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

Do you know what's real!?

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.

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

You look different :)

Put it on here please.

Kawaii is better than being a Ladybird :)

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).

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.

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...

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.

:)

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.

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

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

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.

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

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...

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...

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 🔥

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?