This is brilliant. First, you named your Substack "Once-in-a-Species," referring of course to Bitcoin. I'm sure most people thought you were being a little hyperbolic.
But then, years later, you came up with a novel set of insights to fully justify it. How sweet is that?!
Thank you LT! When I chose the name for my Substack, I knew I would write this piece. This was a topic I touched on in my 2021 podcast with Preston Pysh - was already bouncing around in my head by then.
When I finally sat down to do the research a few months ago, the rabbit hole opened up much deeper than I expected. And I found myself breaking new ground.
That's a very interesting second-order implication that I had not considered, and I think you're spot on.
Since we deeply appreciate and value scarcity, we naturally also revile frauds masquerading as scarce. I certainly hadn't contemplated how this theory ties in to Bitcoiners' aversion to altcoins, but it absolutely ties in!
This is fascinating. But I'm not sure if I totally follow the logic. Humans beat out neanderthals et al because we could think in abstractions. Which meant we could make money and sustain larger populations and a kind of societal interconnectivity. Larger societal grouping meant more power and safety on a number of levels. This all tracks, it all makes sense. Great. But you stop there. You ascribe it all to money. Whereas the abstraction of money that can cause these societal bonds that create greater population bases and power is an abstraction. An abstraction to a tool. Wouldn't money then just be one of the many tools that abstraction can create to build stronger societal bonds and do all the things? I may be missing a really important specific step here. There's something missing about sufficiency and necessity somewhere. Societal cohesion might be brought about by money and much else that might come from abstraction, couldn't it?
I certainly agree that money would be one several advantages to having a greater capacity for abstract thought, and that these other advantages undoubtedly played a role as well.
Partly, I didn't want to overcomplicate the flow of my narrative - it already demands a lot of the reader by joining together several different fields of study. But mainly, when I thought about how "greater abstract thought" would directly translate into a greater species-level advantage, nothing stands out as a concrete, tangible advantage that fits the facts, except money.
I think the section on Dunbar's number is the part that speaks to this, more than the rest, because it provides a tangible answer to how "greater abstract thought" translates to civilization-level behavior. The alternative would be lacking - for example, "greater abstract thought" allows people to negotiate alliances and understand the advantages of tribal coordination for mutual strength... plausible, but more wishy washy.
Right. this makes sense to cut to the chase for this purpose. And yet the exchange of "money" (rarefied goods?) might suppose the market place and the market place might suppose standardization and standardization might suppose some bureaucracy which might suppose some kind of existential hierarchy only available to conceptual planners? I'm not sure that's the exact right vocabulary. But what role might organized religion play in this... even to the point of a deified ruler or the authority of the soothsayer/shaman/priest alluding to greater powers of accountability beyond animism and simple sustenance. Stuff like that. Higher level implementation that proceeds to cohesion and solidarity across wider and more disparate populations. However, the original point of this higher level abstraction that you've laid out is the key. Very good.
My mind followed this thread another direction as well. The affinity for abstract thought could also lead to well thought out plans to eliminate a competitive subspecies.
I love how your thesis explains multiple things that have been misunderstood or simply gone unresolved... how we grew beyond the Dunbar number and supported larger population densities (crowding out Neanderthals), what truly defines our species and makes us human - namely the propensity to appreciate and collect scarce things, which organically leads to monetary systems, which explains the true function of ancient shell bead jewelry.... and it all dovetails nicely with the archeological and genetic record. Wow. Whenever a single hypothesis explains so many different things it's usually an indication that you're onto something. Well done!
Thank you, Justin! You grasped everything I was hoping to convey and thread together.
I stuck my neck out on Twitter and said that this piece was groundbreaking. A tall order.
But I knew what I was looking at, and this thesis resolved so many loose ends about the reasons for and timeline of humanity's success.
I think you're dead right that a hypothesis that explains many different things tends to mean something. Here's hoping that this stands the test of time! Thank you for reading, and for your generous review!
As a person who studies the brain for a living (with undergraduate degree in history) the intersection of anthropology and neuroscience makes logical sense here, and Jesse you nailed it! This is likely unknowable, but it would be interesting to look at gold in the historical record to see if it too had wild fluctuations in value during the early days of its own store of value
Thank you John! Glad it resonated with your brain and history studies.
And agree, that would be fascinating to see. Saifedean does a good job of charting the fluctuating value of monetary metals in antiquity, though I don't think there's any data on it from the pre-writing days of gold's emergence ~6,000 BP.
Very fascinating and thorough! Are you going to get this peer-reviewed and published?? That would be awesome!
Nick Szabo was such an important contributor to our understanding of money and the development of electronic cash with his "bit gold" design that was a large basis of the design of Bitcoin.
Clearly the scarcity of Bitcoin is a massive advantage over all other forms of money available today. Szabo had this idea of scarcity of collectibles like shells and jewelry in mind. Have you made him aware of this article? I bet he'd enjoy it. As he put it, items that make good money are scarce due to their "unforgeable costliness."
This is a fantastic contribution to the understanding of money and the importance of Bitcoin. Thanks!!
Thank you, Joe! Szabo's "Shelling Out" was absolutely seminal for me, and I wanted to do this piece justice as something of a follow-up that builds on that work.
I will look into submitting it to some Anthropology magazines. Might have to remove the final section for palatability for those outlets. But I expect there will still be muted interest, since I'm an outsider and less than kind to mainstream Anthropology. I do need to defend against someone copying my hypothesis and running with it tho, so hopefully I can get this piece to as many astute thinkers as possible.
I just watched an interview of Natalie Smolenski (Joe Burnett, Unchained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDpql1Do2W4) and found out that she's an anthropologist bitcoiner. Have you discussed this with her? I'm sure she would be interested in this.
While people will understand what you mean by "close proximity," and it's quite common in everyday speech, it's considered redundant in careful or formal writing because "proximity" already means "close." Using just "proximity" or rephrasing with "close to" or "near" is more concise and precise.
Looked it up and it seems you are right - I was not aware that this was technically redundant. However, it is certainly the normative colloquial use, so I think I will (now) knowingly keep it in the redundant form. Elsewhere I do use the phrase "we're kinda weirdos" so I've made some deliberate choices for broad appeal and readability :)
Thank you not just for this, but for sharing your understandings generally. You are plainly very bright but also with a kind heart which is a powerful mix for good.
Interesting. What you've just done is illustrate that this theory/hypothesis opens up whole new fields of research.
And those new avenues of research may well end up describing or articulating the subsequent development of civilization -- religion, authority, heirarchy, monumental construction, abstract communication (writing), money -- a development that eluded other human subspecies.
It would be incredible if this hypothesis opens up new lines of academic inquiry and helps shape Anthropology's understanding of early humanity in some way.
I expect that mainstream Anthropology will be resistant to an outsider's answer, but I think Bitcoin's educational canon shapes the future, so maybe in time it will.
Mind-blowing! This is fascinating! I've got so many questions XD
People are referring, as stated in the bible, to money as root of all evil. If what you are saying is the correct explanation why Homo Sapiens Sapiens thrived over other species, money is the root cause of our existence today. I mean, fuck me, I need more bitcoin.
Haha absolutely! I think the main reason I was able to reach this hypothesis, when so many anthropologists have not, is that Bitcoin presents a new paradigm that demands to be understood. Why is it monetizing, why is it so compelling to us, what is it about increasing scarcity terminating in absolute scarcity that is so profound?...
And then with this additional data point (along with Austrian econ) to help interpret the fact set of the past, this hypothesis emerges.
"Greed is good" might be a bit of a stretch, but "our fascination with scarce assets is what makes us human" lines up nicely.
I get the logic, we thought in abstract and gravitiated towards scarce assets, that is what made us different, not only abstract thought, which you are primarily focusing on.
Yes, the brain portion only speaks to "abstract thought" as a general capability. However, the consideration of Dunbar's number and how proto-money allows for emergent civilization-level behavior is key. That provides a direct logical path from "greater abstract thinking" to humanity's success. While there were undoubtedly other advantages from abstract thought, I think the concept of money is the real game-changing advantage.
This is brilliant. First, you named your Substack "Once-in-a-Species," referring of course to Bitcoin. I'm sure most people thought you were being a little hyperbolic.
But then, years later, you came up with a novel set of insights to fully justify it. How sweet is that?!
Thank you LT! When I chose the name for my Substack, I knew I would write this piece. This was a topic I touched on in my 2021 podcast with Preston Pysh - was already bouncing around in my head by then.
When I finally sat down to do the research a few months ago, the rabbit hole opened up much deeper than I expected. And I found myself breaking new ground.
Quite sweet to make good on that hyperbolic name!
Time for part 2 with Preston!
Lots of work went into this Jesse and I appreciate you sharing it. Very plausible and captivating.
Not only do we appreciate scarcity, we penalize fraud, plagiarism and counterfeiting because we are programmed against it.
So not only have you explained our fascination with Bitcoin, you have explained bitcoiner’s aversion to altcoins!! Great stuff
That's a very interesting second-order implication that I had not considered, and I think you're spot on.
Since we deeply appreciate and value scarcity, we naturally also revile frauds masquerading as scarce. I certainly hadn't contemplated how this theory ties in to Bitcoiners' aversion to altcoins, but it absolutely ties in!
haha - great points!
This is fascinating. But I'm not sure if I totally follow the logic. Humans beat out neanderthals et al because we could think in abstractions. Which meant we could make money and sustain larger populations and a kind of societal interconnectivity. Larger societal grouping meant more power and safety on a number of levels. This all tracks, it all makes sense. Great. But you stop there. You ascribe it all to money. Whereas the abstraction of money that can cause these societal bonds that create greater population bases and power is an abstraction. An abstraction to a tool. Wouldn't money then just be one of the many tools that abstraction can create to build stronger societal bonds and do all the things? I may be missing a really important specific step here. There's something missing about sufficiency and necessity somewhere. Societal cohesion might be brought about by money and much else that might come from abstraction, couldn't it?
Yes, that is a very fair line of reasoning.
I certainly agree that money would be one several advantages to having a greater capacity for abstract thought, and that these other advantages undoubtedly played a role as well.
Partly, I didn't want to overcomplicate the flow of my narrative - it already demands a lot of the reader by joining together several different fields of study. But mainly, when I thought about how "greater abstract thought" would directly translate into a greater species-level advantage, nothing stands out as a concrete, tangible advantage that fits the facts, except money.
I think the section on Dunbar's number is the part that speaks to this, more than the rest, because it provides a tangible answer to how "greater abstract thought" translates to civilization-level behavior. The alternative would be lacking - for example, "greater abstract thought" allows people to negotiate alliances and understand the advantages of tribal coordination for mutual strength... plausible, but more wishy washy.
Right. this makes sense to cut to the chase for this purpose. And yet the exchange of "money" (rarefied goods?) might suppose the market place and the market place might suppose standardization and standardization might suppose some bureaucracy which might suppose some kind of existential hierarchy only available to conceptual planners? I'm not sure that's the exact right vocabulary. But what role might organized religion play in this... even to the point of a deified ruler or the authority of the soothsayer/shaman/priest alluding to greater powers of accountability beyond animism and simple sustenance. Stuff like that. Higher level implementation that proceeds to cohesion and solidarity across wider and more disparate populations. However, the original point of this higher level abstraction that you've laid out is the key. Very good.
My mind followed this thread another direction as well. The affinity for abstract thought could also lead to well thought out plans to eliminate a competitive subspecies.
Makes sense. Worth exploring that further.
I love how your thesis explains multiple things that have been misunderstood or simply gone unresolved... how we grew beyond the Dunbar number and supported larger population densities (crowding out Neanderthals), what truly defines our species and makes us human - namely the propensity to appreciate and collect scarce things, which organically leads to monetary systems, which explains the true function of ancient shell bead jewelry.... and it all dovetails nicely with the archeological and genetic record. Wow. Whenever a single hypothesis explains so many different things it's usually an indication that you're onto something. Well done!
Thank you, Justin! You grasped everything I was hoping to convey and thread together.
I stuck my neck out on Twitter and said that this piece was groundbreaking. A tall order.
But I knew what I was looking at, and this thesis resolved so many loose ends about the reasons for and timeline of humanity's success.
I think you're dead right that a hypothesis that explains many different things tends to mean something. Here's hoping that this stands the test of time! Thank you for reading, and for your generous review!
Fantastic Jesse. Sharing widely.
Thank you, Zack! Appreciate you. Hope you're doing well!
As a person who studies the brain for a living (with undergraduate degree in history) the intersection of anthropology and neuroscience makes logical sense here, and Jesse you nailed it! This is likely unknowable, but it would be interesting to look at gold in the historical record to see if it too had wild fluctuations in value during the early days of its own store of value
Thank you John! Glad it resonated with your brain and history studies.
And agree, that would be fascinating to see. Saifedean does a good job of charting the fluctuating value of monetary metals in antiquity, though I don't think there's any data on it from the pre-writing days of gold's emergence ~6,000 BP.
Very fascinating and thorough! Are you going to get this peer-reviewed and published?? That would be awesome!
Nick Szabo was such an important contributor to our understanding of money and the development of electronic cash with his "bit gold" design that was a large basis of the design of Bitcoin.
Clearly the scarcity of Bitcoin is a massive advantage over all other forms of money available today. Szabo had this idea of scarcity of collectibles like shells and jewelry in mind. Have you made him aware of this article? I bet he'd enjoy it. As he put it, items that make good money are scarce due to their "unforgeable costliness."
This is a fantastic contribution to the understanding of money and the importance of Bitcoin. Thanks!!
Thank you, Joe! Szabo's "Shelling Out" was absolutely seminal for me, and I wanted to do this piece justice as something of a follow-up that builds on that work.
I will look into submitting it to some Anthropology magazines. Might have to remove the final section for palatability for those outlets. But I expect there will still be muted interest, since I'm an outsider and less than kind to mainstream Anthropology. I do need to defend against someone copying my hypothesis and running with it tho, so hopefully I can get this piece to as many astute thinkers as possible.
I just watched an interview of Natalie Smolenski (Joe Burnett, Unchained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDpql1Do2W4) and found out that she's an anthropologist bitcoiner. Have you discussed this with her? I'm sure she would be interested in this.
I would welcome her thoughts! Please do send it to her, it's always much more persuasive if it's a third-party recommendation to read a piece :)
Great stuff. A thoughtful and insightful synthesis of some of my favourite things!
Awesome article, Jesse!! Thank you.
While people will understand what you mean by "close proximity," and it's quite common in everyday speech, it's considered redundant in careful or formal writing because "proximity" already means "close." Using just "proximity" or rephrasing with "close to" or "near" is more concise and precise.
Looked it up and it seems you are right - I was not aware that this was technically redundant. However, it is certainly the normative colloquial use, so I think I will (now) knowingly keep it in the redundant form. Elsewhere I do use the phrase "we're kinda weirdos" so I've made some deliberate choices for broad appeal and readability :)
This is extraordinary!
Hi Jesse
Thank you not just for this, but for sharing your understandings generally. You are plainly very bright but also with a kind heart which is a powerful mix for good.
Thank you, Paul! That is a very kind and much appreciated note. Here's hoping this piece can reach many on their journeys to understanding Bitcoin
Interesting. What you've just done is illustrate that this theory/hypothesis opens up whole new fields of research.
And those new avenues of research may well end up describing or articulating the subsequent development of civilization -- religion, authority, heirarchy, monumental construction, abstract communication (writing), money -- a development that eluded other human subspecies.
It would be incredible if this hypothesis opens up new lines of academic inquiry and helps shape Anthropology's understanding of early humanity in some way.
I expect that mainstream Anthropology will be resistant to an outsider's answer, but I think Bitcoin's educational canon shapes the future, so maybe in time it will.
Mind-blowing! This is fascinating! I've got so many questions XD
People are referring, as stated in the bible, to money as root of all evil. If what you are saying is the correct explanation why Homo Sapiens Sapiens thrived over other species, money is the root cause of our existence today. I mean, fuck me, I need more bitcoin.
Haha absolutely! I think the main reason I was able to reach this hypothesis, when so many anthropologists have not, is that Bitcoin presents a new paradigm that demands to be understood. Why is it monetizing, why is it so compelling to us, what is it about increasing scarcity terminating in absolute scarcity that is so profound?...
And then with this additional data point (along with Austrian econ) to help interpret the fact set of the past, this hypothesis emerges.
"Greed is good" might be a bit of a stretch, but "our fascination with scarce assets is what makes us human" lines up nicely.
Johan, it is the Love of money that the Bible says is the root of all evil, not money itself. Money is neutral ~
I get the logic, we thought in abstract and gravitiated towards scarce assets, that is what made us different, not only abstract thought, which you are primarily focusing on.
Yes, the brain portion only speaks to "abstract thought" as a general capability. However, the consideration of Dunbar's number and how proto-money allows for emergent civilization-level behavior is key. That provides a direct logical path from "greater abstract thinking" to humanity's success. While there were undoubtedly other advantages from abstract thought, I think the concept of money is the real game-changing advantage.
👏👏👏👏