Wayne Perg responded to my forward of Mark Miller's comments:

> Dear Timothy:
>
> Much thanks for forwarding this to me. I had not connected with
> Bionomics or Michael Rothschild. Now that I have, I will be able to
> differentiate what I am doing from Bionomics. This is very important
> because, as Mark Miller observed, we seem to be talking about the same
> thing. However, we are actually proceeding from entirely different
> world views and, as a result, we could hardly be more different.
>
> In the preface of his book (accessable from the web site for the
> Bionomics Institute), Michael Rothschild writes "Technology, not people
> hold center stage." He states also in postings on the web site that he
> sees information as the essence of both biological and economic
> systems.
>
> In contrast, in my world view, people, not technology hold center
> stage in our economic system. And I see relationships as the essence of
> all life, including biological systems and economic systems. I see
> information as being merely a tool of evolution, not the essence of
> life.
>
> The impact of this different foundation is huge. Michael Rothschild
> mentions that cooperation (tension, pull, female energy) is a part of
> biological systems, but his total focus is on competition (compression,
> push, male energy). This results in unbalanced forces !
>
> He recognizes the negative impact of adversarial relationships that
> result from power-over structures, but fails to consider the synergic
> power of cooperation. As a result, his vision of internal restructuring
> stops at the neutral - internal markets.
>
> I do appreciate your continuum of relationships - I am just beginning
> to integrate it into my thinking and it is already having a large
> impact on my work in economics.
>
> Because he sees technology as the center, not people, he stays with a
> capitalist structure (ownership by the providers of property, rather
> than the workers). He merely substitutes intellectual property for
> physical property. This substitution requires the assumption that
> intellectual property can be separated from the people who create it.
> However, this assumption requires the ability of a given store of
> intellectual property to maintain its value, which is not possible in
> the dynamic world that he assumes - a separation fallacy consistent
> with his making information (which is separate items) the foundation of
> his work rather than relationships (connectedness), thus missing the
> unity that underlies the apparent separtion (and the unity of opposites
> found in both modern science and spirituality) in our dualistic
> universe.
>
> With much gratitude, Wayne
>
>
>> --- In SocialModels4P2PNetworks@y..., "Mark S. Miller" <markm@c...
>> wrote:
>
>> Concerning Wayne Perg's essay: "Human evolution is reaching a
>> breakpoint as the rate of change accelerates to the point that
>> machine-model organizations with their static processes are becoming
>> nonviable. A different model with dynamic processes is required for
>> business, financial and governmental institutions and systems if they
>> are to be able to thrive in a rapidly evolving world. That model,
>> proven over countless millennia in nature, is the biological model."
>> I hate false originality. With this thesis, his essay should have
>> been full of references to at least F.A. Hayek, Michael Rothschild,
>> and Nelson & Winter. I just looked, and his essay doesn't contain a
>> single reference to any of these. Nor to "Austrian", "Bionomics", or
>> "agorics". Cheers, --MarkM
>