What If Energy and Money Had Different Stories?

Energy Conspiracy Theories.

While Bitcoin enthusiasts debate its efficiency, environmental impact, and tax implications, discussions around the speculative concept of Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) technology are quietly gaining traction. Information on ZPE is both abundant and heavily censored online, making it sound like a plot point in a sci-fi film. For the uninitiated, ZPE refers to a theory suggesting it might be possible to harness energy from the quantum vacuum and convert it into usable power.

I must admit, I’m a bit disappointed that Trump and Joe Rogan didn’t touch on this topic, but perhaps now isn’t the right time to dive into conversations that make people’s eyebrows disappear into their hairlines.

The question in the title was posed by someone newly 'orange-pilled': What would happen to Bitcoin if energy were abundant, and would we stop using hydrocarbons?

My short answer: not much. Even if energy became abundant, we’d still need a reliable medium of exchange. In such a world, work would be driven by a desire for creation rather than by necessity. Bitcoin’s Proof of Work mechanism is designed for a reality where energy is valuable and secures the network. An abundant energy source wouldn’t undermine this decentralised consensus - in fact, it would likely accelerate Bitcoin adoption. Without governments controlling energy sources, state-issued currencies could become as worthless as the German Reichsmark during the Weimar Republic. But to answer another burning question: No, we wouldn’t simply stop using hydrocarbons. Even if ZPE magically became viable overnight, we’d still rely on hydrocarbons for a long time. Think of it like this: just because Bitcoin is gaining traction doesn’t mean we’re going to throw gold and silver out of the window anytime soon. And let’s face it, Grandma isn’t going to learn how to use Bitcoin, so we’ll probably be using both for a while.

But what role would Bitcoin play in a world of abundant energy? The cost and availability of energy are key constraints on space expansion. With abundant energy not reliant on burning hydrocarbons, we might finally take that giant leap into space. (Whether everything our civilisation represents is worth expanding is another question entirely.)

What does Bitcoin have to do with space expansion? If humanity collaborates on space exploration for its own sake, we still need a way to measure the work and contributions that sustain a high-energy civilisation. Even in a future with limitless energy, human effort remains vital. Life isn’t infinite; if I invest my time in something, I’m using a slice of my precious lifetime. It’s the same principle we live by today, except we often exchange our valuable time for, well, not much.

Every creative individual working to maintain and advance humanity should have their efforts measured and rewarded. While non-material rewards may come through karma, material rewards should be backed by something secure. If Bitcoin were used in this way, it would go beyond being just a "store of value" and become a "measure of value." A measure of value owned by humanity would mean that humanity actually owns its own civilisation.

Right now, our civilisation is controlled by a small group who consider themselves an elite. The question of how we reward a lifetime sacrificed for societal advancement becomes philosophical when we consider how we actually spend our time - mostly fulfilling basic needs or distracting ourselves from dissatisfaction. We essentially trade our time just to survive, never truly owning the homes we live in or the land we work for meagre rewards.

There is no space for beauty, nor time to simply enjoy the results of our hard work. We rush around, obsessed with optimising everything to be faster and more efficient, leaving no room to create "useless beauty."

If we look at 1800s architecture, there was "useless beauty" everywhere - even street lamps were richly ornamented. Why did we stop creating it? Were creative workers once rewarded for the extra time spent on beauty?

In my opinion, the type of reward determines the outcome. In the 1800s, cash supposedly dominated payments, and workers were supposed to often be paid directly with coins, as paper currency wasn’t widely used or trusted. In industries like textiles or cottage crafts, payment was supposedly based on output rather than a fixed wage. But do I believe this was really the case?

If I’m truly honest, I don’t entirely believe our recorded history. I think something else happened between 1850 and 1900, but I won’t get into the Tartaria theory right now. The opposition from those who write and sell books on monetary policy history - often without closely studying the timeline and relying on mainstream narratives - is too strong at the moment. However, I’m confident that this topic will resurface after the US elections in November 2024, so let’s revisit it then.

Returning to the idea of rewards shaping outcomes, I believe that in the 1800s, the rewards for a lifetime spent creating goods and services were far more valuable than they are today. And I suspect that in the past, we relied on different energy sources than hydrocarbons - or as Donald Trump called it on Joe Rogan’s podcast, "the liquid gold." For more on this, check out Clif High’s Substack article, When Birkeland Currents Collide… (Yes, he’s a bit paranoid and eccentric, but he understands electrical engineering better than any engineer I’ve had the honour of working with).

I want to inspire readers to open their minds to a different theory: that in the 1800s, both the rewards for work and the energy used to create were entirely different from what we’ve been taught. Unimaginable? Well, I never thought people would wear face masks to protect against a respiratory infection or follow arrows on supermarket floors, but the unimaginable happened. So why not free ourselves from the knowledge we've been taught and set our own standards?

And why am I questioning past energy sources and rewards in the first place? If I wanted to enslave humanity, here’s the playbook:

First, rewrite history so no one can point to a time when people were truly free - create the illusion that "it’s always been this way.

Next, distort the history of money and energy technologies to limit your imagination and options.

Then, enforce compulsory schooling that leaves people with neither the time nor the mental capacity to educate themselves or ask questions. To lock it all in, build a reward system with meaningless titles and honours to keep people chasing validation within my carefully crafted bubble, while they police and dismiss any information that threatens the narrative.

Sound familiar? I didn’t come up with this on my own. My father, a staunch opponent of communism, taught me its playbook, and I can spot it a mile away.

The main features of communism are work without reward and expensive energy. Communism cannot sustain itself because it drains the energy put into work without offering fair compensation (the "you will own nothing and be happy" approach of the WEF). Without reward, there is no beauty - and no life. (To those who argue that true communism has never been tried, I urge you to research Stalin.)

Communism is a system where human life isn’t valued at all; it’s sacrificed to offset the energy waste created by the system. As a result, there is no fair reward for a lifetime of creation. A reward system or measure of lifetime value, like Bitcoin, cannot exist within communism.

The question of an abundant energy source remains unanswered, but the question of reward is answered with Bitcoin. In my humble opinion, however, its role as a measurement method is more fitting.

In my opinion, the true knowledge and history of money and energy have not yet been fully uncovered because we live in a system that neither allows fair rewards nor embraces the idea of an abundant energy source. This system favours those who educate others using the conventional knowledge they've been taught - resulting in a lot of repetition of established narratives, but not many genuinely new ideas.

Many thanks to my baby boy, Jarno Maximilian, who slept long enough to give me the time to write this article.