Environmental Incentivising app

Okay this is partly inspired by what @dirvine said about apps being programmed to “want” to do things. And then I watched this:

And the short of it is that at one point our atmosphere was inhospitable to carbon based life forms, then over time due to environment and ecological changes, namely the introduction of plant life and lots of it, over time carbon was trapped in the earth and oxygen was released into the atmosphere thus changing the constitution of said atmosphere. Ergo it became breathable and life sustaining. Therefore fossil fuels can be seen as “trapped toxic atmosophere.” Now I’m not going to say burning fossil fuels are “bad”. For example having a woodstove or burning a campfire isn’t bad. But when you burn MORE than you plant, thus release more toxic gas than the plant life can reabsorb back and convert into oxygen, that is bad. Now we all know about the climate change debates and one of the major contentions is something called the carbon tax. Basically the idea is taxing people for using polluting devices and releasing CO2. Now that’s fine if you live in a city and can take public transit. If you’re out in a rural area you’re dependent on having independent transportation, and if you’re way out there you might need a gas generator or dun da dun, a wood stove (which again is why making wood stoves illegal is a monumentally stupid idea). Also I’m against taxation on general principle.

But that got me thinking. What if you turned the idea around? What if you created an app to PAY people to go green and promote green projects? Set up renewable energy for people, plant trees, set up composting projects, establish and switch to public transit, buy and use electric cars, etc etc. If you can tax it obviuosly it has financial value. So what if you flipped the equation around and paid people that financial value every time they did something GOOD for the environment instead of trying to punish them every time they did something bad. Now obviously this would require people to actually physically get off their butts and actually do stuff so there would need to be some kind of reputation and vetting mechanism that would confirm that yes in fact a person had in fact planted those trees or installed those solar panels, etc, etc. But let’s assume we could figure that out. I’m thinking that this should work much like SAFE does, there are a set amount of resources on the planet, there’s a high demand for various resources (trees planeted, renewable energy, permaculture, organic food, clean water, etc etc), and so all these values could be entered. The app would then take these values and then distribute coin to those promoting these values in proportion to which they provided the service. So for instance right now there’s a HIGH demand for plant life to counteract all the CO2 being released into the atmosphere so you’d be awared a lot of coin for planting trees or setting up renewable green energy that offset the need for fossel fuels. The app could also be configure to award coin by geographic location. I mean in a dessert plant life and water are at an all time high. Optimally you’d want to be able to plant trees to reverse desertification. In a forest you’ve got plenty but you want to manage forest fires properly. And in any environment there’s ecosystems to learn about and manage properlty, again that could be data the app could handle and pay people to do. You get paid to enter data on various ecosystems and keep them up to data, you get paid for promoting the environment, you get paid coin for promoting the right kind of environment. If there’s a shortage of wetlands and marshes that can be entered too, if there’s a rise in ocean acidification that can be entered, if there’s a decline in a species that can be entered, and the app then adjusts how much people are paid according to the need. Of course all these entries need to be vetted. Which leads to the next point. Payout = Need * Vetting * Reputation. So the app would take into account how much need there is for an action * how much the action has been confirmed to have occured * how good that particular user’s reputation is to produce possitively vetted results. If someone with a bad reputation starts planting trees and gets people to vet him, he can still make cash, but it’ll be more difficult than if he had a good or neutral reputation to start with. Or if someone with a good reputation works building a solar panel but no one can confirm he did it, he still gets coin but not as much as if others can prove he did it. “Oh you sent in a picture of installing a solar panel, okay here’s $5, good job.” You get a bunch of people to confirm you actually did it “Yay, we believe you! Here’s $50 or $100 bucks!” Or whatever it works out to. As I said payout = need * vetting * reputation. If someone of reputation is vetted doing something that isn’t that badly needed, again it isn’t rewarded as highly as if they did something of higher importance. Coin is created when users are confirmed having done something good for the environment. Coin is destroyed over time so long as there are more pollutants than the environment can clean up. This process is to simulate financially the ecological degradation of the Earths biome. So if the coin reached 0, that would be Earth being an unlivable toxic wasteland. As it stands we’re kind of in that spot as it is. Now I’m not sure how to pull this off. Because the only way to get all these readings is by relying on already established clearnet data half the time. Hopefully over time the app could run entirely off of user input. But as it stands we might need to make do with scientific sources from various institutions and such.

Anyway I’m open to ideas on how to revise the program. But what do you think about an app that “wants” to go green and rewards people according? I’m still a little fuzzy on properly stabalize the app’s metablism so to speak.


Positive reinforcement as public policy, that would be music to my ears and other thousands of psychologists who have been talking about this for ages.
Punishment as deterrent has been proven again and again that doesn’t work, both evident in public policy as well as in 7 decades of psychology researches on behavioral change. It is catastrophically ineffective, and yet “popular wisdom” wins everytime over rational empirical studies in every country in the world.

Watch the following:

And lastly:

Positive reinforecement (rewards, subsidies, recognition, incentives), is it way more effective than punishment (taxing, infractions or jailtime), and makes life way more fun.

On the other hand, what you propose specifically about renewable energies is already being applied and they are called RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates), which green energy producers are granted 1 REC per megawatt of energy put in the grid, which can be sold to those consumers who want to use green energy. The certificate holder buys the REC which in turn finances the green energy producer. This is the system behind the renewable energy economy.
There is a startup that specifically focuses on providing S-REC (Solar RECs) to the end user through a plug: https://sunport.co/ it is a cool project, check it out.


Yeah I see the future of charities being things that follow this model.

For example, donating to a charity in the future will be much more like putting $$/SafeCoin etc into a big pot (dao?), that gets distributed to people who achieve that goal (feeding starving people, planting trees, cleaning up neighborhoods etc).

Or maybe we’ll just create robots / GMO bacteria that clean everything and keep the atmosphere at the healthiest levels for free.

IDK. Fun brain exercises :slight_smile:

Similar thoughts here when I first found out about Bitcoin.

I had this idea that you could incentivise humans to build machines that would do specific tasks.


I’m against subsidization as that just leads to both corruption of the market and of the political system. I’m talking more about creating a resource economy. Look if you plant a tree you are providing a resource, just like if you were providing HDD space to the SAFE network, and therefore the econet or whatever we end up calling it rewards that resource with a measure of an altcoin. So everytime you provide natures biosphere with resources you get provided with coins in return. And if vendors started say charging ecocoin for things that COST the environment (because if they are using ecocoin then it will cost them the more they harm the environment and benefit them the more they do that help the environment) and the gave discounts on ecocoin for things that provided resources to the environment it would soon play into the market that you could not only provide resources by going green but also save money by making ecologically friendly choices.

Oh hell no lets stay away from anything GMO. There’s no quick fix. Besides most everything can already be cleaned up naturally already if we just apply the proper methods. There have even been discovered plastic and oil eating mushrooms and what not. And wasn’t there that guy who invented a way to convert plastic back into oil? So my point is there are plenty of natural cleanup methods already available we just need to apply them. The problem is it would require a massive change in culture to do so.

Maybe GMO isn’t the right term. That term has bad press.

I just meant bacteria / algae / etc that has been “programmed?” to kill bad stuff and/or produce good / healthy stuff (clean gasoline from water, etc). Great articles on this.

The thing is for a large part algae and bacteria already do this. Why do you think we get toxic algae blooms on rivers, lakes and sections of ocean that have been polluted. You’re feeding tons of algae and they’re having an orgy. You can also “teach” species of muchrooms to eat plastic. No genetic engineering required. Or there are species like rollie pollie bugs that just absorb and get rid of heavy metals in the soil naturally. There are all kinds of these things. There’s also plant life that cleans toxins out of the water as well. Things like wetlands and pods harbor all kinds of plants filter toxins out of the water. I mean these species are everywhere if you just look for them.

I read the first sentence and that was enough: labelling counter-arguments as “hoax.”

Positive reinforcement is not necessarily better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-34592186

Frankly, I would rather have a state (if one has to have a state at all) that is openly represssive than one that is sickly-sweet “kind” with the policeman’s gun and the handcuffs only brought out when you don’t respond to their simpering nanny niceness. The hypocrisy of social-democrats and their posing on the supposed moral high ground is disgusting.

EDIT: On a related note, I might mention a book that advocates politically-motivated positive incentives, entitled Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness by Cass Sunstein. Yes, the Obama advisor who devised a plan to disrupt Internet forums. This is just one more piece of evidence that ANY nicey-nice positive enforcement from the GOVERNMENT is just a sugary icing on the same old shit. It is much healthier for shit to not pretend to be something else.

Positive reinforcement doesn’t have to imply central surveillance.

1 Like

read subsidies as grants. Without grants the academic world would be dead.

I’m sorry, what is this in relation to? It seems to have nothing to do with creating an enviromental app.

Tanstafl. People fund what they are interested in or what it’s in their own interest to fund. If science requires grants then it’s science for hire because only the projects that will attract money get developed. Who’s going to fund a cure that will heal people but won’t make anyone any money? Maybe sick people but not a big corporation because they can’t profit off of it. That’s why generic drugs like DCA or research into say vitamin C curing cancer doesn’t get any love, no patents, no profits. No profits, no grants. No grants, less research. Which brings us back to the need for an altcoin DAO and crowdfunding. A DAO doesn’t care about patents or personal profit. All it cares about is does this thing contribute to society/the environmnet whatever. In the case of this app, the environment. Put contribution to the environment in get coins out.

You have too many conspiranoid beliefs to understand how basic research is funded.

Patronizing much? A scientist wants to do some research but can’t fund it himself because he has to actually focus on doing the research. So he needs investors. Once upon a time scientists would get government grants but these days more often than not they are privately funded by corporations. If they don’t produce the right results their funding is cut. So they look for results their investors want, not nessesarily what the science says. This is not “conspiranoid beliefs” but rather economics and actual fact. The only real scientific research is independent scientific research that isn’t “owned” by any particular company. It’s very difficult to be objective when your job relies on you providing a specific answer. If you’re a scientist owned by Monsanto of course you’ll produce “science” that’s in favor of GMOs, nevermind the facts. Same for Big pharma or anything else. That’s why decentralizing funding is important so scientists are not dependent upon corporations or government, or more to the point, any one corporation or government, to produce actual objective science. If one stream of revenue gets cut because they provide data that isn’t in favor to a particular market plan then another will take over. Always follow the money.

That’s why grants are needed. You are self-boycotting yourself without even realizing.

1 Like

So you work indirrectly for the Pharmasutica/Big Ag/or other corporationsl via the FDA, CDC, EPA or insert your favorite government acronym here. Corporations buy politicians. Politicians set policies in favor of corporate sponsorship. So if your favorite acroyms are going to set policy that’s always favorable to their corporate investors what’s the difference between a scientist working for the acronyms and working directly for the corporations? Again this brings us back to the need for decentralization. I don’t care if you get gifts of money or trade it. The problem is the centralization of funding. If you get all your money from government or all your money from corporations that’s a problem because it creates a conflict of interest. This is why we can’t rely on humans for funding research and need a DAO. Provide resources for the planet and get coins whether you’re a professional scientist, a corporate investor or just some schmuck growing some tomatoes in his back yard. Knowledge, all knowledge, is valuable. And contributing to the planet, all contributions to the planet, are valuable.

Here’s an idea, create a similar app to that of the econet, that eats knowledge. A database app. Put useful knowledge in and get coin out. Again Payment = Need * vetting * reputation. It’s just the need is for knowledge not ecological resources. In fact the two could work together and collaborate. But they’d have substantialy different goals.

1 Like