We are under
the illusion that we own money. We
imagine that – it
is our unit of exchange, a way of expressing and trading value. It is not.
Money is a virus. I do not mean
it is like a virus I mean it is a virus.
An organic
virus (like a cold or flu) is a piece of genetic information whose prime aim is
to reproduce itself. Similarly, a
computer virus is a piece of digital information whose prime aim is to
reproduce itself. Likewise, money is a
piece of information – an idea - whose prime aim is to reproduce itself.
We imagine
that we own money, that it makes us rich, so we can buy things, that makes us
happy - so owning lots of money makes us happier. Every step in this can be questioned, but
especially the first – that we own money.
When we realise that money is a virus that owns us, then things start to
fall into place.
Viruses
cannot reproduce on their own, they can only replicate themselves by infecting
a host. Viruses are parasitic. Whilst
they may sometimes appear to give the host an advantage, in practice the
advantage is to the parasite, not the host.
Toxoplasmosis,
for instance, can make a mouse (it’s host) more brave than normal. It gives a mouse courage. This seems like an advantage but in practice
it just makes the mouse more easily caught by the cat, the second host for
toxoplasmosis. This enables the spread
of the parasite.
Some
parasites make the host do the opposite of what is good for it. For instance, a parasitic fly causes an
infected snail to climb up a grass stem, away from the damp environment they
usually favour. The snail dies there but
the emerging fly has a higher launch pad, so is able to fly off more easily.
We are host
organisms for money. Money appears to
give advantages to us, its host, giving a sense of advantage over others who
have less money. However, we all know
the phrase “Money goes to money” i.e. those with money generate more
money. Money’s objective is to expand
itself. Conferring an apparent advantage
to the host was just the mechanism of achieving it. The parasite (money) grows and the host
organism (a human) enables it. If
another host can grow money more effectively, then the first host is rejected
in favour of another. The advantage may
appear to be to the host, but in practice the advantage is to the virus.
With this in
mind, we could view those with a lot of money in a very different light. Instead of appearing “rich” or “prosperous” (remember
the brave mouse!), they can be viewed as the most heavily infected. These individuals have been positively
selected for characteristics that favour the parasitic money virus. And their character will have been further
altered by the parasite to the advantage of the parasite. In the process their humanity has been skewed
away from human values and towards a set of characteristics that support the
spread of money.
Over
millennia, humans have evolved to be hyper-social animals with advanced characteristics
of empathy, sympathy, co-operation, community, commons and society. In contrast, it is to the advantage of money
to favour competition, and favour those who are the most aggressive competitors. There is evidence of selective pressure in
favour of psychopathic tendencies in hard-nosed business leaders for example. Those with the strongest ability to grow
money at the cost of any other quality, are favoured. The higher human qualities of our
evolutionary past are not to the advantage of money, so these are degraded and
viewed as irrelevant or weak by those who are most heavily infected by the
money virus.
Parasites
also affect the behaviour of whole populations.
For example, the presence of a gnat in Finland will determine the way a
vast herd of reindeer behave. This
biting insect is a weak flyer, so the reindeer avoid it’s impact by walking
into the wind. This determines the route
reindeer take in migration, influencing their grazing behaviour. A parasite has affected the direction of the
herd, thus impacting on the whole ecosystem.
A similar line of reasoning could explain the recent rise of bigotry in
many political systems. Higher societal
values of science and rationality are subordinated to money. The stories associated with the growth of money
are held dear even when clearly fictitious or shown to be basic untruths. Money has affected our behaviour so much that
we, as a population, willingly ignore inconvenient scientific fact in favour of
a good story. Look not only at the rise
of climate denial, but also the degradation of the views of scientific experts. By denying rationality in favour of fictions
that support the concept of limitless growth, a parasite has affected the
direction of society thus impacting (fatally) on the whole biosphere.
To money,
the environment is a source of raw materials for exploitation to enable its
expansion and a dumping ground for its waste.
It gets away with this by persuading host organisms that these are
externalities that need not concern us when considering the advantages the
parasite (money) confers on its host (humans).
It matters little to money (which is after all only a concept) if the
environment and humans are destroyed in the process. Money persuades us that money is for humans
and that the environment is a cost or external to “real life” (how often have
you heard complaints on how much it costs to look after the environment?). In fact, it is the opposite – humans and
environment are the reality; money is a concept competing with reality.
As with most
diseases, the solution must be to build up resistance and generate immunity. We should recognise the characteristics demanded
by the money virus as being different to characteristics required by humanity. Money demands you to be a consumer, humanity
requires you to be a citizen. Money demands
competition above all else, but in a well-balanced, healthy world competition
must be subordinated to the higher values of citizenship, society and
community. Money demands freedom from
any restriction enabling the host and its money to expand above all else. However, freedom from restriction must fit
within community and society and should be subordinated to empathy and
sympathy.
Just because
you have money, however, does not mean you are evil! So, for example, perhaps we can view strong
philanthropists as part of the fight-back against the virus. Those with money who are (often against the
advice of financial advisors) using their money to support higher human values
may be part of achieving population immunity.
Amazing things are done, here in Sussex and across the world, because of
the support given by donors and supporters.
Like using a vaccine against infection, the application of money
beneficially is part of building up resistance against the wider infection.
We need a reversal
of our relationship with money. Money
cannot continually expand, continually draw all into its sphere or continue to
override all other qualities. Instead of
money controlling humans, humans must control money. Value exists and money is one way of
expressing value, but only when it falls under human control. Money must be there to deliver human benefit,
with all the difficult decisions and democracy that that will involve.