Why capitalism supports market efficiency instead of technical efficiency

What is the driving force in capitalism which decides if a new technology or ideas gets done in society?

In other words..

What are required for implementing an innovation? 

Is it the technical efficiency? 

Well..kind of. An technical machine like a sawmill instead of a manual saw would be considered an effective way to cut timber. Would the manufacturer of that sawmill produce a durable long lasting machine with the best possible raw materials? Of course not! It would run out of the sawmill and spare-part business. He has so gain a share in the market and compete with similar products out there. 

Do we produce goods so they are easy to repair, long lasting and sustainably made?

 No sales, no jobs, no purchasing power = lower "standard of living" in todays economy.

Is it the possibility to stop climate change and loss of biodiversity?

No. We would have done it already if it would be market efficient. You don't make a huge profit in a short time by planting trees or saving biodiversity. 

Is it implementing new technology??

Well sometimes.. If you can calculate in advance that this technology makes profit and is cost efficient to compete with other companies. 

Is it to create maximum value to all citizen on our planet and our precious ecosystem?

No. Sustainability, efficiency and abundance are the enemies of market efficiency.

What is it then? What decides if a good idea can be implemented most of the time?

It is money and funding. Without money you can not research, develop and innovate your idea, you cannot hire anyone nor buy resources. 

When there is enough money to invest in new technology or an idea it gets usually done.

Who decides if you can have enough money to create an idea into reality? 

Well in most cases it is the private bank. They create the money from nothing by pressing enter on the keyboard. Not everyone will get a loan. Even if your idea would benefit the planet and all creatures on it you cannot try if one criteria is not fulfilled. 

You have to make a profit with your idea, it has to be cost efficient and it has to be able to compete with other similar products in the market. 

What is the easiest way to increase profit? Well your product has to be cost effective. Use lower quality raw materials and pay less salary for workers. 

The bank will decide if you get a loan for your idea or not.The more profit you can make the more interest it also draws private investors. 

Imagine if you could make most profit of nature protection. In other words it would be highly paid.

What if maximum profit would be payed for technological efficiency. Doing more with less. 

What if you would make more profit if your product would be sustainable and durable? 

Two summers ago I was on a sailingboat with a architect friend of mine. I've traveled around Europe in different sustainable villages and communities. I wanted to know why eco building is not mainstream yet when we all know the huge benefits of ecohouses. My architect friend enligtened me that there is one guy in their company with a calculator. When a corporation builds a house he sits down and types in all the costs of building materials in the calculator. 

Most companies who pays the archtecht to design a house want maximum profit when they sell the house. Guess if expensive ecofriedly raw materials are chosen?

There is a economic survival game going on between all companies in the world. The people in that company are depended on the profit it can generate. They have to eat, live somewhere and pay their bills. 

Even if a innovation would clean all plastic from the sea, develop alternative rare metals which would replace the mining industry you need the make profit. We could grow super fast growing hemp for the paper industry and let our old forests rest and mature. But NO, competition for economic survival and profit is the name of the game. 

How crazy is that? What will the future generations think about our primitive behavior? I mean we have all the resources and technology to turn our planet into a sustainable paradise, but an archaic outdated socioeconomic monetary system stops us from evolving. 

What about decisions on a national level?

The government decides where the money will flow. What decitions serves the private market and it's owner on the best way? How to cut welfare from the people so that the state can pay their illusional debt back to the banks and the elite?

They discuss about fiscal policy, eu grants, taxpayers money and other economic jargon. If we would discontinue money and organize society as a tribe of people of planet earth the fact who gets money and who not would become obsolete. 

Still here are some questions different political parties argue about: 

Who gets the money from taxes? Who will pay taxes? Where do we cut welfare?

This is when politics come in. They bring in the stick and the carrot. Its easy to stear production with subsidies and taxation. 

The government of Finland and European union for us.

Here is a prime example how market efficiency work

Americans can sell their wheat harvest for lets say 70e per kubic meter. To produce this it costs 120e. Agriculture subsidies make it possible to sell cheap. Americans ship it to India and foreign wheat can be bought 50% cheaper than the Indian wheat from the north of the country. Huge harwest just rots when no one buys it. No one buys ghee which is traditional buffalo fat when foreign butter is so cheap. Bringing food to developed countries is like bringing unemployment to the farmers and all who work with food. 

This is reality today! 

It doesn't have to be like this anymore.

Copiosis reward system will change it all on local, national and global level . If your idea is good enough and you can convince other people and the manufacturer of raw materials that it will benefit all people and our planet you can start. No bank loan, no outside investors, no patent needed!

Instead open source, durability, abundance seeking and sustainability. The more of these attributes the more you get paid just like today.

Read more about Copiosis and join the new future that can be ours!


Sources: The Zeitgeist movement defined 2014

If you want to read more about how competition, market efficiency and patent rights hinders humanity to evolve please read the Zeitgeist Movement Defined book from page 101. 


Is our current monetary reward system the most modern, efficient, moral, ethical and sustainable way to reward people for their work in the 21st digital century?

                      this blogpost is inspired from the book The New Human Rights Movement by Peter Joseph. Direct quotations are used.

Editor's note: This blogpost is inspired from the book The New Human Rights Movement by

Peter Joseph. Direct quotations are used.

Is our current monetary reward system the most modern, efficient, moral, ethical and sustainable way

to reward people for their work in the 21st digital century? There is an assumption that those who

contribute the most to society will be rewarded the most. It is assumed that to become a billionaire you

must have done something important and helpful for society. Let’s take a closer look at this assumption.

One of the most rewarded sectors of the global economy today is in finance. For example 

“hedge fund manager” is one of the highest paid occupations in the world. This person moves money

around for the mere sake of gaining more money, with zero contribution to creative development .  Itreally doesn’t bring any real value to our society, but is highly rewarded and holds immerse wealth

and influence. The same is true to marketing and banking.

People who work in engineering, problem solving and creative innovation truly develop our society.

Usually it is the laborer who creates  the innovation and someone else higher on the corporate ladder

gains from it. 

Adam Smith the father of market  economics would never have predicted that in the present day, the

most lucrative, rewarded fields would not be production of life supporting or life improving goods, but rather the act of moving money around.  

Meet Mika. His passion is fishing and visiting prestigious natural areas and natural parks in Lapland. I

became friends with him on a beautiful summer day paddling down the last part of Kemi river where there is no hydro power yet. We were over thirty boats drifting down the stream witnessing the most beautiful sandy beaches, birdlife and small rapids. The curious media was there to film us and bring our message out to save the last free flowing part of Kemi river . 

A worrisome threat was darkening the beautiful summer day. A new hydropower plant has been planned for years in these very important breeding rapids for the Salmon. If the dam was built, the water level would rise, threatened species would disappear taking the  rapids with them.Lapland is already self-sufficient in electricity. It doesn’t need the power. But the company aims to sell the electricity to other cities.

Mika is the head of the nature protection union in Lapland. He is like a walking story book with his

stories of the great salmon runs  on Kemi River 100 years ago. The Lapland people back then

harvested 160 000 tons of salomon every summer. The people and the animals used to live off the

salmon  over the whole winter. Today the fifteen hydro power plants on Kemi river have no fish

bypasses even though installing them would have cost  a fraction of the total project  costs.

The first dam sits  500 meters from the sea. Once the greatest salmon runs in any European 

river now plays host to zero salmon. .

Mika, like many other nature conservationists ,battles constantly a bureaucratic war against 

corporations who exploit Lapland's natural habitats.  Meanwhile state municipalities 

decide if a company can  build a Hydroelectric  dam,  start a 

mine or plan any other activity using our planet’s resources. 

Mika does not like his job, and has a salary of 800 euros per month.  He donates most of 

his salary to nature protection. He told me that someone has to fight back and

 if it’s not him no-one will obstruct the destruction of our fragile arctic nature.  He has become very

skilled at writing influential letters  to municipalities. Sometimes it delays the process and even

sometimes Mika is successful to persuade the municipalities not to give a permit for building.

As you see, nature protection is not rewarded in the current system. 

In fact, most people volunteer to protect 

nature. They are not rewarded. 

"If you look closely you will see that almost anything that really matters to

 us, anything that embodies our deepest commitment to way human life should 

be lived and cared for, depends on some form of volunteerism". Margaret Mead

Sustainable fish friendly alternatives are available but our archaic socio-economic system is hindering humanity to use them

Imagine this kind of small scale hydropower along the Kemi river. One for each village. Fish friendly, small scale,  decentrilized
 electricity production. The salomon used to lay its eggs close to the rapids north of Rovaniemi. After maturity in the sea it always rises upstream the river and lays its eggs where it was born. Dams on hydropower makes it impossible for natural fish stock. 

The economic surviving game on the entire planet

The rules we play by today as a civilization lead naturally to monopolies. That is the reason Kemi river

is dammed by only one corporation. The corporations take advantage  of the rules and are rewarded

for their success.  Competition, self-interest, and even oppression are tolerated in today’s game of survival. 

The people who work for the corporation have to make a living like everyone. What do we mean when

we say “make a living”? It means that you have to prioritise your energy for making money in order to

take care of your basic necessities like food, shelter, education, healthcare and clothing.  Everyday...

people get up, work, come home, eat, have some free time , then turn in for the next day. We must pay

bills, buy food, and sometimes work from home.. All that leaves no energy for the common good,

philosophy, music and other personally and socially enriching things . That seems pretty primitive,

doesn’t it?

The paradox with today is no matter the long term benefits, or perils, the next 

paycheck is more important for most of us. No matter what your ethical and 

moral values are, paying your bills,The rent for your house, and feeding your family 

Is job number one for everyone.If you have 300 euros to spend each 

month you cannot buy organic food or sustainable clothing even if you want to. 

But…what if basic necessities for life...food, shelter, education, healthcare and 

clothing came  at no cost to all people in a modern reward

system? Not a Universal Basic Income (UBI) but

Rather, actual, basic necessities. 

Would that change the game? 

And yes, we have the know-how, technology and resources to feed and house everyone.

But it seems ...we are stuck in this primitive "unalterable" system. 

Would people still work in a company focused on short-term profits? Or would they work for companies

focused on humanity’s  long term human survival? Humanity has the ability to create  nature-friendly

technologies of all kinds. Generating electricity, reducing waste, recycling rare earth metals and living

sustainably are all possible.

Unfortunately today efficiency, abundance and sustainability are enemies of our system, for they are

inverse to the mechanics required to perpetuate consumption. 

What if only the most sustainable and effective resource management processes  got  the highest
reward instead of maximum profit or moving money around with zero benefit to humanity?
New sustainable, nature- friendly technologies might  emerge like mushrooms after rain. 

Would that change the game?

Most of our sociological problems can be traced indirectly to our archaic socio-economic system

A study done at the University of Utah in 1990s found powerful connections

between unemployment. (lack of basic necessities) and crime.

Most acts of crime would not likely occur if these basic necessities were provided to all including food,

shelter, education, clothing and healthcare. 

The true definition economy itself means to conserve, reduce waste and do more with less.

Copiosis rewards only actions aligned with these three values..

Strategic use of materials and preservation is not rewarded todaybecause it reduces consumption.

Unfortunately the competitive need to lower prices permeates every step of production. Afterall people

don’t want to spend what it really costs to make things. Reduction of technical efficiency by using

cheaper materials, means and design enables companies to make things that people can afford.

But what if the system didn’t require people needing to afford things they want? 

A modern reward system would economize, which means to reduce waste by strategic design. 

Bullshit jobs disappear

Daniel Pink writes in his book that repetitive, mundane jobs lend themselves more to traditional 

rewards such as money, whereas money doesn't seem to motivate innovation and creativity. 

Again, new technological innovations which frees people from doing bullshit jobs would be

highly rewarded in a modern reward system. Recall what might happen if people didn’t need to

earn a living. When basic necessities would be provided to everyone, what kind of things might happen that don’t happen today? 

Patents: Are they needed? In a freer more efficient system, innovations would not need any 

patent protections.Anyone who copies or  improves the original innovation would benefit monetarily.

But so would the original inventor. Indeed, in a modern system, the inventor could still keep getting

rewarded for every derivative version of his or her idea, making him or her far richer than today’s

patent-protection system, in other words lifelong royalty would be paid just like today. 

Maybe you’re  starting to understand? 

Again...If we only reward individuals for beneficial (actions that do more good than harm) actions,

we could see an explosion in innovations. Especially ones today’s economy won’t support.

Such as innovations that benefit salmon and river systems.

Ecocities and villages, vertical farming in cities, small scale local permaculture gardens, biogas cars,

100% recycling rate, wood based hydrocarbons to replace metals dug from the earth would all be

highly rewarded to the degree their inventors can scale them. But since it costs nothing to do such

things in a modern system, “scaling” is not a problem.

We do not need politics to cut down welfare, pay subsidies to steer production, steer the economy with taxes etc.. The modern digital reward system steers humanity on its right track. 

It’s very simple. Everyone gets a net  benefit reward which is calculated 

from looking at  the good they create in the world  minus the bad.

In this system, everyone becomes a entrepreneur 

and gets reward credits for his contribution to other people and society. But there’s no risk because no

one can go broke, lose their home or fail to put food on the table.

It's like a frequent flyer club where you earn credits (rewards). With these credits you can obtain goods

and services which are not your basic necessities. 

The rich, the poor and the middle class will all benefit from transition into a modern reward system. 

Capitalism made sustainable!

Chris, Copiosis Finland


Biomassan polttaminen vähemmäksi uusiutuvien järkevällä varastoinnilla


Jos Korkalovaaran omakotitaloalueella kaikki lämmittäisivät talonsa puulla heikkenisi ilmanlaatu siellä muutamassa vuodessa. Monesti tulipesät eivät ole moderneja, täysin kuivaa puuta ei polteta, poltetaan kartonkia ja muuta biomassaa mitkä kaikki lisäävät pienhiukkasten määrää. 

Suomen Luonnonsuojeluliiton asiantuntijan Hanna Ahon mukaan kaikki polttaminen joka aiheuttaa päästöjä pitäisi lopettaa. Erityisesti lehtipuun, kantojen ja lahopuun poltto, koska ne ovat metsäluonnolle tärkeitä ja varastoivat hiiltä. Aho ehdottaa että puun ja biomassan tukeminen pitäisi lopettaa ja siirtyä tukemaan puhdasta energiaa.  Mielestäni idea on hieno, mutta vastassa on liian iso teollisuus joka lobbaa politiikkaa, joka ajaa lopulta puun ja fossiilisten polttoa. Puun ja muun biomassan polttoa tulisi kuitenkin vähentää.

Tuulen ja auringon ongelma on että niiden saatavuus on rajoitettua. Aalto yliopiston professori ja suomen ilmastopaneelin jäsen  Peter Lund tuo esille idean miten varastoida tätä ylijäämää energiaa tuulisena ja aurinkoisena päivinä. Toisin kun louhia akkumineraaleja lapsityövoimalla ja tuhota tropiikin hauraita ekosysteemejä, ylimääräinen sähkö tulisi muuttaa lämmöksi ja polttoaineeksi, jota on helppo varastoida. Lund on mielestäni tässä oikeilla jäljillä. Suomen kylmissä oloissa yli puolet kulutetusta energiasta on lämpöä. Sitä tarvitaan kaksi kertaa enemmän kuin sähköä, joten lämmön varastointi tuulisina ja aurinkoisina päivinä sähköllä on mielestäni erittäin järkevää. Lund ehdottaa, että kallioperään tehdään isoja luolia jotka täytetään vedellä. Ylimääräisellä sähköllä lämmitettyä vettä voidaan myös syvälämpökaivoihin, joista lämmin vesi johdetaan suuriin lämpöpumppuihin. Lund väittää, että lämmön varastointi on huomattavasti halvempaa ja järkevämpää kuin sähkön varastointi. 

Tänään keskustelin taitelijakaverini Janne Erkkilän kanssa tuulisen ja aurinkoisen päivän ylimääräisen energian varastoinnista. Janne kertoi että hiekkaan voidaan varastoida hyvin myös lämpöä. 

Sähköautojakin pitäisi älykkäällä verkolla ladata vain tuulisilla ja aurinkoisilla päivillä professorin mukaan ja esimerkiksi pilvisellä säällä autoista siirtyisi energia takaisin verkkoon. (Luonnonsuojelija 4/2022)

Risto Isomäki toi lokakuun lopussa luennollaan Rovaniemellä samantyylisen idean. Hänen mukaansa tuulen ja auringon ylimääräisellä energia tulisi pumpata vettä kemijoen yläjuoksulle. Tuulittomina ja pilvisinä päivinä voisi hyödyntää vesivoimaa.

Energiatehokuuden kannalta teollisuuden pitäisi myös hyödyntää enemmän hukkalämpöä. Teollisuuden pitäisi myös suosia kiertotaloutta ja lopettaa neitseellisten raaka aineiden käyttö.

Sähkön kulutuksen vähentämisen kannalta kotitalouksien automatiikka säätäisi lämpötilan pienemmälle öisin kirjoittaa Lund. Mielestäni suomeen pitäisi säätää laki, jossa jokaisen talon sisälämpötila ei saisi nousta yli 16 asteeseen. Energiansäästö olisi valtava. Ihmiset sopeutuisivat asumaan kylmemmäss ja oppisivat pukemaan ylimääräisen villapaidan sisällä päälle. Sähköyhtiöiden roolin pitäisi muuttua radikaalisti sähkön myynnin tuputtamisesta enemmänkin sähkön säästämisen konsultaatioksi.  Lundin mielestä sähköyhtiön pitäisi tulla energiapalvelun tarjoaja joka opastaisi ihmisiä säästämään sähköä.  Tämä on mielestäni melko utopista ajattelua kun eletään kuitenkin vielä markkinataloudessa. 


Luonnonsuojelija lehti 4/2022

Risto Isomäen luento Rovaniemellä lokakuu 2022