Money owns us

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.