Comments (1 - 20 of 71)
|
|
|
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 }
-->
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 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:
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. |
|
|
<!--
@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 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 }
-->
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. |
|
|
Thank you for allowing me to contribute to this group. If anyone is following I will post the rest of the materials in the "We create the Future with stories we tell > Global Mind Shift Version forum.
|
|
|
A question? Typically the topics will list here in order of most recent post. This topic has now been relegated to 7 of 8 without regard to when the last post was made.
It is not my intent to dominate the conversation - I am sharing posts from 3 other forums about all of us coming out of our silos to see where we fit in the changes that need to be made in our world. I have more to share - but if the ranking has to do with someone feeling that these posts are inappropriate - I will stop posting here out of respect for the rest of the members of this group. |
|
|
<!--
@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 to 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 Global Mind Shift discussion:
GP: I enjoy the wide-open view that all seem to have in the postings that I have read for this conversation. I think this is the future. How are the economic and political power players, and the business interests that are intertwined with all of that, going to bring us sustainably through to the close of the 21st century? That is a big question. Governments and markets, our present dualistic approach, don't seem to have the answers that are going to create sustainability on the planet; politically, as well as environmentally. I think for the first time, we have the capability of bringing civil society together in a referendum approach, with scalable software and server technology as a booster for the process. We can actually create a virtual world forum, as we are beginning to do here. I think this is key to going forward; civil society, joined together as a large and powerful voice, is what we need to move political will toward the changes needed.
There is a group who is now in the process of creating the framework for a global referendum, along with a fully-interactive process for all who participate on the website, to re-create a set of ideas and proposals for restructuring. As part of this process, global negotiations will commence around 2010, so that all stakeholders in the global economy, as well as other aspects of the "global commons" are fully participating in this process. Civil society, through our groups as well as individuals, along with governments, UN agencies, institutions, banks and corporations, need to be recognized as vital parts to this process. The website for The Coalition for the Global Commons is at http://www.global-commons.org , and is a work-in-progress at this point. What I like about the group is that the plan is to bring people and their ideas together, and create the changes as we propose them. The power is in the numbers, and in the creativity spurred on by the democratic process itself. Humanity must implement our own will. There is no other way.
DB: Welcome Greg. I went to the global commons web site - and I understand that it is a work in progress - do you know if there are any active discussions going on there?
Global referendum seems to me to be a difficult approach - and assumes that solutions will be delivered top down. I am advocating a planetary discussion about designing "production systems that heal nature and produce abundance", to empower local self-determination - assuming bottom up solutions. I visualize the process as a feed back loop testing sustainable systems locally to support improved design across all communities. I bundle those ideas in the term local organizing and the planetary Mind.
Right now I am holding this conversation across four forums and would be pleased to participate in the global commons one as well.
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
MH: 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. I disagree. Humans are not the highest level that evolution has just now reached, any more than bacteria are. Life hasn't been preceding in a straight arrow towards complexity, or even a kind of wavy arrow. Life and the universe has proceeded to diversify, not complex-ify, looking for more different ways of doing things, not necessarily more complex ones. At least that is what I see, does that make sense? 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. Yes, I am. My point is that complexity has problems, is subject to diminishing returns, and that we need to be wary of looking to complexity as a tool to solve our problems. A complex way to solve the problem, is, by definition, the most energy intensive way, and that is rarely a good thing. DB: I think, here, we have primarily a semantic dispute as to what we mean by "complexity". In Complexity Spirals I define it this way:
So, I suppose I could have just as easily called them diversity spirals or stability spirals or productivity spirals. The term upward spirals is from Paul Krafel and refers to life's capacity to increase the amount of energy retained in the ecosystem "in defiance" of the second law of thermodynamics.
The type of complexity that produces diminishing returns is that which is designed as if it were a closed system unto itself. That is, production systems that do not account for their impact on the larger "whole system". They may be able to overcome some problems in increasing their internal productivity by increasing complexity but they approach diminishing returns because of their effect in decreasing diversity/complexity/stability/productivity in the "whole system". MH: I agree to an extent, we need to find new ways, we need to open up new spaces for people to step into, but we need to stop the old spaces at the same time. Everyone can win, but maybe not from their view point at the moment, it may require a reduction in material comforts, what is conventionally considered quality of life. We can find new and better ways to live, and those ways may be better for everyone, in the long run, but it looks like their are losers in the short run. I am reminded of a quote from Crimethinc. We're not out to pull the rich and powerful down to "our level" - rather, we pity them for not being ambitious enough in their aspirations, and hope they will abdicate to join us in fighting to make it possible for everyone to ascend to greatness (that way, we don't have to guillotine them ;)). In the end, everyone wins, but that abdication seems a lot like losing.
DB: This comment is highly insightful. Think of this problem in light of the belief that resources are scarce and life is about the struggle to obtain our share of those resources. Then think of this same problem in light of the potential contribution of some 3 billion people and uncountable numbers of creatures - who could increase the amount of resources to go around.
Resources are only scarce because we fail to use that potential productivity - that could increase the resources to go around to the point where everyone had all the "material comforts" they wanted. We may not be able to count driving a Hummer getting 10 miles to the gallon as one of the material comforts available - but is that really a reduction in quality of life? |
|
|
<!--
@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. |
|
|
<!--
@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 }
-->
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 }
-->
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 }
-->
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 }
-->
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 }
-->
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. |
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?):
In your first and second dimensional networking you will come across people who are three dimensional networkers/community organizers and you can point them to me or me to them.
If you are involved in a business or non-profit, you can “poke” those people who are making decisions to look up from the organization's focus to see how they “fit” in the larger set of system changes we require.
You can support efforts in your community to hold a conversation across interest and expertise – and hopefully, eventually, support your local community investment enterprise.
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.