Chapter 4. The good use of instruments.

Another «responsibilizing-informative» use of currency does not depend, however, only from the good will and the morality of the people, but it depends also on the type of currency, that is from the features of the monetary instrument.

We are easily tempted to consider that the good or bad use of an instrument depends almost exclusively on the good or ill-will of the user. We will not deny the importance of this good or ill-will, but it must be acknowledged that the design itself of an instrument can lead to its good or ill use.

The information the user has on the dangers and possibilities, the sanction or impunity for its misuse, the type of built-in security mechanism, its success among population, the myths surrounding it... are a number of variables which help and bring about a given use of any instrument. The hunting and/or war instruments, from the dagger, the spear and the bow to the shotgun, include, in each culture and historical moment, this compound of «precautions» and «forethoughts» which become more complex as the instrument does.

Nowadays, when we speak of technology, not only must we keep in mind the hardware (the instrument, the device...) and the software (the rules which allow the use of the hardware), but also what is called «brainware» or «knoware» (why, how, when, where... the hardware and the software must be used¹).

«To play with fire» is an expression which indicates the danger in the use of some given instruments: Every instrument has its context, which is either useless and/or dangerous (a knife thrown on a beach, a car for sailing). The use of any instrument requires a minimum training and/or ability (you do not give a knife to a child, nor a car to somebody who can't drive). The more dangerous an instrument, the more precautions there are to be taken (the sheath of a dagger, the safety belt). There are control instruments which are used for «measuring, documenting, recording... the use of other instruments (meters, recorders...) in order to know the limitations, consumptions or responsibilities (speedometers, tachymeters...).

Among these instrumental changes some are especially significant: the self-control instruments of any system, being apparently unimportant, have nontheless a great importance to reach a balance of the system, whether with respect to its effectivity or to the responsibility of its users. In the first case we have, for example, all the self-regulating cybernetic instruments (thermostat, gyropilot...). In the second case we have the self-documentation systems (coach tachymeters, which give documentary evidence of the driver's imprudence, the black boxes of airplanes, which record any mechanical or human failures). Nobody is surprised that these self-regulating and self-documenting instruments are introduced in complex or high strategic value systems. On the contrary, we seem to feel some sort of anguish to use these systems for the self-regulation and self-documentation of such delicate, complex and important instruments as economy, politics, justice and information.

We acknowledge the right of the monetary authorities to put limitations to the invention of money by the banks, but the instruments they have available are generally ineffective and insufficient. We accept that Justice must support the lawful State and the equality of everybody in face of the law, but the instruments are insufficient and ineffective, both with respect to documentation and to their actual independence in face of the State and in face of factual powers.

What features should an information system have, to allow the improvement and responsibilization in decision taking at all levels (territorial, district, State) and fields (politics, market, justice...)? Let us itemize some of them:

We should therefore find which of the present informative instruments or systems could offer these features, after the necessary modifications.

It is possible that in this search we find that the monetary system can be adapted in a conscious way, so that it offers these features in a consistent and democratic framework.

Therefore, in the case of currency (hardware) we must study in depth, to what extent its features (software) are favourable to some given antidemocratic and antieconomic uses (brainware), and to what extent it is possible, socially and technically, to modify these features in order to improve their positive functions, with a minimum of negative malfunctions, as it is done with any instrumental or technological problem.

Note:

¹Milan Zeleny (1985), «La sfida della complessità», Feltrinelli, p. 403.