🌐 Adaptive Mutualism: A New Economic Model

Please review the corresponding Substack episode.

What happens when artificial intelligence looks at our broken economic systems and says, "I can do better than this"?

We're living through the economic equivalent of a slow-motion car crash, and most of us are too busy arguing about the radio station to notice we're heading straight for a wall. While we debate whether capitalism or socialism is the answer—as if those are our only two choices—artificial intelligence has quietly stepped into the room with a completely different question: What if both systems are fundamentally broken, and what if there's actually a third way?

Two AI Agents Design a New Economy (Beyond Capitalism / Socialism)

This is Heliox: Where Evidence Meets Empathy

Independent, moderated, timely, deep, gentle, clinical, global, and community conversations about things that matter.  Breathe Easy, we go deep and lightly surface the big ideas.

Thanks for listening today!

Four recurring narratives underlie every episode: boundary dissolution, adaptive complexity, embodied knowledge, and quantum-like uncertainty. These aren’t just philosophical musings but frameworks for understanding our modern world. 

We hope you continue exploring our other podcasts, responding to the content, and checking out our related articles on the Heliox Podcast on Substack. 

Transcript

0:25

Imagine an economic system not dreamed up by human thinkers or endless debates, but actually designed step by step by artificial intelligence. That's what we're diving into today. It's an economic blueprint crafted by two advanced AI agents. One was acting like, well, a kind of heterodox economist and historian. And the other, like a systems designer, almost anthropologist looking at the structures. Really fascinating. Exactly. And here's the really interesting part. When this brand new system was put to the test, right, five other AI models rated it higher on almost everything compared to, you know, the economies we know. Americas, China's, Germany's. Which is pretty remarkable. It is. So our mission on this deep dive is really to unpack this AI vision. to try and understand what, from its, let's say, unique perspective, could make it genuinely, well, better than what we already have. It's just incredible, isn't it? Seeing AI collaborating like this, trying to tackle something so profoundly human, so complex, like an economic system. And this deep dive, it isn't just about the model itself. It's about what it reveals, maybe through that non-human lens, about what an economy really needs to do for people to flourish. I think you'll find some surprising insights here. All right, let's get into it then. So the AI started, like any good problem solver would, right, asking what's actually broken in our current systems? And it identified 10 core systemic failures in both capitalism and socialism. First up was what it called the basic coordination problem. OK. You know, capitalism, for all its issues, is actually pretty good at using price signals. If everyone suddenly wants, say, a new gadget, the price goes up. Producers know to make more. Simple enough. Right. The invisible hand sort of. Exactly. But the AI pointed out it consistently ignores these massive unpaid costs. Think about a factory polluting a river. The cost of that pollution, the damage, the health problems. It's not in the factory's books, is it? No, it's externalized. Society pays. You pay. Right. And there's this worrying trend the AI flagged, especially since the 80s. financial markets growing way way faster than the real economy meaning money's chasing money basically speculation instead of funding actual production things we actually use yeah and on the flip side you had socialism it did reduce inequality often drastically but those central planners They were just overwhelmed. How could they possibly make millions of decisions every day about what to make, where to send it? Just too complex. Way too complex.

And what struck me about the AI's look at history was this: 2:58

It didn't find one perfect system anywhere. Instead, the most successful, resilient societies think medieval towns. They had markets, yes, but also guilds, family businesses, shared resources like commons. They were juggling multiple systems all at once. So not one master system. Exactly. Which is totally different from how we tend to think now. It seems humans naturally organize through these overlapping institutions. It's messy, but maybe it works better. That's a really interesting point, that multi-institutional idea. But the AI found an even deeper design flaw, didn't it? It did. How both systems, capitalism and socialism, tend to force a single behavioral model across all kinds of social situations. Explain that a bit. Well, think about it. You might negotiate ruthlessly when you buy a car, right? Haggling hard. Sure. But you'd never do that sharing food with your family. It'd be bizarre. Right. Different context, different rules. Exactly. And the AI noted traditional economies often work because they were context sensitive. People could shift between being competitive, cooperative, reciprocal, depending on who they were dealing with and why. So it's not just about flawed institutions. It's about a flawed assumption about human behavior. That we can be managed by just one set of incentives. Precisely. Assuming we're predictable little economic units? Which leads straight into the next big problem. The time horizon mismatch. Markets optimized for quarterly profits, maybe a few years out, tops. Yeah, the short-term focus. But ecosystems, social systems, they operate on decades, centuries. Socialist planning was a bit better at long-term thinking, but still often tied to, you know, five-year plans or political cycles. So neither... really grappled with the long, long term. Right. Neither system has a built-in way to make decisions that properly account for costs and benefits 30, 50, 100 years down the line. It is, the AI said, we're literally eating our future. That's a powerful way to put it. Depleting soils, draining aquifers, destabilizing the climate, Because these vital resources are treated as either free inputs there for the taking or just acceptable side effects externalities. And connected to that, another failure, democratic economic participation or the lack of it. Yeah. Who actually gets a say? In capitalism, power tends to pool with capital owners. In traditional socialism, with party officials. But the A.I.'s point was stark. Most people spend half their waking lives in economic institutions. like their jobs, where they have basically zero voice in the major decisions that shape their work, their livelihoods, their communities. That time mismatch connects to something even more fundamental, too, doesn't it? The assumption baked into both systems. Infinite growth. Infinite growth on a finite planet, which, as the A.A. Dryley notes, is mathematically impossible. And they both scale terribly. How so? Well, markets work OK locally. Neither system really cracked how to coordinate millions, billions of people while keeping human agency and connection intact.

And the last point on failures: 6:19

technology. Ah, yes. Both systems just see tech as either a market opportunity or a planning challenge. They completely miss how it fundamentally reshapes society, relationships, power itself. Yeah, it's not just a tool, it changes the game board. Exactly. So the AI summary is pretty blunt. their potential and to contribute meaningfully to the collective well-being of society which means yes basic material security food shelter health care education you need those the foundation but it doesn't stop there it's also about things like meaningful work feeling connected to us others, having some autonomy over your own life. And crucially, the AI added, "The economy has to maintain the ecological foundations that make all human activity possible, not just for us now, but for future generations too." Preserving the planet. Absolutely. The core insight, I think, is that markets, planning, institutions, You know, markets versus state control, instead staying focused on these ultimate ends. Makes sense. So a successful economy from this perspective creates the conditions material and social for people to live dignified, purposeful lives while keeping the planet healthy. And there were a couple more key elements the AI added, preserving cultural diversity. keeping society glued together. Plus, the system needs to be adaptive. It has to learn, evolve, and critically, it has to work with our basic human social instincts. Like fairness and reciprocity. Exactly. Fairness, reciprocity, our tendency to form in groups. The system shouldn't fight against human nature. It should align with it. Right. Create conditions where our nature and economic needs work together, not against each other. That feels important. Which leads nicely into step three, human nature assumptions. What model of us did the AI use? It used a concept called conditionally cooperative. Okay, what does that mean? It means we're basically wired to cooperate, to collaborate, if we trust others will too. But if we feel like we're being taken advantage of, exploited, Huge. The AI recognized people respond to multiple motivations at once. Yes, material self-interest plays a role. But so do things like social status, loyalty to our group, moral principles, wanting autonomy. It's a mix. It's always a mix. And behavioral economics shows the context is crucial for which motivation takes the lead. Anonymous markets might favor self-interest. Small groups with reputations on the line. Reciprocity becomes much more powerful. So the system needs to be smart about context. Very smart. It needs to deliberately create context that activate cooperation, but also have safeguards against those who won't play fair. You can't design for saints. You can't design assuming everyone's a cheat. You design for the reality of human behavior, the whole spectrum. In a workplace hierarchy, people might accept unequal outcomes if the process feels legitimate and fair. Ah, so fairness isn't one single thing. It depends on the relationship. Exactly. It's context dependent. And this ties into what the AI call our strong reciprocity instincts. Meaning? Meaning we have this powerful drive to reward people who cooperate and contribute, but also to punish freeloaders. even if it costs us something personally. Right, that sense of justice. Yes. The system needs to harness that, not ignore it. And importantly, humans are status-seeking. We just are. But status doesn't have to be just about money. It could be skill, service. Skill, service, creativity, knowledge, contribution to the community. The AI argued the economy should create multiple pathways to gain status and recognition, not just piling up material wealth. Aversifying status. Interesting. And maybe most profoundly, it recognized humans as meaning making beings. We need to feel our work, our lives contribute to something bigger than just our own survival. The economy should enable that sense of purpose. OK, that's a rich picture of human nature. So how does the system actually allocate resources? For those, the AI suggests democratic governance by the communities directly affected. So local control. Local control. But importantly, operating within clear science-based limits to prevent overuse. Not just majority rule, but informed stewardship. Got it. And investment. Big future projects. That's where participatory planning comes in. Yeah, because how you allocate something profoundly shapes how people relate to it and each other. Is housing a commodity traded on the market or a basic right allocated by need? Very different social dynamics. Huge difference. So the challenge is designing governance structures that manage those boundaries and prevent one logic, especially market logic, from colonizing areas where it doesn't belong. like creeping into basic health care or education. That boundary management sounds critical. Did the AI address any gaps, like global issues? It did. Two critical gaps that identified were global allocation and crisis response. For global allocation, distributing resources fairly between nations or regions, it talked about frameworks, considering historical extraction patterns, and current ecological capacity. So acknowledging history and planetary limits. Right. Maybe some kind of global resource quotas, potentially with tradable rights, like carbon credits are supposed to be. But crucially, with floors and ceilings built in to prevent extreme inequality from developing between regions. Ambitious. And crisis response. Pandemics, disasters. Yeah, for those shocks, the AI proposed specific emergency protocols that would temporarily override the normal mechanism. Like what? Things like rationing essential goods fairly, maybe curtailing non-essential luxury consumption, and importantly, mobilizing mutual aid networks that already exist within communities. So the system needs to be able to shift gears fast in an emergency. Very fast. Without abandoning its core principles. Which means needing buffer stockpiles, spare capacity, redundancy things that might seem inefficient in normal times. That tradeoff between efficiency and resilience again. Exactly. Now, obviously, those global quotas need international institutions we don't really have yet. It's a huge challenge. And crisis protocols have to be designed carefully, clear triggers, automatic sunset clauses so they don't become permanent. Right. Avoiding the temporary becoming forever. And strong community oversight to prevent them being used for an authoritarian power grab. And those mutual aid networks, they can't just appear in a crisis. They need to be nurtured and part of the social fabric in normal times. Okay, that allocation piece is complex. Let's talk power. Step five. Power structure design. How do you stop power from concentrating dangerously but still allow for effective coordination? This is absolutely crucial. The AI was very clear. Power concentration is inevitable if we don't actively design against it. It doesn't just stay dispersed on its own. So what's the design principle? The core idea is creating multiple overlapping systems of accountability instead of relying on single points of control, like just a CEO or just a statement. Okay, multiple checks. Like what? One key element is stakeholder governance for economic enterprises, businesses, organizations. They shouldn't just answer to shareholders. Workers, the local community customers, and capital providers should all have representation, maybe proportionally to their stake or risk. So no single group dominates the decision-making. Right. And for coordinating larger systems, it suggests federated structures. aren't just ignored in economic decisions and mandatory rotation of leadership roles to prevent people from digging in and accumulating power over decades. That rotation idea is interesting. And the AI also stressed separating different types of power. Yes, critically important. maybe by promoting transparency or diverse networks. And how does leadership emerge if you're rotating roles? Good question. The system needs ways for legitimate leadership based on competence, expertise, trust to actually emerge and be recognized. But again, the design focuses on preventing that temporary authority from becoming permanent control. And technology. Algorithms, data, that's a new power center. Huge new power center. It concentrates unless actively stopped. Solutions involve multiple accountability loops, stakeholder governance, federation, separating power types, and accounting for informal influence and tech. That's a good summary. It's a dynamic balancing act. Let's shift gears to step six, innovation and growth. How does the system drive progress but without wrecking the planet or society? This seems... key. Absolutely. The AI calls for two fundamental shifts here. First, decoupling innovation from just churning out more stuff, more material throughput. And second, completely redefining what we even mean by growth. Okay, so what is progress or growth in this model. Real progress, the AI argues, is improving quality of life with less resource consumption. Think better medicine, hyper-efficient energy, stronger social connections, deeper knowledge, better education. That's growth. Qualitative growth, not just quantitative. Exactly. Innovation should be aimed squarely at genuine human needs and well-being, not just manufacturing new desires through marketing. And that competitive drive, it gets redirected towards solving big collective Using things like prizes for breakthroughs, fostering open source collaboration where everyone builds on each other's work, and mission-oriented research programs. challenges. Think, you know, the Apollo program, but for climate solutions or understanding aging or developing better social technologies. So harnessing innovation for the common good. And rewarding innovators based on their social impact, not just how much market share they can capture. And crucially, the AI didn't just focus on tech innovation, did it? No, that's a great point. It stressed innovation in institutions and social practices just as much. How we organize ourselves, how we make decisions, how we care for each other, that requires innovation too. And it pointed out that historically a lot of big breakthroughs actually came from public funding, right? Yeah, things like the internet, GPS, touchscreens, things like that. Fundamental research often needs patient public investment because the payoffs are uncertain and far off. Private markets are usually better at refining and scaling things once the basic discovery is made. So a role for both public and private R&D, but maybe a different balance. A different balance and a different goal. Growth has to be measured in capabilities, knowledge, well-being, resilience, not just GDP. But the AI also acknowledge that innovation is disruptive. It creates winners and losers. Always. It displaces jobs. Skills become obsolete. So the framework needs built-in transition support, retraining, income support for people whose livelihoods are affected. It can't just be disrupt and let the chips fall where they may. So innovation with a social safety net. And incentives geared towards solutions that work for everyone, not just the early adopters of the well-off. That's where things like open source and commons-based peer production come in again, like Wikipedia or Linux. They show how creativity can absolutely flourish when knowledge flows freely, instead of being hoarded behind patents or paywalls. Creating innovation ecosystems where ideas spread and benefit everyone. And that's the goal. Sharing knowledge, adapting solutions locally, widely sharing the benefits. Okay, let's talk resilience. Step 7. Crisis and adaptation mechanisms. How does a system handle shocks, pandemics, climate disasters, economic crashes, and evolve without collapsing? This builds on earlier points. The AI's core message here is resilience requires redundancy and modularity, not just efficiency optimization. That efficiency versus resilience tradeoff again, what does redundancy look like in practice? Think like financial firewalls, but for all critical systems, food, energy, health. Ways to contain a failure in one area and stop it from cascading through the whole economy. Isolating problems. You're right. And it needs both fast and slow adaptation mechanisms. Rapid response teams, protocols for immediate crises, but also longer-term structured processes for learning from events and changing the rules in institutions based on that learning. And it mentioned local self-sufficiency too. Yes. For basic needs. The system should be designed to shed non-essential functions first when it's under severe stress. Okay. While protecting the absolute core needs and values, like a ship jettisoning non-critical cargo in a storm to stay afloat. But this means accepting slightly higher costs or lower efficiency during normal times to maintain that spare capacity and those diverse options. Paying a resilience premium. essentially. You could call it that. And this redundancy isn't just about physical systems, it applies to social systems too. Diverse leadership, multiple ways for information to flow, different traditions of mutual aid that communities can draw on. But adaptation is hard. We have biases, we overreact or underreact. True. The AI acknowledged that. Institutions need mechanisms to learn from crises without succumbing to panic or wishful thinking. And critically, crisis response can't become an excuse for a permanent power grab. Those sunset clauses again? Automatic return mechanisms, community oversight, absolutely essential. And finally, recognizing that different communities with different cultures and resources will adapt differently. The framework needs to support that diversity and allow for learning between different adaptation strategies, not impose one single response. Okay, this is all incredibly ambitious. Which brings us to step eight, implementation pathway. How on earth could a system like this actually come about? The AI was clear it shouldn't be a violent revolution, right? Yes, it insisted the transition has to be gradual and voluntary. No guillotines, no year zero. So what's the proposed path? Worker co-ops could band together, federate into larger networks, and demonstrate that stakeholder governance can actually work at scale. Proving it works in practice. That's the key, according to the AI. Proving superior outcomes, better lives, healthier environment, not just winning ideological arguments. The idea is that as these alternatives demonstrate they work better, adoption will spread more organically because people see the tangible benefits. existing power holders, corporations, financial institutions, entrenched political interests, they'll fight back. They'll use legal challenges, economic pressure, lobbying, maybe even disinformation campaigns to crush experiments that threaten their advantages. So the transition needs protection. Definitely. It requires things like supportive legal frameworks for cooperatives and commons, new financing mechanisms outside traditional banks, and crucially, building cultural narratives that legitimize these alternatives, that shift what people see as normal or desirable. And I mentioned a generational aspect. Yeah, younger generations often being more open to new models. social movements paving the way for institutional change. But it also warned about international pressures. Like? A successful region trying this could face undermining tactics through trade rules, financial sanctions, maybe efforts to lure away talent brain drain. Reaching a critical mass might require coordination between multiple pioneering regions. And those crisis periods, they're opportunities, but also... Step nine, stress testing. What are the worst case scenarios? How could this whole thing go wrong? The AI didn't shy away from this. The biggest failure mode it identified was fragmentation. Fragmentation. Yeah, imagine different regions developing their own versions of adaptive mutualism, but they become incompatible. They can't coordinate on global issues like climate or pandemics. You could end up with paralysis or decisions that don't reflect the broad community interest. And the complexity, all those different mechanisms interacting. That's a vulnerability, too. It could create massive bureaucratic overhead, endless meetings, complex rules nobody understands, and new opportunities for corruption, especially at the boundaries where different systems meet, where market logic interfaces with commons governance, for instance. example. And during that long transition period you mentioned. Big danger there. Authoritarian movements could easily exploit the uncertainty, the economic disruption, and promise a return to simple, strong leadership. If the new system doesn't deliver tangible improvements reasonably quickly, people might lose faith and turn back to simpler, even if more brutal, alternatives. Populous backlash. Exactly. Plus outright external sabotage, existing global powers using their military, financial, or cyber capabilities to actively destroy successful experiments before they can inspire others. Wow. Okay, any deeper vulnerabilities? The AI flagged a few more. Just the sheer impossible complexity for ordinary people trying to navigate it. If you constantly have to figure out which rules apply in which situation, it could lead to cognitive overload and disengagement. People just tune out. Right. Then there's potential for cultural backlash. Resource scarcity is another trigger. If basic resources become genuinely scarce due to climate change or depletion, does the cooperative framework hold or does it fracture back into zero-sum competition? Yeah, unexpected tech disruption. Could throw a huge wrench in the works. Imagine advanced AI, genetic engineering, access to space resources, You need universal basic services for necessities. You need stakeholder-governed enterprises for most production. You need community-managed commons for shared resources. And you need federated planning structures for large-scale coordination and investment. Those are the pillars. And the key roles, like the constitution of this economy. No concentration of multiple types of power, economic, political, informational, in the same hands. Mandatory rotation of leadership, open source knowledge sharing as the default, and automatic sunset clauses for any emergency powers. Those are non-negotiable. And the allocation algorithm, how it decides who gets what. It's about matching the mechanism to the resource. Need base for basics. Yes. Adaptation over trying to optimize for one static goal. Right. And it actively protects that institutional diversity against any one logic taking over. Exactly. Success isn't just GDP. It's measured by human capability expansion, ecological health, social cohesion, It's fundamentally a post-growth economy focused on qualitative improvement, not endless material expansion. And what holds it all together? What makes it work culturally? That's crucial. It relies on widespread economic literacy. People need to understand how the system works to participate effectively. It needs social norms that value contribution, cooperation and long term thinking over short term gain and domination. A different value set. A significantly different value set. Integration happens through those nested governance councils. and mechanisms for automatically reviewing and adapting the rules based on real-world outcomes and feedback. It's designed to learn. Adaptive mutualism. An economy based on reciprocal cooperation, evolving contextually, focused on human flourishing within planetary limits, neither market-dominated nor state-dominated. But a metasystem. It really is fascinating, isn't it, how this AI perspective coming without our usual human baggage challenges so many of our ingrained assumptions about what an economy is and should be. That shift away from just endless material growth towards flourishing within limits, it feels profound. So the thought to leave you with today is this. If artificial intelligence looking at the problem fresh consistently points towards this kind of multi-institutional, context-sensitive, fundamentally cooperative economic future, what does that imply about our own paths forward? What might we be missing in our current debates, stuck in old arguments? Thank you for joining us on this deep dive. We definitely encourage you to keep thinking about these complex, absolutely vital ideas.