P4P P&P P2P Viable Innovations/Insights

P4P = Platforms for Participation

P&P = Peers & Platforms  (Peers INC)

P2P = Peer to Peer

A few days ago I was excited with renewed hope while reading the next-to-last chapter in Robin Chase‘s 2015 book: Peers INC.

The whole book was interesting, but I was initially resistive to her subtitle: How People and Platforms Are Inventing the Collaborative Economy and Reinventing Capitalism.  It is a matter of semantics, but “capitalism” is a dirty {econo-centric} word for me; yet she is strategically correct in using it to attract – and not offend – other readers.  She probably has different definitions and connotations than I.

In Chapter 10, “Addressing Our Biggest Challenges, Climate Change and Sustainability Need Peers Inc, Robin “opens up” to her deep concerns about the potentially catastrophic consequences of accelerating climate change. She presents a model for alternative economic organization/processes she had developed earlier in the book, as a practical means for a rapidly scaling transformation to meet the requirements of curbing climate change. Robin demonstrates a rare balance between fully-emotionally acknowledging the scary future and clear-headed thinking/working to attend to the challenge.

The model Robin presents is already being applied and undergoing rapid expansion in the global economy. She didn’t invent it, though she was an early entrepreneur as co-founder of Zipcar, and other Peers INC business ventures.  Although I have long been aware of many variations on the theme of alternative economics (such as:  peer-to-peer, evonomics, people-centered economic development, alternative exchange systems, commons, cyber-currencies, gig economy, etc. )  I have not witnessed their (sustained exponential) growth sufficient for me to believe they will be able to catalyze the overall changes needed.

I have not yet researched how any of these variations view Robin’s Peer INC model. I view her model as more abstract and generative (yet real) to be used in a variety of different domains.  Cited examples of current applications of the Peers INC model include: The Internet, The WWW, Wikipedia, BitCoin, Uber, Zipcar, Buzzcar, Airbnb, Skype, Zoom, oDesk, elance, TaskRabbit, Blablacar, GetAround, Lyft, WhatsApp, MeetUp, Etsy, YouTube, Facebook, DuoLingo, Quirky, TopCoder, Enigma.io, mesh networks , crowdsourcing .

P4P, which I will use now as the label for the model introduced as Peer INC, involves the coupling of two entities/domains: a network of peers/participants and a platform/app that services the network of peers, in a variety of ways depending on the architecture of the platform. Specific instances of P4P continue to emerge, and are not limited to economic activity.  I haven’t yet comprehended how “Block Chain” fits into the picture; as a name for the apps for P4P or some other concept.

My appreciation of Robin Chase contributes to my attending to her P4P model. Her 2007 TED presentation is a great intro. A more recent, 2014 talk about FUEL is concerned directly with the application of P4P with climate change issues. Peer Incorportated  is her blog. Her Twitter account.   Quote: “Lets speed up the pace of evolution to avoid revolution.” In 2014 Robin joined the BOD of Tucows. I associate Robin with another vital woman, Shoshana Zuboff, whose concept of The Support Economy catalyzed my conceptual scheme about SEAFing (Supporting, Enabling, Augmenting, Facilitating). {I just discovered Shoshana’s new interest in “Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization“.} Robin and P4P renews my interest in SEAFweb {I just re-discovered this doc, and have no memory of composing it.} as another, essential P4P. Indeed, my proposed BUS (Bootstrap UPLIFT Scaffolding) is a P4P.  I wonder if Shoshana and Robin know of each other?

A SEAFweb is essential to seaf how peers can gain access to the info and contacts they need to survive/thrive in the  nearly infinite explosion of sem production. Zuboff envisioned a support economy as a meta-economy to support the first-order economy. SEAFweb generalizes it beyond the economic domain.

In her book, Robin discusses three ways of funding/establishing the INC or Platform. The first two are government (The Internet) and corporations (INC). The analyzes in depth the dangers of too much control by the owners of the platform, and the balance that is needed between peers and platform. The third approach to create Platforms is to use P4P itself: Crowd-Sourcing/Funding (10 platforms 22 platforms).


(Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Enjoyability, Elegance)
(Platforms for Participation)

P4P is reeee for me because of the light it shines on its context (within nuet).

P4P is an up-welling, evolutionary force within humankind, not the result of an application of clear, comprehensive ideas. Its emergence is by bootstrap. The conceptual scheme for P4P is also emerging in this process, and is not yet complete.

Yet, for Larry/nuet, P4P provides a concrete, workable mechanism to rapidly re-organize our local-to-global destructive processes to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (and other destructive behaviors) and “Dodge the Bullet”.

Is there a P4P application for turning around population growth?

The path and outcome of the interactions of P4P with industrial/financial capitalism is unknown. A successful transition is not ensured, as many other factors are involved and the time is short.   SEAFweb and UPLIFT may be necessary.

The conceptual scheme of P4P consolidates for nuet a recently emerging distinction I am discovering in my UPLIFT conceptual scheme.

  1. The metamorphosis of the human-human social/societal sysnets, and
  2. The transformation of the material infrastructure of humankind.

The absence of this distinction may be one reason that the viability of my proposed Societal Metamorphosis was not adequately comprehended. We don’t attempt to transform (morph) governments, corporations, or other “organizations” or “institutions”. On the other hand, grids, buildings, farms, roads, bridges will be transformed (which includes destruction and new construction).

For example, Supply Chain Systems must be carefully transformed to minimize disruption. This cannot be accomplished with the involvement of owners and financers, as such transformations will not be in their (selfish) interests. They are not relevant stakeholders in the nu emergent humanity. On the other hand, operational managers may partake in OLLO processes [Organizing-for-Learning=&=Learning-for-Organizing], and be participants in the transformation processes.

The UPLIFT conceptual scheme acknowledges the powerful symbiosis between the mental perspectives of persons and the societal and physical structures they live/work within. Dismantling this symbiosis and creating a new symbiosis is an explicit challenge for the OLLO process of UPLIFT.

It is an interesting speculation as to how the P4P Movement may impact on the Localization Movement (which appears to have slowed in growth of participation and agendas) and the emerging Local Security-from-Disasters movement.


Many of the drivers view the management of the UBER platform as pimps. Robin proposes a series of stages a P4P must go through, and many are yet in transition or have slipped out of the sequence. The balance between the two Ps is fragile, as it reflects the balance between personal/self-interest and collective-holistic-interest; between need/greed and the commons.

Can/should there be a limit to the size of a P4P?  Do we need meta P4Ps to seaf smaller P4Ps?  How will the different P4Ps interact? Taking into account the vast diversity of cognitive competencies of individual persons and the diversity of cultures, how are persons to reeee learn about the changes (past, current, coming ahead)?

How will the warfare between USA/EU and BRICS, and other global/regional conflicts impact the emergence/transformation to P4P? Might the lack of sponsored recovery to natural (including the “natural” of oil spills, etc.) disasters give impetus to P4P?

Both, P4P and our contemporary system resulting from unplanned globalization, depend on digital systems (The Internet). It is imperative that this important, meta P4P be secure to all possible disruptions. We need a network of mesh-networks as BU. If Earth gets washed by an EMP from the sun, we need a “Pony Express” BU manual distribution system for flash drives.


While I remain excited about P4P, this exercise has, again, engaged me with my …WHOLE-Holistic-whole… and our dire need for meta-strategic activity. P4P is but one, significant – to be sure, innovation in a massive zoo of old and new/nu human activities. All this, when we are the edge of discovering that the conceptual schemes we believe and apply about “human nature and change” are mostly myths – partially true to be attractive, but dangerous when applied ideologically.

I am motivated to reFrame BUS for UPLIFT as a P4P. But, MORE must be involved. My own activity is low reeee and unlikely to improve on-its-own. Nuet can generate TODO lists continuously – but they are useless when not processed and implemented. TODO lists for myself, for UPLIFT teams, and for future humanity.

WE need to create/use a P4P for us, now.  WE need a platform well beyond current social media, to a”integrate” Seafed-Cyber-Teams with Emergent-Sem-Fields (SCT/ESF). This I must explicate.

PS-Aside:  During a break in composing/editing this I skim-reviewed a book, UNPRECEDENTED: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? by David Ray Griffin (an author I highly respect). It is overdue at the library. t contains a seemingly comprehensive list of recommended actions needed to be taken by different populations and sectors of humankind. What struck me as missing was HOW to motivate/educate/organize so that these actions can occur and synergize. This is typical today, in face of our Crisis-of-Crises challenges: persons recommend actions to be taken. They assume that making the action specific will cause the action to take place.  Politicians are cruder with this process, citing the objectives they will accomplish if elected, as if to point out needs automatically implies they can be met – and they can do it.  Is there a P4P for what we need?

Griffin, and others, reference the efforts to win WWII and Apollo program as exemplars of mega-projects. This analogy may distract us from our primary challenge: changing humankind so it has the competencies to do what is needed. Contemporary humankind is not yet competent to respond to its todo list. We devote our efforts on developing the Sci/Tech of what we can do (with material systems) to curb climate change and recover; but we ignore developing the human-system Sci/Tech for the essential uplifting of the distribution of human competencies to the requisite levels for survival/thrival.4 – so we can apply this knowledge.  Applying our current human-system Sci/Tech is inadequate; a fact we must quickly learn to accept.

Author: nuet

01/24/1935. BS-physics RPI 1956; MS-physics UofChicago 1958; PhD-physics Yale 1965; PhD-Edu Psy Uof MInnesota 1970. Auroral Research Byrd Station, Antarctica 11/1960-02/1962. MINNEMAST curriculum dev 1964-68. Woodstock. faculty Pima Community College, Tucson 1974-1997. Transdisciplinary scientist, philosopher, educator, futurist, activist. PC user since 1982. "Wife". daughter, 2 grandsons. 5 dogs & 7 cats. Lacks mental imagery in all sensory domains.