Topic: The Global Mind Shift version
Posts (1 - 12 of 12)
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
I would add to the story:
This is not impractical or a communist plot. In the same way that the stock market allows you to invest your money in publicly traded companies, a community investment enterprise allows you to invest your time in the wellbeing of yourself, your family, your community and the local environment. But this next part is tricky. Most of us have to specialize in order to be marketable. That means we have in depth knowledge of a tiny fraction of human knowledge. For the rest of our understanding of the world we rely on something like a “common knowledge” that we pick up as sort of a faith from the people around us. These beliefs about the world can be hard to challenge because they are not based on an independent analysis of the information. There two such beliefs that I would specifically like to challenge in order to free us up to deploy these systems. The first one has to do with big government or big business being responsible. The people who make up big business and big government are just like you and me – and they are doing the best they can in the circumstances in which they find themselves. From essential unity : There is not a corporate conspiracy to oppress the poor and destroy nature. Rather, in the market, that which cannot be exploited for a profit and those who do not have "marketable skills" simply have no use. Those things are in danger of losing (or have lost) their connections/relationships/bridges to "the system". If we believe that government or business is responsible it relieves us of our responsibility for our choices. See: A Future Conducive to Human Life: The other is the belief that resources are scarce and that human beings will have to live a diminished life style or perish. That belief prevents us for looking at all the ways we can change how we interact with nature that I would consider enhancement of our life style. And in fact those resources needed for humans to thrive on this planet are not scarce . Any ideas on how I might address those issues – or should I? And I received a response in part as follows: I think we are all ignorant of our complicity in what amounts to a conspiracy, and should make it our work to dissect each of our choices in search of laziness or casual abandonment of responsibility. also - speaking of skills and even people as "marketable" treads across the line toward human commodification... it makes my skin crawl. We need not think in terms of what is wrong with the existing system. We can think in terms of what additional connection/relationships/bridges are needed to create an increasingly inclusive economy and an increasingly healthy ecosystem. what's wrong with pointing out a system's flaws and calling them what they are? we can probably get where we want to go easier if we're not carrying around bags full of stuff that we won't be using when we get there. In a way the global community movement (I'm not actually sure what to call it) is to corporate capitalism what the protestant movement was to the Roman Catholic church: e.g. "We shouldn't have to go through the Man to find fulfillment!" And I responded: These are two very excellent points that illustrate precisely what I am trying to say. In the current state of the world a person has to have marketable skills to "fit" in the system. Hence I wrote this in the original version of the story:If something is abundant, like labor in a town where the local factory work was outsourced, it has no "market value". Does that mean that people without marketable skills have no gift? Of course not. It only means that we cannot value that gift in "market money". What is it that we want to be abundant? Food, clothing, shelter, education and health care. If those things were abundant would they have no value? Of course not, but we would need a different way to measure contributions to that abundance. Is it possible that people without marketable skills could use their gift to produce an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, education and health care? The point about believing that the "corporations and their government lapdogs" are "responsible" for people needing to be marketable means that people go out protesting at WTO meetings and don't stay home building community investment enterprises. |
|
|
<!--
@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 things 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. Those who did not fit in the market and those who wanted to work at a slower pace, and those who had made their mark in 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 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
Economics of Integrated Production
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
This comment comes from the Ned discussion: In all aspects of my readings in Buddhism, the philosophy attempts to strike a balance between the individual, society and the environment. One of my problems with classic and neo-classical economics and with your presentations has always been the denial of scarcity. To deny scarcity in a bounded environment seems to me to be at best delaying realization of the reality of the situation. The limits may be far greater than I have reason to believe but, there is only one earth. I think the problem is in looking at always trying to maximize the wrong thing.
I hear your point about scarcity. There are two aspects of that belief that, I think, hold us back, and that I challenge. One is what I was talking about above where "deep ecologists" take an anti-human stance. They advocate drastic reductions in the number of humans - humans prohibited from doing more and more things - and I don't think that approach is going to become a "popular" view. I find that confrontational, counterproductive, and 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 is what I was talking about in Using a Better Map. So long as we believe that resources are scarce, we believe that life is about the struggle to get our share of those scarce resources. In that respect I think I can characterize my view as "the middle way" and look forward to your thoughts. There is a third point that you raise that I am unsure of how to approach. That is the beliefs we hold about human nature and the future. There is the one view that we can never improve humans so then we can never have a better world and the opposite of that - which is a belief that we can have a better world as soon as we produce better humans. I think there is a middle way there as well. That has to do with building a set of institutions that give every child the advantages that my family gave me - and I think the research shows that middle class kids have many fewer problems than other kids. The concepts underlying Spiral Dynamics support the idea that we will produce better humans when we create a better world. I look forward to your thoughts on that as well. To me, limitations in both respects are best understood in terms of complexity spirals. We are at this current level of complexity - and at this level there is only so much we can produce. I agree with the analysis of the ecologist that we are currently decreasing complexity - and reducing our capacity to produce that which we need for humans to thrive. But, if we add elements to the system to utilize what we now waste in human and biological potential, we increase complexity and our capacity to produce that which we need for humans to thrive. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
The good news is that the systems we are talking about have the capacity to produce an abundance of those things that humans need to thrive. In that sense, resources are not scarce.
The sobering reality is that there is no government, corporation, foundation or university that is going to design and implement these systems for us. The only way to create the future we want is for those of us who understand what is needed - to work in community to create production systems that heal nature and produce abundance. We need to identify those people in our community that can bring people out of their silos to look at how they fit in these new systems. We then need to support those people in their work - soliciting design expertise and implementing specific systems. We need a way for all of those community organizers to communicate about what works and what doesn't work. We need to help spread the word that we are creating the future with every choice we make and that we can make much better choices. I am open for suggestions on what I can do to facilitate the next step. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the NED discussion: CM: Exactly we are imo hurtling into an Orwellian world where the bigger the system, the more the superpower, the more the people with decision making and resource influence are likely to take wrong decisions in terms of the deepest community and sustainability crises
if we can get that far we could do so much with agreeing one synonym for the reverse system world
is it micro is it community up is it grassroots
what is it? unless we can get that far it seems to me we are arguing across each other's vocabularies even while we intend to identify and network with those who are prepared to stand up and solve vital stuff from the bottom up , and side to side across networking boundaries such as cross-cultural misunderstandings or professions which, because they don't talk to each other, simply go into their own box and charge more and more for defending their own case - with lawyers and the like whose costs spiral endlessly - one of the few groups who definitely gain the more crashes there are.
DB: Chris, when I review the choices, I like “the community sufficiency movement”. To me, that reflects the need for production systems that heal nature and produce abundance. I also think it reflects an acknowledgment that we are all part of the one world eco-economic system but, at the same time, an attitude that “we can take care of ourselves” despite what might happen at the planetary level.
I also want to be clear that I am not talking about a “synonym for the reverse system world” if I understand that to mean we have to choose between global organizations and local organizations. I think of it in terms of large complex systems need stable local components – as in nodes in the internet – or cells in the body.
In the first place, I do not see a way to eliminate global organization. Secondly, even if we could, I don't think we want to forgo the benefits that globalization has brought – and promises to bring - to the world. I think it is a case of globalization spiraling out of control unless we can balance it with an equally powerful localization – through the community sufficiency movement – or whatever turns out to be the common phrase to describe it.. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the Open Money discussion:
SH: Yes David, how to make it happen.
How to bring people out of their silos to look at how they fit in
these new systems, as you say.
DB: A very interesting conversation at
the P2P site. I think the co-ownership contract could be thought of
as a single focus example of the self-help corporation - producing a
particular product or service for consumption by the owners. I had a
similar idea for a purchasing co-op as the start up for a local
currency based on the evidence
of ownership of productive assets. I think you are limited in
what you can do on a single focus basis so long as you are competing
with economies of scale and do not incorporate economies
of integration.
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the Global Mind Shift discussion:
JH: the gears in my head have been very slowly grinding on an earlier comment of yours, David...:
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".
a manifestation of this suddenly appeared in front of me out of the fog almost fully formed... I think we could call it door-to-door networking (sorta like peer-to-peer). I've heard of musicians doing this kind of thing, but why not anyone? (Matt, I think you'll really like this). -say a bunch of folks on some kind of social networking forum all describe what they have in varying degrees of abundance or scarcity. I imagine at some critical mass there will start to be traveling and migrations, as those with plenty of free time and a willingness to wander and work will arrive at the homes and enterprises of those who need labor or even some special knowledge that the travelers bring. rather harkens to the times of artisans and innkeepers, I suppose, but I think it's also a good way to describe Extended Family 2.0. this came to me coincident with your starting this new thread, so I'm not sure how directly it answers your prompt.
Kimberly, do you think any of the networks you're on can facilitate this sort of thing? -and Matt, David, or anyone- are the implications of this setting fairly intuitive, or would it be worth exploring its possibilities in a story jam?
DB: Perhaps that would be a "Craig's List" or "Freecycle" for people with unused skills to connect with people with unmet needs. Another example of the that would be a local business directory. The Mile High Business Alliance here in Denver is developing one that will automatically search out links between "haves" and "needs". These are all examples of finding new places for people to "fit" in the system. We all have an interest in doing more of that within that locality that affects us economically and ecologically - so perhaps we can find a way to coordinate our efforts. |
|
|
From GP re: the Coalition for the Global Commons:
GP: By 2010, we want enough information and members to have a large consensus from many, many people so we can call in a group of experts in many fields from around the world to re-write the proposals for change and restructuring of the economic system; the monetary system, banking and finance system, trade system, international development and aid, environmental treaty enforcement, as well as many other dimensions of our society, as agreed need to be adjusted. This will be the first step, as we then bring this process into a blitz of media awareness. The stage will have been set for the first round of global negotiations with the big players, as civil society will have a large contingent of political will.
DB: “proposals for change and restructuring of the economic system” Yes, I am interested in contributing to your forum. Your language, however, is decidedly top down – contemplating a global negotiation on how to restructure. It is my view that the “system” will restructure itself if we can give people better choices. Consider that all human organization is a set of “bridges” that people maintain as the means through which they obtain the value they need from the world. The “market” is inadequate to support all the bridges that are needed because it cannot produce more of a thing than would drop the market value below the cost of production. If we added additional systems of production that cooperated with nature's processes and in which any one could participate, people would choose to participate in those systems when they produced more value for them than the market – and the whole system will restructure itself based on that individual choice.
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> GP: Globalization hasn't been all bad; we have created magnificent pathways for commerce, technology, travel, communications and information, and cultural diversity; we now have to begin using them in a more beneficent way. We all, as individuals who make up our world, have to begin to recognize our sovereignty as citizens of the Global Commons. This is a step into not just recognizing, but regaining our sovereignty as global citizens. How else can we create the pathways for a global democratic process that truly represent civil society, and the changes that only we will be able to demand take place?
DB: There is a definite role for increasing awareness of our power as individuals – and our responsibility to make good choices – and to participate in helping to develop new choices. I look forward to seeing how I can contribute to the efforts of the Coalition. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
From the Global Mind Shift discussion:
GP: We just got the Compendium part of our website up and running today. This is where people submit documentation via email, and we post it on the compendium pages for the different areas. We will hold the information contributed by people over the next two years, and it should be completely transparent and accessible to all who log into the website. We have a process where the people who are involved in the policy committee are engaging in the ongoing task of updating the proposals as they consider data and information that has been submitted. This is basically a constant editing process for the master documents being created.
It looks today as if IT has not quite yet got the links for actual submissions. At this point, we are really looking for people to begin entering into the discussion forums. Your ideas would be a wonderful contribution, in whichever area(s) you would like to post them NextPractice, who is a partner from Germany, and is working on enabling the LAN forum capability, is even talking about open source and such, as are many these days. When the LAN forum capability is up and running, we will be able to engage many thousands of people simultaneously in online forums and engagement proceedings, again to collect more information and trends about how people see our world and the changes we need to create for ourselves.
KS: Glad you're there, Greg. You wrote: "Outside-of-the-box solutions need to be drawn out, and that kind of creativity will have to come from people who have no mixed motives or short-term goals for their interests." Why? Explain how you came to this conclusion.
DB: Greg said:
Your ideas would be a wonderful contribution, in whichever area(s) you would like to post them I posted a preliminary message - so right now its me and the zero point energy guy. I posted at
http://www.global-commons.org/display/CGC2/Forums > Realizing Human and Social Potential > Empowerment and Self Reliance > How Humans Came to Live in Peace and Plenty
That seemed to be the most relevant description of a key element to what I am talking about - and - it is in our scientific cultural nature to want to break things down into easily understood components. However, the design I am promoting comes from understanding how individuals and groups of individuals fit in the flow of value through the one whole system - understanding how one thing depends on another and everything depends on everything else - because, you see - there is only one whole system.
My first suggestion is that you create a top level domain where we can each come out of our silos to contribute our expertise to understanding how everything fits together. When we understand that, we can start adding the elements that will start the one whole system on an upward complexity spiral . |
|
|
From the NED discussion:
CM: David - thanks for the last 3 value statements - do you know any of the people who founded these movements?
DB: Chris – To which 3 statements do you refer? What do you mean by movements (plural)?. I am also curious about your use of the term “value statements”. This is not about “values” in the sense of a personal code of conduct. This is about understanding how the one whole system functions so that we can make it function better.
Follow the flow of value through the system. Within the realm of human impact, the pattern of flows is determined by the bridges each of us chooses to maintain. Every choice each of us makes has a net result of more value retained in the system or less value retained in the system. Increasing the number of bridges generally increases retained value – decreasing the number of bridges generally decreases retained value. In this way, the whole system is either increasing in complexity or decreasing in complexity. We all benefit from more value retained in the system. We all suffer from less value retained in the system. And in that sense, there can be no win-lose situation. We are all either winning from an increase in value retained in the system or we are all losing from a decrease in value retained in the system.
This is a testable hypothesis. I may be wrong in any particular aspect but we can determine that experimentally. It is not about faith or what one might choose to believe. |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
Thank you to every one who has participated or has been following here. This has been an interesting and enlightening exercise in holding a conversation across forums and I have learned a great deal. I think, however, that I need to focus now on incorporating these new insights into the materials linked to Introduction to Three Dimensional Networking and on applying these ideas here in Denver.
I started a new discussion at NED, Working in Community, in the Network Weavers Group, for anyone who is interested in following developments as they occur. For those of you in the other forums, you can sign up as a NED user and add that discussion to your watch list. Then check into NED periodically – and if there are new postings – the link will appear in bold in your watch list. I am choosing NED because it already hosts people with a variety of interests – mostly social justice issues – but still broader than a single focus site. There is a learning curve to the formating tools but the site contains both threaded discussion and workspace features.
I do not expect that everyone who reads these materials will become a three dimensional networker/community organizer. Each of us has to do the first dimensional networking in order to make our way in life and if that results in running a business or non-profit, the second dimensional networking can be all consuming – I know that from running a law practice for twenty years. However, if you think we can design and implement production systems to heal nature and produce abundance – or, at least, think it is worth the effort to try, I would ask you to think about the ways you can contribute to the community sufficiency movement (how does that sound?):
I am also interested in spreading the debate about the consequences of certain beliefs, namely, 1) the belief that someone else (corporations or the power elite) is “responsible” for our plight, 2) the belief that resources are scarce, and 3) the belief that the “market” can expand until it solves all our problems. As you know, the conclusion I draw from the system function analysis I have been posting is that all three beliefs are erroneous. You do not have to accept my conclusions to agree that encouraging the examination of those beliefs might help us out of the impasse we currently face in decision making as a species.
Thank you again – I look forward to learning more from all of you as we create the future together. |
Contributors to this Page
In the Global Mind Shift discussion it was suggested that a different approach might work better, and a group there is helping me write this version:
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
Imagine living a good life where you are actively involved with your neighbors and you all live in prosperous harmony. You all have comfortable houses, plenty to eat, ample leisure time, and the air and water are fresh and clean. There is very little strife in the world and the top stories in the media are about great achievements, inventions, and key social projects. All of this can become real by deploying integrated production systems, producing an abundance of basic goods and services, and providing a place to fit for anyone in the community that wants to participate.
Our communities would still trade in the global marketplace but we would have an option to work at a slower pace 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 would be a flowering of human creativity and certainly less stress in our lives.
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. In the case of food production this means including as many different species as possible. It is difficult to make a monetary profit from integrated systems to produce basic goods and services because, as they become productive, the market value of the production is reduced. As a community owned production system, the system can be tuned to produce goods and services sufficient to meet the needs of the community, and members of the community can earn a share of production, creating the incentive to contribute.
examples:
Grass Powered Greenhouse
The Upward Spiral
Bill Mollison
Greening the Desert
Michael Pollan