Consciousness Shift
Creating a mental culture of health
This group will facilitate conversation and action aimed towards creating/restoring consciousnesses which are intricately tied to the natural world. This need is everpresent in societies which stress infinite growth on a finite planet.Change in behavior comes from change in our mentality, philosophy and worldview. If we seek to make positive change in our wo ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Feb 03, 2008
Updated: Nov 24, 2009
Membership: Open
Semi-Private
Topic: Across Interest and Expertise
Posts (1 - 20 of 25)
|
|
|
This comment was removed by a WiserEarth editor for the following reason:
Duplicate Entry of Comment Above [19 Apr/jp] |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty – Version 3.0 There came a time in our community when we grew tired of arguing over who was right and who was wrong. Despite all the arguing there were still hungry people and the environment kept declining. What we needed was more places for people and creatures to fit. Then we came to realize that the market could not solve all our problems. The market is wonderful for what it does – a spur to innovation – producing better and better goods and services – more and more efficiently. But the market did not provide a place for everyone to fit. When there was more of us than the market needed we were laid off – the market did not value clean air and clean water and the diversity of ecosystems. Anything that is abundant has no value to the market. Then we came to realize. If people are abundant in the eyes of the market does that mean we have nothing to contribute? And if clean air and water and plants and animals, fish and fungi are abundant does that mean that they have nothing to contribute? What else would we like to be abundant? What if food, clothing, shelter, education and health care were abundant? Would they then have no value? Then we came to realize. If we cannot rely on the market for those things we want in abundance, we can create new ways of doing things for those that do not fit in the market. We can design a way to recognize the value in people and creatures that the market does not value. We can find a way for those people and creatures to contribute their gifts to the flow of value and receive value in return. And we called out to government to help us find the way – and government said, “We are not elected to interfere with business.” And we called out to the captains of industry to help us find a way – and industry said, “Our only mission is to make a profit.” And we called out to the foundations and the universities that they support to help us find a way – and academia said, “We do science and education – we do not design the world”. And we came to realize that we would have to find the way ourselves. And so, our community came together – people from government – people from industry – people of charity and seekers of knowledge – we came together to discover what we could do to make our community a better place to live. And we found that we could produce an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, education and health care by creating integrated systems of production. Integrated systems of production use assets to support as many different processes as possible. The different processes are arranged so that the production of one process becomes the feed stock of the next process – creating internal production and consumption cycles. Those who did not fit in the market and those who wanted to work at a slower pace, and those who had retired from the market, began to contribute their skills in exchange for shares in the community investment enterprise. And the enterprise produced abundance by finding a place for many different people and many different creatures. And we became whole, our economy and our lives in balance, and we live together in peace and plenty.
examples:
A Community Investment Enterprise in a US City |
|
|
From the Strategic Network Weaving discussion:
Chris, I am sorry to let my frustration show. I did not mean to take it out on you. Poverty and environmental degradation are symptoms of a pattern of flows out of balance. We are not going to balance the flows by adding more of the same - more business and more computer/communications technology. Those do not create the systems of production in which everyone can participate and that cooperate with nature's process. People who understand environmental principles - and usually not business, finance and technology - can talk about systems of production that cooperate with nature's processes but they have their own silo with this antisocial belief about how humans can only destroy nature and the answer is to have fewer of us. So here we sit with the potential contribution of billions of people and uncountable numbers of creatures simply going unused. I will keep trying to find new ways to say it . . . we could employ anyone who wanted to participate in the most necessary task of healing nature, and produce an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, education and health care in the process. designing those systems will require people from lots of different silos - if I could do it myself I would. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From a conversation with Kimberly Smith at the Global Mind Shift site regarding the Story Version 3.0:
KS: Wow, David. Your story just keeps getting clearer and clearer. I think you would be wise to drop the past tense and put it all in the affirmative now. Something like this: Abundant biodiversity, peace, joy and prosperity is ours now as we choose to help each other embrace unlimited supply and creativity and let go of those things that hold us back.... Say that affirmation so often that it becomes your mantra and you will see the power of you creative mind in action. All of this is manifest as your thought clarifies and intensifies like a laser.
DB: What do you think of this version?:
Listen to Barak Obama. He does this brilliantly. Read the text to his speeches. Same with Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, JFK... Its all rhetoric. Harry Braun's Phoenix Project is an example of a brilliant, practical strategy that died on the vine because only literate readers with a special interest could understand. He lacked the common touch. In a nation of television addicts where over fifty percent of the population has serious difficulty with reading, writing, and arithmetic, you have to respect the common way. There is no other choice. Look at Harry Braun's plan . It is brilliant and useless until he or someone else figures out how to frame it in 28 words or less. Not easy! That's why so few succeed. Obama's speech writer might be able to. DB: So, we can employ anyone who wants to participate in the necessary task of healing nature, and produce an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, education and health care sounds a lot like Braun's we can be energy independent by 2010. There is a difference in that I do not expect to get elected president. All I am looking for right now is a group of people somewhere who are willing to try this approach. My thought had been to enlist those organizations already interested in saving the world - any suggestions? I'm not sure I can pull off "I have a dream". KS: Well of course, David. My point is this guy had a presidential campaign and still the mass media marginalized his ideas. Human politics and power are part of any equation that involves mobilizing people to heal the earth. Naturally you can start in your own community and begin, like Bill Mollison, to renew your patch of land. It's flowering will attract attention from neighbors. Maybe they will be inspired and do the same. All that said, you still need to be able to speak to power either directly or indirectly. Write your representative. Tell them about your ideas. Maybe they can help. Tell them, "We can employ anyone who wants to participate in the necessary task of healing nature, and produce an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, education and health care." They will ask, "How?" Your answer must be crystal clear and in plain language. Something like, "Employ ten million people to build forty million solar electric generating stations and deploy them all over the United States." DB: I'm not sure about the power thing - at least not in the way you pose it as going through your representative, I think of it more as an alternative business model - like a group of people coming together to create a new google - and locating the resources to fund the business plan - except in this case, every community needs one. We will come together as a community and find new and better ways to help all of our members to help us thrive. (22 words). Not poetic enough - new and better ways not specific enough - not clear who is thriving. I understand what I am saying when I talk about "implement integrated systems of production" but no one else does and apparently the examples I attached to Version 3.0 do not have the same impact on others as they do on me. KS: Community 2.0 is a term that comes to mind. Your Google analogy inspired that. Perhaps this is the language. Not sure... Whatever it is the thing has to be physical - not virtual. DB: How about:
We will come together as a community to implement integrated production systems to heal nature and help more and more of us work to help our community thrive. (28 words)
No one will initially understand “implement integrated production systems” but we cannot make a clear statement about something with which the reader has no experience. I was thinking of another analogy this morning. It would be like every community having its own, modern day, Swiss Family Robinson and any of us could be a part of the family by contributing our labor, our knowledge, or our money.
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the Open Money discussion, thanks Sepp: David -
KS: I think I have it! Extended Family 2.0! What you describe is the way of life families used to take for granted. My guess is many people are unhappy with the disintegration of the extended family. Now many youth are growing up in single parent situations. Chances are a large number of these people are yearning for something present, authentic, inclusive and responsible. Extended Family used to be this way. Old, middle aged, child bearing, adolescent, little kids, babies all under one roof in a rural farm setting. The cohousing movement shows a possible direction for you to explore. If you found enough people willing to liquidate their assets and build a cohousing development, you might be able to implement some of your integrated systems. If the experiment flourishes, people will want to duplicate your model community. Check out cohousing . From the Global Mind Shift Discussion, thank you Matt: Such a long post to get something so small - so it goes :). The idea of a twenty eight word vision is kind of cool though. I really like yours, through I might say: We come together as a deep community to build integrated production systems to heal nature and help more and more of us work together, helping our community thrive. It just sounds better to me, but I wouldn't make any significant changes. I actually really liked your one from the silo peice, maybe even liked it better than this one - it was clearer I think, less cluttered. My twenty eight word vision would be something like: We are just another wondrous animal that can create true community, get what we need from directly around us, share for what we can’t get ourselves, and give ourselves freedom It's thirty words, but oh well. I will come back to this, I think I need to make it better. and Jeremy: I'm thinking the business-ese might only resonate with people who are not interested in unsettling the status quo, while people like me and Matt who are chomping at the bit can only really understand the language of TV nation (which is sad, because I don't even have one). I heard an interesting program sunday morning. a phrase leapt out at me: to "re-embed" commerce into community - Walden Bello - near the end of the 30 minutes he gets to the guts. maybe it'll spark something. DB: Thank you all. I found it extremely interesting to compare Sam Rose's community consensus development approach to Susan George's Kensyan War Economy to save the environment. As I have said before, I am not opposed to politics, it is necessary to prevent the worst abuses, but it will not create leading edge solutions because it is based on the “common knowledge” of the majority. Sam Rose's approach is the “re-embedding” of commerce into community that Bello talks about – though I think we need more organization and less belief in development by community consensus. Both Kimberly and Sepp like the idea of “new communities”. I don't think we can expect success if we are asking people to leave what the know, or “liquidate” their assets. I think of it as adding additional choices to the existing community that are open to anyone residing in the locality. So, when you get laid off, you might want to spend full time working at the Community Investment Enterprise. If you are working a low paying job, you might want to but in another 10 or 20 hours at the CIE to earn those goods and services you otherwise can't afford. And, if you were working 60-80 hours a week at a high paying job, you still might want to partake in the abundance, by spending some of your dollars to buy shares in the CIE. How about: Extended Family 2.0: We come together as a community to build integrated production systems to heal nature and help more and more of us work together, helping our community thrive. Like the Swiss Family Robinson, we will find ways to provide for ourselves as a community. |
|
|
!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
Matt said: I don't think we can expect success if we are asking people to leave what they know
I think there is actually an appetite for change and to find something new for a large part of the population. More and more people are tired with the rat race and are becoming depressed with all the environmental degradation. However, whether or not it will be successful isn't really the point. It has to happen, and it can happen slowly, but we have to leave our destructive ways and mindsets behind. I totally agree with the whole family idea. We need the kind of support that it provides. The same sort of idea also fits in with the idea of tribe. Those kind of close bonds that can only develop through spending lots of time together and working together to survive. DB: Matt, you raise an interesting point. Family -> tribe -> nation are forms of separateness based on a need to cooperate against the "others" in the competition for scarce resources. If we accept that all humans are in this together, and in this as a part of a living system that includes all other species, then we must rethink the attributes of those subdivisions that compose the whole. I would attribute to Extended Family 2.0 a local system of production in which anyone in the locality can participate - regardless of their origins. We could build a world where any of us could take off on foot with nothing to our name - and where ever we stopped - we could contribute our labor or knowledge in exchange for food and shelter - realizing the dream of the "human family". Jeremy said: So, when you get laid off, you might want to spend full time . . . This really makes it click for me. - I sometimes try to think of better ways to reorganize the kind of production I do at work. there are many open source and low cost options for building the kinds of equipment I use. |
|
|
Sepp from the Open Money discussion:
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> The conversation goes on. I think
we have some good concepts to start. DB: I liked your blog a lot. Hopefully more and more of us will start thinking along these lines. The description of the self-help corporation that you reference is called the SHC short form outline. There is an earlier, more detailed version starting at SHC home page or the original web site. You might be interested in the ideas in the Biological Potential Project in regard to integrating human and natural systems.
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the Global Mind Shift discussion: Matt said: I totally agree with the whole family idea. We need the kind of support that it provides. The same sort of idea also fits in with the idea of tribe. Those kind of close bonds that can only develop through spending lots of time together and working together to survive. DB: This is an interesting point that we need to think through clearly. Family -> tribe -> nation are forms of separateness based on a need to cooperate against the "others" in the competition for scarce resources. If we accept that all humans are in this together, and in this as a part of a living system that includes all other species, then we must rethink the attributes of those subdivisions that compose the whole. I would attribute to Extended Family 2.0 a local system of production in which anyone in the locality can participate - regardless of their origins. We could build a world where any of us could take off on foot with nothing to our name - and where ever we stopped - we could contribute our labor or knowledge in exchange for food and shelter - realizing the dream of the "human family". Matt: I totally agree, this would be a wicked awesome place to live in most respects. People need to be able to vote with their feet and find the way to live that suits them the best. This is important, no doubt, but there is also something to be said for having a group of people that offers you true support, and that kind of thing can only happen with life-long connections or in a very special environment(you don't necessarily need a life-long connection, but it helps - camps are the other place that I've heard of). Open hospitality doesn't give you that kind of support, how ever much it tries. I've thought a lot about this topic, about the need for strong links and tradition verses the need for mobility and openness, and how to balance them. In some ways, its all I think about. I still don't have an answer, and I think, in some ways, it is a question that everyone has to answer personally. The tribe also just works for socio-ecological reasons. More diversity is better, in cultures as in everything else. Cultures with strong cultural boundaries and traditions help to preserve that cultural diversity in ways that a really open society just can't. The word tribe has negative connotations and sometimes for good reason. When you give a set of tribes with a long running division modern viewpoints and weapons, very bad things can happen. However, tribes evolved for a reason, because they worked. They provided stability, something that would never change for people to rely on, close nit relationships, diverse cultures, effective hunting groups. From Kimberly Smith: As you read this text, a series of chain events unfolds including decoding, interpreting, re-framing, assessing, concluding, etc. Everything is unfolding now. As you read this text, I am somewhere else doing other things and thi8nking about other things. Creativity and action always happen in this very moment which is moving with me and you all the time. This is important information for you and me because we share a desire for goodness and we are working to perpetuate goodness at this very moment. As you breathe and your heart beats, the world turns. Look at these vision statements: David: "We can employ anyone who wants to
participate in the necessary task of healing nature, and produce an
abundance of food, clothing, shelter, education and health
care."
Clarity of vision happens right now as you read these words. What you see and feel at this moment is your contact with the emerging community we are collaborating on now - not eventually, not some day, but now. So we are creating goodness for each other now. We are encouraging each other now. We are thinking and building now. The power of words is unlocked now.
DB: And Kimberly said: We are forming new communities in harmony with natural environmental and ecological relationships, where human participants contribute and thrive by acting present, authentic, inclusive and responsible like extended families. And this is the way I see my life as well. For 28 years I have tended my half acre without toxins - welcoming all species. I worked in the market until I understood it well enough that I could sell my law practice and live on the proceeds while I pursued this "view of the world" with which I am either blessed or cursed. I am urging people to come out of their silos, to see that with three dimensional networking we have the power to rearrange the world so that it works better for everyone. We are creating the future with every choice we make - so lets make choices that lead to the kind of future we want. KS: This mantra is manifesting physical results now. We are forming new communities in harmony with natural environmental and ecological relationships, where human participants contribute and thrive by acting present, authentic, inclusive and responsible like extended families. Blessed be. Matt: Nice mantra Kimberly, I really get this point, we have to talk about what we do in our every day lives, not what some distant utopia is. However, I also see that that doesn't mean that we have to stop talking about "utopias" (good places, not perfect places) because we can have them now. I think I tried to do that in mine and the one I brought in about families. KS: Right on, Matt. This moment has no beginning and no end. Everything is happening right now. Thought is traveling billions and billions of times the speed of light. Einstein is tickling my left ear while Stephen Hawking does push ups on my studio floor. All the creative power of the universe is flowing through us right now reducing the idea of market economics and scarcity to a joke. Mass incredulity is a large obstacle, but we are shifting our minds now and goodness is happening now. A psychic snowball of creative love is forming all over our world for the benefit of all and growing at an exponential rate... |
|
|
We are coming together in community to create systems of production that heal nature and produce abundance.
|
|
|
!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the Ned discussion:
DB: We are coming together in community to create systems of production that heal nature and produce abundance.
LN: How about "We are coming together in community to create systems of production that value nature and produce abundance."
DB: Linda said . . . that value nature . . . instead of . . . that heal nature . . .
in 17 words, there will be different impressions based on the experience and world view of the reader. When I hear value nature I think of something that we protect separate and apart from that with which we are intimate in our daily lives. I am looking for systems that actively incorporate natural systems into the systems we use to produce what humans need and desire.
In any case, this "mantra" as Kimberly calls it, should operate to get more and more people taking the next step of looking further into the potential for systemic solutions based on integrated systems of production. I wonder if there is a way we could do a focus group survey type of thing? - say several of us e-mail a version of the statement to a diverse group of friends and acquaintances and ask what impressions people have of the various terms?
Would we also link to Version 3.0 and ask what they thought of that? From the Global Mind Shift discussion:
DB: We are coming together in community to create systems of production that heal nature and produce abundance.
KS: Yay David! Now you're getting it! We are working together in community to create systems of production that heal nature and produce abundance.
DB: We are working in community to create production systems to heal nature and produce abundance.
Thank you Kimberly - now let us see if this new mantra attracts more attention then all those words I was in love with :) |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the Global Mind Shift discussion:
JH: I keep seeing scarcity come up as the deep source of problems as they relate to economics, so this thread occurred to me... Let's make it real-scale and try to chop it up. Question: what am I running short on? what would a traditional economic strategy be to obtain it? and how do I use integrated production/CIEs to obtain it?
my (short) list:
time to goof off with friends, knowledge of how to use computers and technology better, cooking skills, design taste, connection to people. okay, most of this requires time and/or education. Traditional: sell my house (hahaha), quit my job, move in with parents, get loans to go to U of XYZ, get crappy job to pay off loans for half a decade, ... figure out what to do from there.
now, I imagine a group of close knit friends who all understand the problems sequenced above and have each committed themselves to each other for the constant purpose of helping each other avoid these problems and realize their deepest hopes. the limiting factors? I have a mortgage. that would pretty much restrict me to the roll of venue holder in this situation. and I'm kind of out in the boonies, so it would take serious time and effort to assemble a group of people that trust each other, are passionate about community living, have their heads on (reasonably) straight, and don't mind driving a fair amount. of course, once we manage to integrate, some of these issues will disappear. carpooling would be the first thing that would happen, and then we could put our heads together and come up with ways to work less, grow more food, and free up more time for goofing off OR putting our heads together to come up with even better ways to live.
it sounds like a family, which should make it seem easy. - but we tried, and many of us couldn't hold it together. this is where I need a new story.
So, I'll ask y'all: what are you running short on? what are the traditional economic strategies for getting it? how does it look when you're getting it in a more human/life-centered economy? (Gaianomics?)
DB: Ownership, Organization and Exchange of Value. In market economics we are conditioned to earn money that we can then spend to obtain what we want. In family economics (for lack of a better term) we have the option of creating what we want for ourselves so we don't have to earn the money. Creating what we want will require tools, land, facilities, plans, skills . . . and those things are going to be used by the family - to create enough (a sufficiency) for everyone in the family - of those things we elect to create for ourselves. This right to use the assets is a form of co-ownership (not unlike owning shares in a company that owns assets it uses to produce products that are sold in the market).
Legally, we will need a container for those assets, and a way to decide who gets to use which assets when. Since we do not have a patriarch to manage the family consensus on these matters - I think we want a way to attract the best knowledge available to help the family make these decisions.
Then we need a way to reward contributions to the family wealth - be that time, skill, knowledge or money. We need to measure the relative value of each contribution and tie that back to the right to consume what the family created. The simplest way is to use the evidence of ownership as the medium of exchange. That way, those who have put in the most and taken out the least have the most say.
These are the three aspects that distinguish the SHC/CIE from any other organization. People usually think this is a cooperative - and it has certain aspects in common with some of the different types of cooperative organizations. But, a typical business cooperative has only the worker ownership of assets in common because, those cooperatives are producing products for sale in the market to earn money that they can use to buy what they want. They are not creating things that they want so they don't have to earn the money.
JH: David, you mention attracting the best knowledge available. and the more I read and think, it starts to seem like my "...serious time and effort to assemble a group of people..." that can live/work/learn/play together is going to be the kind of work that is most valuable going into the future, not the punch-a-clock-get-a-paycheck kind of system to which I and so many others see few alternatives. I have been trying to connect more with my family (1.0) in this way, but it's hard work - building rapport and trust, finding where everyone is on their journeys, bridging gaps (physical and intellectual), getting people to have lively conversations about things that excite them without worrying about sounding overbearing, but try to avoid too much soapboxing, but still have enough excitement to keep things flowing.
DB: Yes, this start up question is difficult. The SHC materials assume a group of people, who are without regular work, who "boot strap" the whole thing. That is a tall order for a group of disadvantaged people (considering the number of highly educated people who have trouble with the concept - my fault for lack of language skills - thanks again Kimberly). Ideally, the participants would not have to understand any more than "If you do A, B or C you can get X, Y or Z" - and they can do A, B or C in addition to what ever work for which they are punching a clock. Since these systems have the potential to heal nature and employ all those who do experience scarcity, I had thought that those who are trying to save nature and help the poor would be interested. My experience with people running those organizations is that they have no time to even consider a different approach because the second dimensional networking to keep their organization alive is all consuming. The restaurant/laundry/day care start up is designed to meet the needs of the urban poor served by such organizations. If I were going to focus on building one - instead of promoting the idea - I think I would start with an organic landscaping service - planting other people's property with species that can be harvested and fed to animals . . . and then expand from the base of trading meat for services . . . I have also considered the possibility of starting with a food coop that is buying and distributing organic produce from local farmers . . . However it starts, I think it needs to be open to anyone who has time to contribute and needs the organization can serve . . . we are looking for systems to balance the power of the market - so they must be just as powerful. I would not focus on assembling a compatible group - I would focus on explaining how the whole community benefits when more people and more species can contribute value to the flows through our community - it is in everyone's interest to support these systems because there will be more to go around and a flowering of civilization.
|
|
There are close to THREE BILLION people in the world who live on less than a few dollars a day. Many of these are people who lived in harmony with the natural world as best they could. While I agree that it's nice to envision a different world -- and I too am fond of idealism and brainstorming -- I also feel that people who want to see a change should try living with people who are victimized by the status quo, and try helping them free themselves from their master-slave relationships. To do otherwise is simply victimizing victims.
Re-thinking systems that are designed to exploit is a worthwhile activity; however, implimenting those changes is a whole different ballgame, and I would enjoy hearing from the people who have been quoted or participated in this dialogue just how they plan on implimenting their ideas.
We all could benefit from learning about realistic ways to get from where we are to where we like to be, and I hope that this dialogue will offer up ways that have worked to make lasting, sustainable changes possible! |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
JP said:
try helping them free themselves from their master-slave relationships
The problem I have with this statement is that it assumes an intentional oppression of the poor. There is still slavery and debt bondage in the world – see Using a Better Map – but that is not the cause of most poverty. The predominant system is the market and the market simply has no use for people without marketable skills. Stated another way, where the supply of labor exceeds the demand for labor the value of labor drops below the cost of living – resulting in people living in poverty.
I don't mean to be crass or unfeeling – but let me be blunt – the belief that someone else is responsible for our plight – the culture of victimization – prevents people from doing what they need to do to improve their lives. If our only choice is the market - what people need to do is obtain marketable skills – or we could figure out this option to work in community to create production systems to heal nature and produce abundance.
I will be posting a more detailed response to your question soon. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
KS: Okay, David. Now you have the idea, lets get down to figuring out exactly what physical tasks people are doing day by day...
Take this vague, general statement, "create an abundance in food by instituting production systems that align with biological processes - increasing biological diversity", and turn it into clear, specific directions. The phrase "instituting production systems" means nothing. Dead in the water.
You are already close to solving this puzzle with this statement: "If you do A, B or C you can get X, Y or Z" What specific tasks are you delegating?
DB: Kimberly said:
What specific tasks are you delegating?
It depends on who is available and what are the goods and services they can supply. The restaurant/laundry/day care is one scenario as a starting "set of transactions" that feed back into themselves so the organization can accumulate cash for growth. I would love your help in explaining the internal value exchange in a way that "non-math people" follow.
In that case, A, B or C is (A) cook in the restaurant, (B) do laundry, (C) watch the kids, or (D) clean up around the place. The organization will issue an acknowledgment of your effort - that you can exchange for (X) a meal, (Y) your laundry done for you, or (Z) someone to watch your kids. We could then add to that the other goods and services I was talking about, such as a buyer's club where we purchase in bulk wholesale or a landscaping service combined with the gathering of animal feed. You could spend some time helping with the planting and harvest and earn enough to get free chickens throughout the year. Then, that can tie back into the restaurant - as described in the Grass Powered Greenhouse. At that point the organization has an internal production and consumption cycle completely independent of the market economy - there being no cash transactions involved in that particular cycle.
What I am describing are integrated systems of production - where each facility/tool/property is used for as many different purposes as possible - and the product of one process becomes the feedstock of the next process - in order to complete as many internal production and consumption cycles as possible. The more we can do for ourselves the less cash we need - or, the more cash we have to increase our capacity to provide for ourselves.
These integrated systems of production achieve economies of integration that can be as powerful as the market's economies of scale - and have the capacity to produce an abundance of those things we provide for the "owners" of the organization. See ZERI
What set of family transactions would you like to observe from your rocking chair in 2038? Let's see if we can integrate a system of production to accomplish that. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
Sepp shared this story with me:
This story makes the point that we choose how we interact in the world. I don't think the market is Hell – rather, I think of the market as a challenge and those who can find a niche in the market that suits them live an honorable life, contributing value to us all and reaping the rewards of their effort. And I don't think what I am proposing is Heaven – rather, I think of a community investment enterprise as an alternative way for people to contribute value when, for whatever reason, they are unable to compete in the market. I see it as balancing market forces – I see it as converting the financial resources generated in the market back into living resources for the benefit of the community. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
LC: It seems like this is your space and contributions are for you to critique according to your own sense of expertise.
An interesting parable but the psychology of greed is never one dimensional and even the best people are greedy for something.... the simplicity of heaven and hell is often used to thwart thinking on the transactional nature of us humans... we all want to trade something.
MG: Seems to me like David is taking the time to have this conversation between multiple online platforms which I've never really seen done before. Anyway, it's interesting to watch from my POV.
DB: Thank you Mark. There are four online forums represented here. and that is about getting us out of our silos to hold a discussion across interest and expertise.
Liam, can we explore further what you mean when you say “according to my own sense of expertise”? Is that not the point of any conversation – and if you think another point of view is needed I hope you feel free to share it.
This conversation is about telling the story of How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty. Where most people see a world full of groups of people in conflict with one another, I see a world composed of a single pattern of flows. From that point of view, it appears that we are failing to utilize the potential contribution of some 3 billion people, that JP talks about, that don't currently “fit” in the market, and failing to use the potential contribution of uncountable numbers of plants and animals, that do not currently “fit” in our food production systems. I am proposing community ownership of integrated production systems that are designed to provide a “fit” for those people and those creatures – and I will sincerely appreciate your critique according to your sense of expertise.
I was also thinking more about the parable. In Matrix or Star Wars, I wrote about how capitalism is a force and it has a dark side – and what we are looking to do is bring balance to the force. :) |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
CM: Historically, is there a case of a community working through what you suggest - if so could we learn from how it did this? DB: Chris,
There are two primary differences between a community investment enterprise and any business organization. The first is to treat the contribution of labor as earning ownership of the organization (issue stock for labor) the second is to use the assets of the organization to produce goods and services that will be consumed by the owners. I do not know of a historical case that operated precisely this way - although I imagine that early agricultural societies could have had similar structures. LC: Exactly which animals are you referring to that do not currently fit into our food production systems?
Capitalism is a term often loosely used to define the right to accumulate gains. Many of the posters here are able to reflect on their ability to travel world wide, take footage of people in African countries, complain about the poor speed of internet connections and agree to meet half way around the world for a reunion......but so long as it's all for a good cause..... its all ok. If a bunch of socialites hold a big charity ball where only the illuminati can attend and then hand over a big cheque to a worthwhile cause... what't the difference besides the scale and a different sense of social justice?
The problem is we can't all do the same thing and that's where the ideals of utopia seen through a dreamy haze don't reflect reality and the harsh lessons of history. I mean hey the Russian Constitution was long recognized as one of the most significant national documentations enshrining the rights of all people, and in a equalitarian society that should count for something... didn't stop millions being killed and even more being persecuted. If we all march to the same beat and trade in trinkets well who is going to find the next new internet speed and the next break through in online cheaper telephone calls... or more so, who is going to forgo access for the better of all?
Heaven and hell? Good and bad? Well if everyone does something and that moves the world towards an ideal improvement that's good. If everyone does the same thing and it goes the other way, that's bad. So given we all have to pick our way through the labyrinth of choices as there are very few absolutes, lets hope more of us make the right ones than the wrong ones, according to our own areas of expertise.. so on the point of balancing the forces I agree with you... but remember in Star Wars the right to fight your enemy with deadly force, to kill masses of badies and preserve your land were never in question.
I know one thing for sure, there is often a lot of links, references to documents etc posted which is not so much the information highway but more trophy hunting of what can be found. To possibly absorb all of this, you would need to dedicate all your time and energy in its intellectual digestion.
Then again.. I could be completely wrong.
DB: Liam said:
Exactly which animals are you referring to that do not currently fit into our food production systems? To possibly absorb all of this, you would need to dedicate all your time and energy in its intellectual digestion.
I could not tell from your post whether you disagree with any particular point - but let me give you a firm place to start - if you are interested in spending some time and energy to understand what I am saying.
Every thing is connected to everything else and nothing exists unless it fits in the pattern of flows. You talk about each of us making the best choice we can above - and I agree - we make the pattern more complex or less complex with every choice each of us makes. I call this a complexity spiral The way the system is currently structured has tended to reduce the number of ways people and creatures can "fit" in the system. What I am proposing is to increase complexity by designing new ways for people and creatures to "fit" in the system.
LC: You are right Chris, there is not one case of a community, outside of religious enclaves, let alone a society that have been able to operate this way in the history of the world for an extended period of time. You need a leader, you need a power base, you need to accumulate for the good of all and that's the basis for a fundamental shift. Personal choice has always meant people will move in different directions and that's where the appeal of fables and homilies comes from; because you can strip away the complexity and need for higher thought processes to try and indoctrinate in people a fundamental sameness to questions of morality... and the question remains in my mind... which animals in the food chain are we talking about? DB: Liam said:
there is not one case of a community . . . that have been able to operate this way in the history of the world for an extended period of time.
Ah!! here is a challenge. I am not sure what you imagine when you say operate in this way. Just because a thing has not been done does not mean it cannot be done - otherwise we would never make any progress as a species.
Let me ask you some questions about a community investment enterprise in light of personal choice:
1 - What is the difference between choosing to work for the CIE, as opposed to taking any other job, that makes a CIE impossible?
2 - Why would you choose to do work for a wage if you could do the same work for the CIE and own what you produced?
3 - Why wouldn't you choose to work for the CIE when that was your only choice - because there were no jobs for you in the market.
As to the question about the animals, if you only have time for one video watch the Greening the Desert one. There is unknown untapped potential to be realized from learning to honor the gift of the least among us.
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the NED discussion:
LC: The answer to all three is found in that nothing remains the same forever. That's why kids don't stay in the family home, let alone the family farm. People will do jobs when there is no choice and often move out of them when there is choice. Any model that is successful will grow and that brings opportunity for personal growth, expansion etc.
Most people don't stay in the same job forever and therefore the prospect of what is essentially an agricultural existence is limited to developing communities and those who are affluent enough to do it with something to fall back on... generally speaking.
DB: Yes, I see your point. Intentional communities are limited in size by the number of people they can find who are willing to make a life time commitment to a particular model.
I don't think the Self-help Corporation/Community Investment Enterprise has that problem. The organization itself, like any business corporation, government agency, or academic institution, can continue to exist despite the fact that the individual people participating is constantly changing. In Systems to Complement the Market I expressed it this way:
I do not think that the highest use of human potential is working 40 years (60-80 hours a week) in business and retiring to Florida. If each of us had the opportunity to work at a slower pace, producing an abundance of basic goods and services for ourselves and our neighbors, while we are going to school, or retraining after a downsizing, or while our children are too young for school, or after a disability, and for those who cannot or choose not to seek a career in business or government, there might be a flowering of human creativity and certainly less stress in our lives.
In other words, the SHC/CIE organization can continue producing abundance so long as there is a critical mass of people in the categories listed - and each of them is free, at any time, to take a job in the market, if that job can deliver more value than they can obtain working for the SHC/CIE.
Does that explanation address your objection?
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the Global Mind Shift discussion:
MH: I've said this before, but you never responded, even though it seemed to go against everything you've said. I just want to understand your definition of complexity, which I think is different than mine. David, I think that life doesn't actually try to make complexity - in fact, life tries to find the simplest way to do something - that's why bacteria are the single most prevalent life form, and then insects. Complexity only evolves when there is no other option, when it is the only choice, when all other niches have been filled. I think that our society often leaves the most simple niches unfilled because they don't fit the paradigm that agriculture requires.
I think that complexity spirals makes sense, but only so long as you don't go beyond the point of diminishing returns, and there is a lot of evidence that we are on the far side of that point. On the far side of diminishing returns, you can only survive by continually finding new resources, oil is our current one.
DB: Yes, I remember your statement about complexity and that I did not respond. I did not quite follow your argument and I'm not sure that I am following now. I think you are wrong when you say nature only creates complexity as a last resort - but, when you talk about diminishing returns, you are talking about reducing complexity.
True, we cannot create complexity for the sake of complexity. Each new element has to "fit" in the system - we can think of "fit" as the ability to participate in the flows through the system.
The history of the universe is about the increase in complexity - beginning with the big bang's seamless field of energy - leading to the congealing of matter into gravitational systems - leading to life and living ecosystems - and now the conscious systems we are talking about adjusting.
We may have already passed some thresholds where we will be unable to recover certain elements. That does not change the urgent need to create more places for more people and more creatures to "fit" in the system - which is what I mean by an upward complexity spiral.
MH: LC said:
but remember in Star Wars the right to fight your enemy with deadly force, to kill masses of badies and preserve your land were never in question. Totally agree :). But this is serious :l, there is a destructive way of doing things, and while "killing masses of baddies" is NOT something I support at all, fighting back and preserving the land is something I do. Millions of people and animals and plants aren't just being neglected, they are being actively harmed, whether people mean to or not, and that is just looking at the present, excluding the future life that is being destroyed. You can't balance that, that needs to be stopped.
I also however agree that any force you can truly get to serve the cause of life, and that is the cause we are all talking about, should be used. However, grand balls and 'healthy' tourism do maintain the same culture that they try to minimize the effects of, and as long as the culture continues, the harms will continue. We need to change our culture, stop objectifying things, re-focus. However, (how many times am I going to use that word?) doubling back again, stopping some immediate bad things is a priority, independent loggers and environmentalists can work together to stop corporate logging. DB: The point of Matrix or Star Wars was the comparison between a win - lose situation and the one we are in - which is either lose - lose or win – win. We are not going to create the world we want by defeating anyone - because we are all in this together. The only way out of those circumstances that are making life more difficult for all of us is new circumstances that make life easier for all of us. I am certain that what I am proposing is not the only course of action that can lead in that direction. I am also certain that we all need to climb out of our silos to see where we "fit" in the necessary changes - if we are going to make any progress. |
JP invited me to start a discussion in this group based on our message exchange:
JP: . . . my concern is that as long as people maximize utility and their understandings about interrelationships from the perspective of mankind, we're in trouble!
DB: I appreciate your position - but I hold the opposite view. The environment will be at risk until humans obtain what they need and desire from systems of production that cooperate with nature's processes - increasing diversity rather than diminishing it - and that to me, looks a lot like the garden of eden. Where you and I agree is that we ought to take our next steps from a broad understanding of the system as a whole - instead each of us pursuing our individual passions without that broader understanding.
I have been working on starting a discussion across interest and expertise in four different forums and there is a summary of what has been discussed here:
Probably the best place to follow the whole discussion is at the NED site.
JP's position, and much of the discussions revolves around our beliefs about scarcity. These are the issues as I see them:
There are two aspects to our beliefs about scarcity that, I think, hold us back, and that I challenge. One is where "deep ecologists" take an anti-human stance. They advocate drastic reductions in the number of humans and would prohibit humans from doing more and more things. I don't see that becoming a "popular" view and it is inconsistent with what we know about all those things that we could produce in abundance (including food, clothing, shelter, education and health care). Further, when we start talking about "systems of production that cooperate with nature's processes" those look, to me, a lot like the garden of eden.
The other one I was talk about in Using a Better Map. Our social structures are built on the belief that life is about the struggle for scarce resources which means that conflict over who gets what share of those resources is inevitable.
The next post is the result, so far, of that discussion.