What is the average lifespan of a fiat currency?

Sorry for the longwinded tangential-thinking rant, but it linked up as a consequence of this one single thought induced by working in the exact field most closely lined up to this Adam Smith model of the economy which has remained up and always until certain scarce conditions provided for the need to limit to a per-person per-purchase quantity of toilet paper during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was merely temporary and a last resort being that nobody in modern society could see an alternative provided to which we could use so as to not have to not "wipe the shit from our arses" which is the lowest thing we ever do, and see as vulgar and degrading to even talk about, and the most humiliating thing that can happen when it goes wrong either for others or for our own incontinence. And yet we have bidets (japanese), we have rags, we have "lambs-ear" (Stachys byzantina) leaves that stay green all year round, have a soft fluff on their surface that absorbs moisture, has an anti-biotic and an analgesic within it, and grows without the need for maintenance (and is used in band-aids and bandages in some countries), we have sponges and sea-sponges (ancient romans). And in ancient greece they say there were two words that are thought of as "stones" and "ceramic pieces" used to wipe, but if you go back into the root words and reconstruct it, it is respectively "pieces" and "earth-vessels", so cloth-waste or offcuts or dirt. Which is clear to me because when you interpret/translate an old language, you need to ensure that it makes sense and is applicable to reality because making them out to be worse than you is a clear depiction and example of the decay of knowledge you have with respect to your ancestors. Even in modern frequency analysis (through the Fourier Transform) we assume that time has existed for eternity, and we could only make that analysis to create things like electronics, wifi, 3G, bluetooth, and everything present in the modern era, which when you look at ancient engravings of egypt they have (or at least things that look like) light-globes, batteries, and laptops. In mythology there is ancient immemorial knowledge of "a time before time", and the second usage of the word time being the modern time, is considered eternal and everlasting, but it would also refer to an idea of "a culture and language existing where there was no past-tense or future-tense". We consider that "primitive" and perceive it as "tribalistic" and see both as regressive, backwards and negative, and we think we've "advanced" from that. And yet we know for a fact that all advancements possible depend on knowing some prior truths, AKA primitive truths. And yet as primal as you can get is languages without number nor time. And the additivity of numerals is as presumptive arbitrary unfounded and improvable without first taking it for granted.

There are even alternative logic systems that are essentially required to explain certain known facts that preclude the ability to have a numerical system. Having one object and two objects and three objects seems obvious to us as being separable exclusive and has the ability to be possible and true, however that is when we are both objectifying and subscribing to materialism, believing our eyes of what we see in front of us, even when you can't even perceive distance without ratio which is potentially either infinite or non-existent therefor being ultimately undefined and both can only be done when we stoop to needing to compare one thing to another, which is known as the most detrimental thing you can do for your mental health. There's a problem with having numerical amounts for things in that when you have more of something, there is less of you to go around what you have. When you "have" an amount of something, you see it as an ownership that you declare over reality and the environment. The word origin for "have" is "to own" or "hold for use" or "contain", which again is coming back to an objectification of our environment and a limitation of belief. It is considered "a hallucination" and "a delusion" and "an illness needing forceful involuntary treatment" to experience a transient past, a non-numerical experience, and the ability for objects to appear and to disappear whether at will or without it (and also a lack of object permanence). But to anyone who has experienced it (which can also be done in a group setting and with a shared consensus experience known as a "group hallucination") they know for a fact that sometimes (not always) the things that change during a hallucination can remain when the hallucinatory episode finishes or you "come down" from that experience. And as an aside it is widely accepted in Law that "eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence" and instead resort to "accepted history" and "consensus" and "academia" and "written documented facts", but this clearly escapes and runs away from the truth of both their own experiences as well as the fact that any alternative form of evidence is itself exactly this first and foremostly which in fruition is leading to these forms of evidence. But they can't have and maintain their power, exploit their control over others, without leaning on this purveyance. Which means anyone who takes for granted the ideas simply as they are presented, and are convinced that they need to "grow wealth" or "make an income" or "have a job" and "need to survive through these three things" will stoop to the perception that being a policeman or a politician or a law enforcer or a wager of war or a slave driver is ultimately essential to existing and will take those opportunities to go about trying to survive or to help others or to better society, when the whole basis of money is as a numerical equivalent for the value of an object or action such that you can exploit that value to make a profit to make more value to have more things and to buy more things for yourself. It is there to exploit us, but it only works if you let it exploit you, or you use to exploit others. But the thing with profitability is that it requires buying things you don't want or need to sell things to others so that you can take from what they have and accumulate what you have. But the thing with perception and perception of perception is that it is a reflexive fractal in that you create what you lend credence to, or your beliefs will conform until themselves, or so you think so you will see, ie your beliefs create your reality, and the law of attraction in that what you attach to in your heart of hearts your deepest desires is what you will go out and do and seek and acquire in this world. But objectification is "to grasp in your hand", you cannot hold a butterfly in your hand without either killing it or trapping it. You cannot give a flower to someone without uprooting it, taking the life out of it, and preventing it from reproducing. This is the beauty we need to learn. You do not have what you hold in your hand, you can only kill what is in your hand, you only have what is given to you, and you only experience what you first believe. Those who do not stoop to those traditions mentioned previously needed to maintain the legal system of ownership and monetary value do not realise that that is all both simultaneously "the law" and "legal", which when you go back to the root of those words means "written" and "spoken", both of which are just in your head, culturally dependent, highly variable and all it can ever do with the power to have any control over reality requires two things: being believed by others, and being exclusionary to some prior existence - which analogously stems from killing or murdering some part of reality which involves the purest of pure of hate for things that were already here before you were and will always exist with or without your attempts to control it, which involves a rejection of nature, a rejection of the minds ability to dream and experience anything in its own head, and the refusal to accept the mathematical possibility for geometry and art to draw any picture or design possible with or without your attachments to it and by someone else at some other time or place, directly against your will, so you are believing yourself towards your own self-violation. And all of this results in exactly what you've asked for, for those who seek to become lawyers, police, politicians, bankers, and militaristic, propagate their own demise, and draw in closer to them the things that will ultimately destroy themselves. If in your mind and beliefs you are truly righteous (not in your own perception but in concordance with Absolute Truth itself) without needing to rely written or verbal knowledge, interpreting others, and seeking to control, then as a consequence of your finite inabilities in comparison to a greater infinite counterparted whole, not only will you lose every time, but the things in which you hate will not only destroy you, but they will seek you out, hunt you down, and you and your kind will spend the rest of forever in futility out of vanity that will only get worse the harder you try and the longer you go on. For everything there is a season, and so I understand that now is the time for this to occur, and is why I myself follow all of these things, but I understand the problem, and seek not to grasp and to control it, but to submit to needing to be controlled by the need to control others. But remember this, Anne Frank was killed in Nazi Germany by those who were following the Law, as was Jesus, who is believed in by muslims and christians alike being over 55% of the global population. And yet how does history remember them? They say history is written by the victors, but it is actually also the victorious in history that are perceived as being greater (although for both not in all cases).

So my question remains: why does the Adam Smith model not follow equality, promotes the richest at the sacrifice of the poorest, and is not followed during the harshest of times of scarcity, for the things which are the most degrading to humanity, and in the heights of extreme fear en masse? And as an aside to this: why is "real value" seen as the height of success when it itself is not conducive to the ability to grow value, when "imaginary value" is seen as not impactful, just in your head, and confers a lack of product-market-fit. The only real issue with imaginary value is when you want to sell something in a given amount of time, but nobody else shares that imaginary value in the sense that they perceive the object to be overpriced. So an inappropriate overpriced imaginary value means the inability to sell the object for that value. But it takes the growth of imaginary value alone for the purchase price of real value to succeed.

Sure, in my life and my time-line and what is available to me on the shelf, for at least certain products, has improved dramatically over time. Thanks to productivity, industrialisation, compounding information, and moore's law of computational strength per unit cost growth. But at what cost to the environment, to our minds, to society, and to the experience and appreciation of the present moment, and the freedom to think and believe without fearing control mechanisms, as well as the shear total increase in total power consumption of our society. Populations go through predator and prey cycles, and in this case humanity goes through consumer-consumptive cycles, where our prosperity in recent history is a result of fertilisers, oil, electricity, and computation. But for where there is a greater demand, there is a greater control exerted by the supplier, and a greater ability to increase the price. And in the last few years these things have each dramatically increased in the unit cost. Now what about reverse Moore's Law, which as you can see will be made by top-down control rather than the bottom-up control of open-source-information in relation to computational software and the science of hardware design:

"if you look at the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry, it has halved every nine years for the last five decades. It is the exact opposite of Moore’s law and that is true of just about everything in healthcare."

What do you value more? The cost of a computer where you are less likely to know what is true with the more of it you have (not necessarily a bad thing if the truth before was just as false as it is now), or the cost of your health? And now that moore's law has pretty much ended for the scaling approach of making smaller and smaller transistors, we are at the stage of an inverse moore's law for atomically precise manufacturing.

This is that "the order of magnitude above part size takes an exponential amount of time longer to produce". So they think it provides immense benefits and say that by about 2070 we will be able to use APM (atomically precise manufacturing) to produce parts up to 1000 mm^3 cost effectively. So the "cost effective growth of APM per unit volume" is exponential too, as a result of that prior inverse moore's law. But what they did not say is that with that comes an inverse time to production for that. So the hidden piece of information hiding behind these two facts is that, if it takes 1000x longer to produce a product 10x bigger with atomic scale manufacturing, but within 20 years we will have 10,000x bigger objects, then clearly as I hope you can see, the monopolisation of industries awide via APM will be utterly ridiculous to comprehend. It means they'll have a huge amount of machines and a huge amount of power, because the time it takes to produce something bigger with APM (in this paper) doesn't change as we move forward (without an increase in assembly rate), but the cost effectiveness of that productivity grows. So they're saying they'll have a huge amount of increase in the number of machines doing this work, which precludes that they have already achieved monopolisation but their wealth and their power of wealth can still grow exponentially, and by around (10,000)^1,000 within 20 years.