Human beings are the only species to trade that I am aware of with our form of living being dictated by a social constructed science known as economics.
While other animals do exchanges amongst each other for pleasure this seems to be more of a barter which I assure you is much more different then that of the subject known as trade.
It is interesting to note that what most people think to be the foundation of natural human advances and progression is nothing but an extension of this synthetic system being in all actuality a prosthetic itself.
Even more interesting is that this social science called economics is guided by morality another insidious synthetic device.
Although one can certainly entertain questioning a supported delusion of synthesis, it is not likely to avail them of anything positive.
I’ve had this conversation with my own parents, and attempted, however lightly, to inform them that the foundations of the reality they purport, are not only denigrating to the species, but lack any factual nature outside of the conjectured reality we project.
Humans disappear, economics no longer exists, neither do any of its attached institutions. Not only were they resistant to the possibility, they were highly irritated by my pronouncement of such.
I don’t question your inclusion of morality into the institution, it appears to be highly plausible.
Now by taking trade and economics with other prosthetics like that of moral religion, one can truely see the syntheticism I have been talking about on this website ever since I’ve been here.
The prime motive of all humanity: apathy and idleness, the very same reason as for our unstoppable drive for technological advance.
If man can herd animals, the food stays right outside his door. He expends less energy, travels less, can protect the food source with greater ease, and it also helped in the creation of defined territories and security of such.
Barter is a type of trade that doesn’t use any medium of exchange.
I believe the medium of exchange that comes into direction of constructed values is the synthetic projection of man’s imagination.
Synthesis is when man takes his constructed synthetic values in formation of his complex goals from simpler components that exist around him in nature. Man doesn’t live amongst nature he lives through his complex ideals and values instead thus, it can be explained that man lives through a synthetic or prosthetic form of living.
Precisely, the hyper-reality of a constructed world, versus an actual Universe that is passionless, emotionless and unconcerned with our presence.
I’ve heard masses of criticism from “professional philosophers” about Jean Baudrillard’s “Simulcra and Simulation”. In their arrogance they miss the prime directive of contemplation: pragmatics and utility. Arriving at conclusions that are factual and representative of the lives of humanity, not through bias, and “I like to believe this is how we live”.
Our hyper-awareness given to us as a matter of genetic function causes the “observer of the observer” to become too overly enthralled with discussing with itself, internally. That internal discourse becomes more important that dealing with what “is”, we prefer the “ought”.
If I had a more appropriate word, I would use it, but for lack, dialectics are a travesty of the genetic necessity of awareness. We are befuddled from the constant conversation, unable to see, (internal moving to external), that we are trapped in circular conversation with a global population of self-adoring “observers”.
Consensus reality, (simulation) is, most egregiously, an observable fact, and my apologies for lessening your thread with crassness, but it quite rather sucks. Without the objectification that arises from our perceptual attachment through, of and to others, we have no reality. Thus, hyper-reality, where we live on a plane of existence, that is metaphysically supplanted over Universal, (working, observable, non-human), reality.
In the words of a venerable cosmologist, Zhuangzi:
I awoke, not certain if I was the man dreaming he was a butterfly, or the butterfly dreaming he was a man.
Although, I think like you, if I am not overreaching, “nightmare” might be a more apt description of where we currently reside in “conversation”, (simulacra), and “awakening”, (empirically restoring correct thinking), from the fog of this self-inflicted nightmare doesn’t appear to be an option at present.
I thought about the barter aspect before answering, and under the social reality, there would have to be a prime mover and agent of transaction, in my own estimation.
Not meant as criticism, how do you arrive at the conclusion that barter lacks a medium of exchange?
