The Reputation Economy in Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom
I am building up a compendium of new concepts from reading science fiction that is more fresh:
1.Ad-hocracy;
2.Transhumanism; and
3.Reputation Economy
are the ones I currently find most intriguing, and Down and Out has all three of them. One interesting thing that happened in today’s reading had to do with the reputation economy. The society in Down and Out is called The Bitchun Society. The basic fiscal unit of the Bitchun Society’s reputation economy is the Whuffie. The main character, Julian, lost so many Whuffies that he went to his runabout one day and found it had gone. Somebody else could simply make more popular use of his car than he could. He or she had consequently simply gotten into the car and driven away in it.
Intriguingly, this seems to indicate that in the Bitchun Society, there is no private ownership. Anybody can confiscate one’s property at any time if one’s Whuffie score does not merit its use. Similarly, Julian went to enter his hotel room only to discover that his swipe key no longer worked. In his absence, the room had simply been reallocated to someone else.
This basically tells me that one’s Whuffie score entitles one to certain kinds of amenities. No matter how low one’s Whuffie becomes, one is always entitled to the bare necessities of survival. Food and shelter will always be forthcoming. But in order to have anything else, one must earn a higher Whuffie score, which one accomplishes simply through popular acts. People who meet one can give one Whuffies, thereby increasing one’s score until one can use greater amenities.
Some amenities, like restaurants, might become very popular. People might come from miles around to dine at them. What would determine whether anyone could access them or not, would no longer be money. On the one hand, one might imagine waiting lists for people that would simply grow very large. On the other hand, one could use Whuffie scores as cutoff marks, so that one would need a high amount of Whuffies if one wanted to use the facilities.
What would be the incentive of the restauranteurs to use either system? Well, to begin with, people would have a basic incentive to increase their Whuffie score as much as possible. If they had very long waiting lists, then this would earn them Whuffies by the people they were actually serving. It would, however, not earn them Whuffies from people who had to wait a long time. On the other hand, Whuffies would probably not be Whuffies. That is, they would probably be weighted according to the Whuffie scores of the people who gave them out. Hence, high-Whuffie patrons’ Whuffies would receive a greater weight than low-Whuffie patrons. Consequently, it would be in the best interests of the restaurant to allow only high-scoring patrons into the restaurant. Their scores would give a greater score to the restaurant itself.
Of course, these cutoff marks would not be etched in stone. They would be based on supply and demand. If the restaurant discovered that it wasn’t getting a high enough intake at a certain Whuffie cutoff, then it would lower its cutoff until the intake levelled out. Presumably, however, the restaurant would need some kind of cutoff at the outset. Otherwise, it would never be able to accept bookings.
Of course, some restaurants are not based on bookings, such as the various franchises. In that case, entry would be purely on a first-come, first-served basis. But the kinds of people to patronise such restaurants would not typically be high-Whuffie clients. In this case, these people would not be trying to get 10,000 weighted Whuffies off every 10,000th customer. They would simply be trying to get a Whuffie off everybody. Any especially highly-weighted Whuffie that came their way would simply be a bonus, but it is not something for which they would be budgeting at the outset.
This system would, however, be less fair in some ways than the current monetary economy. Even a poor person could save up over a long time to earn the right to a meal at a fancy restaurant. But there would be no way for a low-Whuffie person to “save” enough Whuffies to do this.
I presume that each person can only give a Whuffie once to someone else. One can give a Whuffie to as many different people as one likes, but one can do this only once for any one person. Beyond that, the worth of that Whuffie to that person will be a question of weighting. The most obvious system of weighting will be in terms of that person’s overall Whuffie score. One could, however, choose a more personal means of weighting. For example, one could weight the Whuffie score according to Whuffies earned by people to whom one had already given Whuffies oneself. In other words, one’s personal opinions of the people who gave out the Whuffies could also be important. That would be yet another way that some people could earn the right to certain amenities. Hence, there would be impersonally weighted Whuffies and personally weighted Whuffies.
The idea of a reputation economy is intriguing. But it is not at all obviously a superior economy to what we already have. I don’t think I trust public opinion as a key to privilege any more than I do dollars and cents.
1.Ad-hocracy;
2.Transhumanism; and
3.Reputation Economy
are the ones I currently find most intriguing, and Down and Out has all three of them. One interesting thing that happened in today’s reading had to do with the reputation economy. The society in Down and Out is called The Bitchun Society. The basic fiscal unit of the Bitchun Society’s reputation economy is the Whuffie. The main character, Julian, lost so many Whuffies that he went to his runabout one day and found it had gone. Somebody else could simply make more popular use of his car than he could. He or she had consequently simply gotten into the car and driven away in it.
Intriguingly, this seems to indicate that in the Bitchun Society, there is no private ownership. Anybody can confiscate one’s property at any time if one’s Whuffie score does not merit its use. Similarly, Julian went to enter his hotel room only to discover that his swipe key no longer worked. In his absence, the room had simply been reallocated to someone else.
This basically tells me that one’s Whuffie score entitles one to certain kinds of amenities. No matter how low one’s Whuffie becomes, one is always entitled to the bare necessities of survival. Food and shelter will always be forthcoming. But in order to have anything else, one must earn a higher Whuffie score, which one accomplishes simply through popular acts. People who meet one can give one Whuffies, thereby increasing one’s score until one can use greater amenities.
Some amenities, like restaurants, might become very popular. People might come from miles around to dine at them. What would determine whether anyone could access them or not, would no longer be money. On the one hand, one might imagine waiting lists for people that would simply grow very large. On the other hand, one could use Whuffie scores as cutoff marks, so that one would need a high amount of Whuffies if one wanted to use the facilities.
What would be the incentive of the restauranteurs to use either system? Well, to begin with, people would have a basic incentive to increase their Whuffie score as much as possible. If they had very long waiting lists, then this would earn them Whuffies by the people they were actually serving. It would, however, not earn them Whuffies from people who had to wait a long time. On the other hand, Whuffies would probably not be Whuffies. That is, they would probably be weighted according to the Whuffie scores of the people who gave them out. Hence, high-Whuffie patrons’ Whuffies would receive a greater weight than low-Whuffie patrons. Consequently, it would be in the best interests of the restaurant to allow only high-scoring patrons into the restaurant. Their scores would give a greater score to the restaurant itself.
Of course, these cutoff marks would not be etched in stone. They would be based on supply and demand. If the restaurant discovered that it wasn’t getting a high enough intake at a certain Whuffie cutoff, then it would lower its cutoff until the intake levelled out. Presumably, however, the restaurant would need some kind of cutoff at the outset. Otherwise, it would never be able to accept bookings.
Of course, some restaurants are not based on bookings, such as the various franchises. In that case, entry would be purely on a first-come, first-served basis. But the kinds of people to patronise such restaurants would not typically be high-Whuffie clients. In this case, these people would not be trying to get 10,000 weighted Whuffies off every 10,000th customer. They would simply be trying to get a Whuffie off everybody. Any especially highly-weighted Whuffie that came their way would simply be a bonus, but it is not something for which they would be budgeting at the outset.
This system would, however, be less fair in some ways than the current monetary economy. Even a poor person could save up over a long time to earn the right to a meal at a fancy restaurant. But there would be no way for a low-Whuffie person to “save” enough Whuffies to do this.
I presume that each person can only give a Whuffie once to someone else. One can give a Whuffie to as many different people as one likes, but one can do this only once for any one person. Beyond that, the worth of that Whuffie to that person will be a question of weighting. The most obvious system of weighting will be in terms of that person’s overall Whuffie score. One could, however, choose a more personal means of weighting. For example, one could weight the Whuffie score according to Whuffies earned by people to whom one had already given Whuffies oneself. In other words, one’s personal opinions of the people who gave out the Whuffies could also be important. That would be yet another way that some people could earn the right to certain amenities. Hence, there would be impersonally weighted Whuffies and personally weighted Whuffies.
The idea of a reputation economy is intriguing. But it is not at all obviously a superior economy to what we already have. I don’t think I trust public opinion as a key to privilege any more than I do dollars and cents.
Comments