  Despite all our great advances in science, technology and financial
innovations, many societies today are struggling with a financial, economic and
public spending crisis, over-regulation, and mass unemployment, as well as lack
of sustainability and innovation. Can we still rely on conventional economic
thinking or do we need a new approach?
  I argue that, as the complexity of socio-economic systems increases,
networked decision-making and bottom-up self-regulation will be more and more
important features. It will be explained why, besides the "homo economicus"
with strictly self-regarding preferences, natural selection has also created a
"homo socialis" with other-regarding preferences. While the "homo economicus"
optimizes the own prospects in separation, the decisions of the "homo socialis"
are self-determined, but interconnected, a fact that may be characterized by
the term "networked minds". Notably, the "homo socialis" manages to earn higher
payoffs than the "homo economicus".
  I show that the "homo economicus" and the "homo socialis" imply a different
kind of dynamics and distinct aggregate outcomes. Therefore, next to the
traditional economics for the "homo economicus" ("economics 1.0"), a
complementary theory must be developed for the "homo socialis". This economic
theory might be called "economics 2.0" or "socionomics". The names are
justified, because the Web 2.0 is currently promoting a transition to a new
market organization, which benefits from social media platforms and could be
characterized as "participatory market society". To thrive, the "homo socialis"
requires suitable institutional settings such a particular kinds of reputation
systems, which will be sketched in this paper. I also propose a new kind of
money, so-called "qualified money", which may overcome some of the problems of
our current financial system.
