Money and the Empathy that a Lack of Numeracy Could Not Induce
Introduction
The transition from barter systems to money-based economies represents one of the most significant changes in human history. Before the widespread use of money and numeracy, trade relied on empathy—human beings understanding each other's needs and negotiating directly. As money began to replace barter, the need for personal trust diminished, but without numeracy, people still struggled to calculate fair exchanges. This post examines how barter declined as money use increased, and how the lack of numeracy prevented the kind of trust and empathy that characterised earlier economic interactions.
The Role of Barter and Empathy
In early human societies, barter was the primary method of trade. Without a standardised medium of exchange, individuals and groups relied on empathy to ensure fair exchanges. A farmer trading grain for livestock, for instance, had to place themselves in the position of the other party, understanding their needs and ensuring mutual satisfaction. Barter was not just an economic exchange; it was a social interaction, built on trust and community.
However, as human societies grew more complex, the limitations of barter became evident. In large communities or long-distance trade, barter required precise knowledge of the value of goods, and the negotiation process became increasingly cumbersome. The introduction of money simplified this process, but it also began to erode the personal, empathetic connections that had been central to barter.
The Introduction of Money and the Decline of Barter
The first coins, minted in Lydia around 600 BCE, marked the beginning of a new era in economic exchange. Money allowed for standardised transactions, reducing the need for personal negotiation. The direct connection between traders, once mediated by empathy, became less important. Instead, the value of goods was abstracted into coinage, allowing trade to occur even between strangers with little trust between them.
While the introduction of money led to a gradual decline in barter, the process was slow. Barter persisted for centuries, particularly in rural areas or in times of economic hardship when coins were scarce. In medieval Europe, for instance, barter was still common among peasants, even as money became the dominant medium of exchange in urban markets. The rise of feudalism and the lack of widespread currency systems ensured that barter continued well into the Middle Ages.
The Importance of Numeracy
Though money simplified transactions, it did not entirely solve the problem of fair trade. Without numeracy, the ability to understand and work with numbers, many individuals were still vulnerable to unfair deals. Money alone could not induce the kind of empathy that was necessary for ensuring fairness in barter systems. The rise of numeracy, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, played a crucial role in levelling the playing field, allowing more people to engage in economic transactions with confidence.
Numeracy became widespread only with the advent of public education systems in Europe and North America. Before this, only elites, scribes, and merchants had the numerical skills required for complex trade. By the early 20th century, with numeracy becoming common among the general population, the need for personal trust and empathy in transactions diminished further, as individuals could now calculate value and fairness independently.
See the Chart that shows Barter, Money and Numeracy in Use over time.
Barter, Empathy, and the Consequences of Their Decline
The decline of barter and the rise of money and numeracy represent more than just changes in how people traded goods. They mark a shift from a system based on human connection and trust to one grounded in abstraction and calculation. While the modern economy allows for efficiency and scale, it has also removed much of the empathy that once governed economic exchanges.
Barter required individuals to understand and relate to one another, making each transaction a negotiation not only of value but of social relations. The empathy exchanged in these interactions was a vital part of ensuring fairness, particularly in small, close-knit communities. As money and numeracy replaced this need, the personal connections that were once essential for trade were weakened, and economic transactions became increasingly impersonal.
Conclusion
The shift from barter to money-based economies was driven by the need for a more efficient and scalable method of trade. However, as this paper has shown, this transition also led to the erosion of empathy in economic exchanges. Without numeracy, early money-based systems could not induce the same kind of fairness and trust that characterised barter. Only with the widespread introduction of numeracy did individuals gain the tools to engage in fair trade independently. Yet, even today, the loss of empathy in economic transactions remains a consequence of this historic shift.
Sources:
Glyn Davies, A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, University of Wales Press, 2002.
David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Melville House, 2011.
Joel Kaye, A History of Balance, 1250-1375: The Emergence of a New Model of Equilibrium and Its Impact on Thought, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Penguin Press, 2008.
https://nostrcheck.me/media/233e10e1c8e9eca04183be86b6d31266affdc3745701043a2724a3a1d45c3bb8/1fc862c6c5555d5c17b072df07e7b385f6a4a869b3c42dbbbdcfbef4af25340f.webp

2024-09-09 01:14:40

Empathy is not Gaming a System, Immutable Truth is beyond Abuse.
#nevent1q…3h80

2024-09-09 01:10:52

- reply

How to sanitise reality, by machines, the lack of Pure Human Empathy for others out of view.
Bitcoin fixes this soon....

2024-09-09 01:02:50

- reply

ParaBitcoin Olympics is different... https://image.nostr.build/e2516f4dad94a4f44d6f680f2d955e74af7f95e87a748beac79e4dcda89c3763.jpg

2024-09-09 00:51:22

- reply

It's more dangerous to be wrong when the Government is wrong.
Fuck Government and Exchange Pure Human Empathy via Immutable Truth.
Bitcoin.
https://image.nostr.build/e93392880695be1a97181bf041c67e2539085c437b09705af089c9782809d136.jpg

2024-09-09 00:37:45

- reply

Nostr is not Bitcoin, it's an opinion a point of view. It's not Pure Human Empathy, it's not me it's not you.
IT is a Paradox. Do you go down the Rabbit Hole or does one climb out!?
Rhetorical question reveal a brain injection.
Is there too much information beyond those that can listen. Bitcoin pulls that back.

2024-09-09 00:30:28

Everyone on Nostr, a simple thought experiment:
You have the Power to say anything you truly want;
Will that be Absolute Abuse or
Empathy for Immutable Truth?
Nostr is not Immutable Truth, it's closer, but are you?
To reflect or project, what is the point of you!?

2024-09-09 00:05:55

- reply

What so you believe in Fiat Currency, what if I told you that Bitcoin was beyond Money itself!!!

2024-09-09 00:01:19

- reply

Zero fucks...

2024-09-08 23:57:49

Bitcoin rates Agency. The Pure Human Empathy in the World of the Clown.
Rate your own Agency, exchange Empathy and Repress the Clowns 🤡 https://image.nostr.build/47a76e8cb97c31215129e83ce30984fe11f3d74c7a7e5e2000017516b7857ade.jpg

2024-09-08 23:50:15

If you don't exchange Pure Human Immutable Empathy for others, you are done, IT is the truth.
Otherwise the Auschwitz train is coming for you.
To avoid that exchange Pure Human Empathy via Immutable Truth. That is Bitcoin. https://image.nostr.build/d4f13a8098c5aea5e77183d90ed782f7ecdb6f1efe602fc3a5ced5f2ab47bd13.gif

2024-09-08 23:28:50

- reply

Surely there is only one answer. That is to exchange Empathy via Immutable Truth.
Everything thing else is abuse to do not.
Bitcoin holds you to account for everything that you do.
Sounds like religion, but without abuse.
Bytheway, love u.

2024-09-08 23:21:12

- reply

Humans can paint life, however, can they remove the paint and exchange pure human empathy for the Immutable Truth of life without the paint.
Bitcoin did IT.
Empathy Squared.
Come out of that Pandora's Box, a Rabbit Hole of suppression and enjoy.
Come out of that Rabbit Hole 🕳
Exchange Pure Human Empathy and more...

2024-09-08 22:52:15

- reply

There is only one Human Construct that represents Immutable Truth and exchanges Pure Human Empathy in Rebuke of everything else.
That is Bitcoin, exchanging Pure Human Empathy, Globally, without Fear or Favour and fully Auditable approximately every 10 minutes.
Unlike Dorian Nakamoto who was falsely accused by Pure Human Empathy for Immutable Truth.
If you're still searching for the exchange of pure human empathy for Immutable Truth, you missed IT!!!
https://image.nostr.build/0d6f3ad875211d66fefe90c4afba868589b678fad14cc4eec08bae0e74e2ba2e.jpg

2024-09-07 23:45:48

Capturing Empathy!?
#nevent1q…49ah

2024-09-07 23:22:10

Title: Barter Exchange Before Money and Numeracy: How All Exchanges Were a Direct Exchange of Human Empathy
Introduction
Before the invention of money and numeracy, humans engaged in barter, a system driven by empathy, trust, and mutual understanding. This post explores how human empathy was the foundation of exchange in the absence of standardised currency and numeracy. Parity between the use of money and numeracy wasn’t achieved until the 20th century, significantly altering human interaction.
https://image.nostr.build/dbc715685be590aece43c896ba8cbde1cc46c96d515b71c4992f0ff3f01158f9.jpg
Barter Systems and Empathy
Long before coins were minted in Lydia (~600 BCE), humans traded directly, exchanging goods such as grain, livestock, and tools. In these transactions, empathy was critical. Without numeracy, people had to negotiate with an understanding of each other’s needs, making empathy the true “currency” of these exchanges. Trust, rooted in personal relationships, was essential for successful barter.
The following is in order of the Era, the System, Empathys Role, was Money Introduced and what was the Numeracy Level at that time.
Prehistoric (before 6000 BCE) Barter Essential for trust No No
Mesopotamia (~3000 BCE) Barter + Trade Central to trade No Limited to elite
Lydia (~600 BCE) Coined Money Declining role Yes Still rare
Roman Empire (~200 BCE - 400 CE) Monetary Economy Some role remains Yes Growing for elite
Middle Ages (~500-1500 CE) Feudal Barter + Currency Key in rural areas Yes Limited numeracy
19th-20th Century (~1800-1950 CE) Monetary System Less empathy Yes Widespread numeracy
The Role of Empathy in Trade
Barter systems required empathy as traders had no numerical metrics or money to guide exchanges. Trust between individuals was critical for negotiating value. Human empathy ensured fair exchanges, strengthened communities, and was the basis of survival.
Impact of Money and Numeracy
When money emerged, starting with Lydia, it reduced the direct role of empathy in exchanges by standardising value. Over time, the spread of numeracy—basic arithmetic skills that became common between 1900-1950—transformed how individuals engaged in trade. Parity was finally reached when people could both use money and understand its abstract value.
Conclusion
Before money and numeracy became widespread, barter was based on empathy. As modern economies developed, the personal and empathetic aspects of exchange diminished. Understanding this reminds us that economic systems once required deeper human connection—an essential part of early trade that deserves reflection in today’s complex world.
Sources:
Glyn Davies, A History of Money
David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money
Joel Kaye, A History of Balance, 1250-1375
Importantly, Empathy could not be transferred in to Money as humans did not have the level of numeracy to allow that to happen and Money was not strong enough to accept that Empathy in any event.

2024-09-07 21:00:09

- reply

Bitcoin exchanging Pure Human Empathy approximately every 10 minutes. Immutable and fully Auditable. https://image.nostr.build/24a21d5b8448a8a806826cf3efe03916b0c4b6b3c8069a5e3372e502dba92f67.gif

2024-09-05 00:49:08

- reply

Should IT be illegal, IT being Immutable Truth.
Exchanging Empathy by Immutable Truth, is IT different!?
Is gaming Toxic?
IT is not!

2024-09-05 00:15:47

When you become a Bitcoiner, you sacrifice your hatred.
If you are a Toxic Bitcoiner, what's the game, what's left to be gamed!?
Nothing, it's the same, the words are just different. The only game is to try and influence people with words.
As such, a Toxic Bitcoiner is just a Bitcoiner who is trying to game something that cannot be gamed!
So, is a Toxic Bitcoiner different from a Bitcoiner and if so how?
Is there a different game of which I'm unaware?

2024-09-04 23:28:52

Nostr:
Your Public Key
Your Private Key
Your Empathy.
Bitcoin:
Your Public Key
Your Private Key
Your Empathy.
The difference:
The ultimate security of censorship attack
One is valued above opinion.
One is the Pure Exchange of Human Empathy the other is not.
Both are a force for good.
One is subject to Human manipulation.
Know Immutable Truth is IT and exchange your Pure Empathy based upon IT.
Peace and have fun ❤

2024-09-04 23:07:50

Nostr, just think about this. You have the power to express absolutely anything you want to say without fear.
Is it also true that what you say will not result in favour?
As always, that Pure Exchange of Human Empathy is upon you.
That is why Bitcoin Exchanges Pure Human Empathy, before you can speak of it and or illicit favour for doing so.
Nostr, stay humble 🙏
Peace ❤

2024-09-03 23:25:52

- reply

The "Empathy Exchanger"

2024-09-03 23:02:51

Imagine if the laughing at decentralisation had produced Dogecoin as DogCatecoin!
The ticker may have been DogCat. The coins icon may have been a Dog and Cat kissing.
Mastodon may have been CatDogGone.
Imagine if exchanging Pure Human Empathy was as simple as liking and exchanging images and or icons of Cats or Dogs.
Bitcoin proves that exchanging Pure Human Empathy isn't that simple.
If you share an image of your Cat or Dog over the Internet, what are you telling the world?
This is a rhetorical post in search of exchanging Pure Human Empathy. I'm sure that I will be corrected if not.
Peace ❤

2024-09-03 22:27:37

- reply

Exchanging Pure Human Empathy is rewarded.
Before Money there was Barter, obviously that was mainly before Money but it was also many thousands of years before people had numerousy.
Imagine trying to exchange things without Money and more importantly without any concept of numbers.
The real exchange is very hard to imagine as part of a Human Construct. If you try and forget maths and Money too, which is very hard to do, you will realise that the exchange is the pure human empathy of all parties.
Money has never been able to perfectly rate that exchange. Bitcoin gets very close to perfectly rating that exchange.
Nostr is trying to exchange the same Pure Human Empathy, but without the security and protection of the Bitcoin protocol.
This is not a criticism, it's an observation of the process of evolution, well that's my intention and what's in my mind as I type this.
The power to say and exchange what you want, is only a power in the long term if you do good.
The exchange of pure human empathy by, close to, immutable truth, is a power for good. I doubt whether you can abuse IT, but the power is in you, why would you try.
Peace ❤

2024-09-02 12:44:40

- reply

For me, the value is "What Pure Human Empathy is being exchanged"
Is that what you mean or something else and or in addition?

2024-09-01 23:20:44

David Starkey. IMHO the Star key isn't your public key. It's worth watching, even if you've seen IT before, just for the Empathy.
https://youtu.be/UCU1QnMr0n8?si=ADm61z2cHhaOGbQR

2024-09-01 11:42:05

Good morning peeps. Part of this image is immovable, the rest is not, when you engage IT for long enough.
Not AI. IT is Immutable Truth.
https://m.primal.net/KYhH.jpg

2024-09-01 10:09:27

Good morning peeps. Part of this image is immovable, the rest is not, when you engage IT for long enough.
Not AI. IT is Immutable Truth.
https://m.primal.net/KYbv.jpg

2024-09-01 00:49:59

- reply

Agreed. In my life so far I see it as sort of distilled to this;-
Discovering Empathy;
Exchanging Empathy;
Seeing Empathy and it's Exchange is abused;
Discovering Immutable Truth;
Exchanging Immutable Truth;
Discovering Immutable Empathy;
Exchanging Immutable Empathy and
Now I wait to see the Reality that introduces and what results.

2024-08-31 12:15:07

- reply

Great Alex, how about a name like Brazen Descaradao. Great work as always, well done.

2024-08-30 18:36:02

- reply

I absolutely agree, all forms of Money have and do remove part of the pure empathy that should be exchanged to lesser and greater amounts.