Banking in nature

Is there an equivalent behavior to banking and money lending in nature, or animal kingdom, or is this a 100% purely human creation? I just can’t think of any.
What could be the closest analog in nature?

It’s a 100% purely human creation.

No one, of course. They are too far, far, far away.

content.time.com/time/health/art … 21,00.html
youtube.com/watch?v=ih9M2d-KaMA
telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/w … fruit.html

Seems like animals using money to me

As far as banking is concerned… I suppose a squirrel burying a nut is akin to a bank

I think a more accurate comparison would have been if the male monkey stole the fruit from the female and then gave it back to her in return for sex. Lol!

The example lacks money. Money is not involved in this example.

:slight_smile:

The example lacks money. Money is not involved in this example, although it is indeed a more accurate comparison.

I think food is being treated as money/currency in the examples

Money is something between the things and those who want the things (e.g. food). The examples lack this something. Money is such a something. It is something that can be exchanged between things, between living beings, between things and living beings, provided that these living beings confide, trust, believe in it as a means of exchange (barter). Money is a promise, which will be fulfilled in the future. So, if the money shall work, the promise shall be fulfilled in the future, one has to confide, trust, believe in it; and if one really confides, trusts, believes in it, it will work, the promise will be fulfilled.

If I understand your question, Pandora, the below is what came to my mind instantly after having read it. The first time I became aware of this in bats, I was quite taken with the little ones.

The closest analogy for me would be the below…

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … group.html

I think that if we stretch our minds and think out of the box we can see the bats’ social behavior and altruism, in a sense, as a form of finance which provides funding for others.

I think that some investigating could probably come up with more examples from nature.

That was my first thought too, Arcturus. Where the monkey examples show the exchange of goods for services, the bat examples show something like lending, which is closer to the role banks play. But note that the bats don’t charge interests on their loans, so it’s a bit anthropomorphizing to call it lending. It’s more like a form of insurance and risk spreading.

Consider whether other social exchanges count as “lending”: if one chimpanzee grooms another without the expectation that it will be groomed in return, but with the expectation that the grooming will form a social bond that will strengthen a coalition within the group, is that a form of lending? What if one chimp grooms another with the expectation that it will be groomed in return? Social animals do ‘invest’ in relationships, including the exchange of goods and services without expectation of immediate payout.

Money is promissory notes, scripts, or credit items in place of goods or services, else it is merely bartering.

Yes.

In my words:

I guess you noticed that I was speaking of believing in money and a promise that shall be fulfilled in the future. Yes, money has to do with belief, with religion, with theology, theism, with God. Money is a secularized God (false god), buying in the sense of spending money and accelerating the circulation of money is a secularized religion, the constant jurisdiction in favor of money is a secularized theology or theism. And each bank is a secularized church.

[tab][/tab]

This doesn’t directly answer the question, but an interesting note on “self-stabilizing” properties existing in natural/biological economics, from the article on Biological Trade and Markets (biological economics):

rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ … 7/20150101

And another one on the same topic:
bloomberg.com/features/2017 … l-markets/

I’m not too sure, but I would think that hypothetically, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that some type of lending for profit does exist in nature, through some type of mutualistic (mutualistic/parasitic) relationship.

There is no currency usage in the animal kingdom beyond humanity in nature, that is a unique form of social tyranny and control that only human beings possess.

In the animal kingdom there is only quid pro quo within interactions of a primitive impulsive and instinctual variety.

Especially, the “animal kingdom” lacks promises for the remote future, lacks belief or trust in those promises, lacks institutions like banks that hords those promises and works with them (mostly by misusing those promises).

Animals are instinctively impulsive living moment to moment (simplicity) whereas human beings have become consumed with long term planning in terms of the future (A time that has not yet come) which we weaponize using against each other.

But all those promises for the remote future need the belief or trust, faith, hope, cofidence in them. So, there are two sides needed: (1) the promise and (2) the belief in it. Just think analogously of the coin or banknote (paper money): both have two sides too. Look:

€_50.jpg
And before you can believe in such an abstract phenomenon like a promise, you must have a pretty large brain with a pretty large consciousness and the capability of understanding highly abtract conceptions.

You know what us cynics call that Arminius? A con job but then again money itself is an essential form of con-artistry that revolves around con-fidence.

Actually, that was supposed to be “confinesse”, but the con artist slip in a misspelling so as to distract.
8-[

I already said that there are cynics who are opposed by kyniks. :wink:

Yes, you did. Of course not everybody can speak the fatherland’s tongue. :wink: