Avatar
Joe Bloggs
233e10e1c8e9eca04183be86b6d31266affdc3745701043a2724a3a1d45c3bb8
Exchanging Pure Human Empathy Globally one transaction at a time. Living beyond the Algorithm and any Psychopathic AI. https://medium.com/@j0e810ggs

The 'Opportunity' is the Exchange of Pure Human Empathy.

I get it's baby steps, but, KYI is needed here, Know Your Influencer.

Your Influencer may see you as an 'Opportunity' as apposed to rebalancing a system of abuse, they may rebalance the 'Opinion of You' what an 'Opportunity' that is for them.

When Opportunity Knocks, what do you do?

Stand up and perform for the Clap-o-meter to approve you.

Exchanging Pure Human Empathy without fear or favour is everything, don't get lost in anything else.

Literally, no they don't.

Unfortunately, I know.

Replying to Avatar Joe Bloggs

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

nostr:nprofile1qqsfccf03dms7r3l6dwd4s4u2l7waptpu4s9qn4ztj9ealuwqdgjk0spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3erxtnpvd6xutnfduq3camnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9euk7atvda6zummjvuq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwd36k66twvyh8ymmrddesfpqtr8

Hi Troy, I hope you and yours are all well and everything is going great for you too?

I'd be really interested in your opinion on some of the notes I have written and that I am going to continue to write as this expands to it's ultimate conclusion. Below is one I have done which I've linked as an example. I think you'll find it quite interesting.

I started at 00 and have done upto 06, so that's 7 so far and over 10,000 words across them all. I'm trying to make them naturally follow on from the previous one. The first one, 00 is heavily abridged, but I do have the unabridged version, just so you know.

Hope you like it and any pointers or thoughts you may have to help improve what I'm doing would be greatly appreciated. If you are too busy, that's fine by me and I completely understand.

Here is 01 below, if you find you have the time;-

nostr:nevent1qqsq0vqxamw7wy8v4ahrkwnrlmm7lfamrkgrmhpmhrupvy7usaa37xcpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0qgszx0ssu8ywnm9qgxpmap4k6vfxdtlacd69wqgy8gnjfgap63wrhwqrqsqqqqqpy6xvwf

Since 2014, under this and other identities, I tried to warn people of Scammers. Over the years I've learnt, some people are attracted to fire, so much so that they keep on getting closer and closer to the flames. These people turn upon you, like a cult linch mob, like your warnings are just to steal their bags lol.

They get hot, sparks fly out and they get burnt. However not dissuaded the move closer and closer still, until they suffer 70 degree burns and some do pay the ultimate price.

Those people need to get burnt so badly, because without such pain they'll never change.

Let the Scammers teach them a lesson they will never forget. It's an educational service, expensive financial advice.

I've been here a few weeks, it takes a bit of time to figure it out.

My tip, is find people who you share empathy with and follow them. I'd go over 100. Then you can flick between global and smaller pool of voices and find and add more or not.

That's what I ended up doing, otherwise global is angry berserk mode and by following too few it's tumbleweeds a-go-go.

Hope that's of help.

Just make sure you break the cycle of abuse, so no "to me, to you" :))))

Agreed, I'm doing a lot of research and make notes on here as I go. So far starting at 00 I'm up to 06 (so 7 notes of research that are circa 10k words)

I intend to continue, Bitcoin will be inevitable, as the more research I do, it cannot be otherwise.

When Barter went to Collectables, Commodity Money, Fiat Currency and Numeracy has yet to achieve the same level of use. Then nearly every exchange has become tarnished with that eroded exchange of Empathy.

I wrote this, I believe it's really what you are feeling?

nostr:nevent1qqsq0vqxamw7wy8v4ahrkwnrlmm7lfamrkgrmhpmhrupvy7usaa37xcasp2dt

Replying to Avatar Joe Bloggs

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

Tell that to the Genesis Block.

Pure Human Empathy via Immutable Truth is not that simple in my opinion.

But that's just me and what I think, for what that's worth 😆

When was Trump born, 14th June 1946, circa one year after the end of World War 2.

He has seen a lot of Snow. Bitcoin quietly launched in 2009, that's 67 years after he was born.

What are you going to discover when you are 67 that still will not be a thing until you are 82 years old.

Zoom out and come back in, then exchange Pure Human Empathy.

He is a shitcoiner, he is not a communist. However, there's a lot more Empathy that's not being shared.

But that's just what I think, for what that's worth 😆

To be fair, everyone sees Bitcoin from their own perspective because that is all they can do.

Saylor sees IT from his point of view.

He seems to have expressed that in ways that have expanded his vision of Bitcoin to others.

Someone who swaps from X platform to N client is only worth pointing out as a guide to what?

I think there is a whole lot to unravel there, but is the nett result an expansion of Pure Human Empathy?

It's very clear that... run.linguistics.alpha.program -all -bend to me -or be cringe -by decree