Rethink the Human Organisation System

[Asyloth]

Hello Avalonians,
It's been a while I'm thinking about this and I can't come up with any brilliant idea so I thought this was the best place to think about this.

We all know that the way our system is organised today is leading us to an auto-destruction, it might have been useful for a while, maybe it has never been useful, but the sure thing is that today it's gone completely "crazy".

So I thought if you wanna adapt the system today to the contemporary conditions, you'd have to rethink it completely, from A to Z, cause if you keep the bases, sooner or later you'll get back to the same situation.

But even if I hear a lot of people agreeing with me on this idea, I don't hear many coming up with great ideas of another way to organise the human "civilisation".
The only thing I've heard about a new way of doing things is the Ressource Based Economy (Project Venus), which I found interesting but somehow I feel like it's largely incomplete or needs to be updated.

If you don't have any idea of where to start with (like me), the Ressource Based Economy would be a good base I think.
So do you have ideas about how the human species could organise itself otherwise?

[Knowrainknowrainbows!]

Wow, Asyloth ... That's a profound question for me this early in the morning (and late in the day for others).
Organizing the human civiization --- Systems for education, economy, health/wellness --- security?
Voluntary participation vs mandatory. Consequences imposed vs natural consequences.

I'm just thinking out loud ... I work with individuals who have been diagnosed with a severe, chronic mental illness or chemical abuse issue or both. I've learned much from my clients about people in general, our current struggling systems (or maybe its the people IN the systems who struggle -workers and clients) and myself - my own biases and agendas.

I believe you'd like more concrete ideas and specifically economic oriented. I'm sure others with expertise in that arena have ideas - I just tend to focus on the motivation factor ... kind of like sales ... with compassion ... ??? Okay, time for coffee now as I clearly am rambling ...
Thanks for this topic!
KRKR

[Lazlo]

The way I see it, we already live in a resource based economy. Of course we all think of fiat currencies and financial instruments when we say economy, but these are ultimately based on tangible things: energy, agriculture, labor, knowledge, minerals, etc.

The problem isn't with the economy, it is in how it is organized. Can you really think of a situation in which people don't produce "things" and then trade them for something else that they need or want?

The few have manipulated the system to their advantage and siphon off the fruits of labor of the many. The hard reality is that it takes huge amounts of capital (money, an agreed upon medium of exchange) to make and maintain the things that we consider necessary. Without the ability to organize and deploy capital we wouldn't have the web (or nearly anything else) as we know it today. Minerals are mined, code is written, energy is produced, fiber optic cable is manufactured and buried, computers are produced and distributed, server farms are maintained, etc, etc, etc...

We would need a system in which the means of production are distributed and decision making is collective....wait for it...sounds a lot like the system we had in the US as designed by the founding fathers.

Other than enforcing the laws that we already have to ensure that business is conducted in a fair and equitable manner, the alternative would be to return to a previous era of localized economies. Eventually, the lights of modern civilization would begin to wink out. First a few, here and there, and finally in a crashing wave.

I am not opposed to this in principle, as I do believe that we are overshooting as a species, but how do you get there without all of the mess in the meantime...war, famine, disease, etc?

It's a catch 22. The system is in serious need of rethinking, but we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. I decided that for me at least, the world doesn't need saving, things will work out one way or another, all I can really change is myself, and maybe those closest to me. That's what I'm working on.

[spiritguide]

Look back and re evaluate the societies of the aboriginies. A good place to start is the Native American culture before the influences of the European conquests. All your answers have already been given in example just explore. Selfishness and greed must be eliminated for any hope of accomplishment whatsoever. IMHO

[Alie]

Let's go to back in time --- what is a civilization that we belief wasn't corrupt?

[Lazlo]

Posted by Alie (here)
Let's go to back in time --- what is a civilization that we belief wasn't corrupt?

The one that didn't involve humans. Greed and dishonesty can remain checked in a small society, groups of up to a few hundred. Social pressure and ostracization do the trick nicely. Large groups, not so much. That's the catch, tribalism works for molding behaviors, but fails in the ability to organize and tackle the huge projects required for modern society.

You can have well behaved humans, or you can have advanced societal complexity, but I have yet to see anything that would suggest that you can have both.

[Providence]

I was contemplating this very thing just the other day, and I think that we will need to return to more of a tribal system as was evident in the Native American culture. One of the great missing pieces to the puzzle in our society, IMHO, is the demise of our elders. In a tribal community, the elders were respected, their words were considered wisdom, and the tribe looked to them for guidance.
In our society today, we have been taught to visualize our elders more as an inconvenience, someone that needs to be institutionalized because of their age, useless and pitiful, rather than the spiritual and cultural sages that they really are.
I believe we need the fullness of the entire tribe, from the smallest baby to the oldest elder, to find the proper balance and understanding for the many facets of our lives and experiences.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Well, since you're asking...

We should first start by understanding that we are all in this together. What happens to one will eventually affect everyone else. So, there cannot be any inequality or superiority or priviledge. No one can be left out. Whether they are lazy, slow, old, educated, male, female, white, black, red or purple. Everybody gets an equal share, a certain minimun of basics. Like food, water, housing, clothing, education, transportation, medical care. That is just fundamentally moral.

Then I suppose there would need to be an incentive program, since we cannot all live on the top of the hill or retire or stay at the same 5 star hotel on our world tours. We would still have to work after all.

Then there is the need to overhaul our legal system and our political structures to accomodate our new understandings. Along with this would be the need to create a new charter of rights for all people worldwide. Some of the articles could be things like freedom to travel, access to information, the right to anonymity, to respect and dignity, to security, etc. (*edit*)I once started a thread on this here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...19-World-Peace

The key to the success of such a venture would lie in selecting the right people for the right job. That's a tough one right now because of the competitive nature of our current system. Those with the senoirity, the loudest voice, the right group of contacts, the bank account and a host of other completely irrelevant criteria determines those placements in our world today.

Another idea I like to toy with is consensus. I believe that voting is inefficient, ineffective and unfair. Never should a government be composed of a majority of the minority, if you get my meaning - where 30 or 40% of the voteers rule over the majority. A consensus should be required for all important issues. It sounds impossible, I know, but if that is the requirement up front it would encourage people to listen, debate, think, and try real hard to agree. Somewhat like a jury. They must all agree on the guilt or innocence of the defendant or else the case must be tried again (hung jury).

From there all things become possible.

That's all I can think of right now.

Thanks

[spiritguide]

Posted by Lazlo (here)

Posted by Alie (here)
Let's go to back in time --- what is a civilization that we belief wasn't corrupt?

The one that didn't involve humans. Greed and dishonesty can remain checked in a small society, groups of up to a few hundred. Social pressure and ostracization do the trick nicely. Large groups, not so much. That's the catch, tribalism works for molding behaviors, but fails in the ability to organize and tackle the huge projects required for modern society.

You can have well behaved humans, or you can have advanced societal complexity, but I have yet to see anything that would suggest that you can have both.

A suggestion is to research the Iroquois culture and their league of nations. Their population was much larger than you might think. IMHO

[Lazlo]

Posted by spiritguide (here)

Posted by Lazlo (here)

Posted by Alie (here)
Let's go to back in time --- what is a civilization that we belief wasn't corrupt?

The one that didn't involve humans. Greed and dishonesty can remain checked in a small society, groups of up to a few hundred. Social pressure and ostracization do the trick nicely. Large groups, not so much. That's the catch, tribalism works for molding behaviors, but fails in the ability to organize and tackle the huge projects required for modern society.

You can have well behaved humans, or you can have advanced societal complexity, but I have yet to see anything that would suggest that you can have both.

A suggestion is to research the Iroquois culture and their league of nations. Their population was much larger than you might think. IMHO

Yes, but they were still organized around a tribal system, and the league was a response to an outside threat, and was a warfare model. Just to clarify how I see this, I was an Anthropology major and specialized in Eastern North American cultures, and was a religion minor, so I have been thinking about this stuff, or similar topics for most of my adult life. Societal organization is remarkably similar regardless of the time or place. Where it breaks down is in large and complex systems over an extended period of time. Greed and ambition always rears its ugly head. This follows right in with my previous statements in this thread. I am not defending the system here, but I do feel it is pointless to try to make a tiger into a lamb, instead of recognizing that it is a tiger and working with, not against its nature. Humans, not all, but a large enough percentage to be material, are competitive, greedy, and ambitious. We are not going to change that without contravening free will. As I said earlier, tribal groups do a good job of controlling this behavior through social pressure but the model doesn't work in large populations. The bad guys can just move on and continue doing what they are inclined to do, while learning from their mistakes and getting more proficient at said behaviors.

[spiritguide]

Did you study and learn the difference between matralinial and patralinial? Did you speak with elders or members to get un edited information? History is written from the victor's point of view. Here is a link to my ancestors with some information not broadcast widely to all.

http://www.cowasuck.org/index.cfm

[Alie]

Posted by Lazlo (here)

Posted by spiritguide (here)

Posted by Lazlo (here)

Posted by Alie (here)
Let's go to back in time --- what is a civilization that we belief wasn't corrupt?

The one that didn't involve humans. Greed and dishonesty can remain checked in a small society, groups of up to a few hundred. Social pressure and ostracization do the trick nicely. Large groups, not so much. That's the catch, tribalism works for molding behaviors, but fails in the ability to organize and tackle the huge projects required for modern society.

You can have well behaved humans, or you can have advanced societal complexity, but I have yet to see anything that would suggest that you can have both.

A suggestion is to research the Iroquois culture and their league of nations. Their population was much larger than you might think. IMHO

Yes, but they were still organized around a tribal system, and the league was a response to an outside threat, and was a warfare model. Just to clarify how I see this, I was an Anthropology major and specialized in Eastern North American cultures, and was a religion minor, so I have been thinking about this stuff, or similar topics for most of my adult life. Societal organization is remarkably similar regardless of the time or place. Where it breaks down is in large and complex systems over an extended period of time. Greed and ambition always rears its ugly head. This follows right in with my previous statements in this thread. I am not defending the system here, but I do feel it is pointless to try to make a tiger into a lamb, instead of recognizing that it is a tiger and working with, not against its nature. Humans, not all, but a large enough percentage to be material, are competitive, greedy, and ambitious. We are not going to change that without contravening free will. As I said earlier, tribal groups do a good job of controlling this behavior through social pressure but the model doesn't work in large populations. The bad guys can just move on and continue doing what they are inclined to do, while learning from their mistakes and getting more proficient at said behaviors.

One thing that is very "foreign" to me is that Freedom Reigns is pointing to County Projects. In fact I listened to 45 minutes of how important it is to get back to the neighborly way of living. Big city girl that I am made me feel very weird. But at the same time, I hope to find a commune to retire to. At the moment, nothing makes sense but I really like the tribal idea. Also, i feel like the Indian nations are going to be rising from the ashes. (really a strong sense about this.)

[Asyloth]

--> Knowrain: I’m interested in your experience with people, what else can you tell us about human behavior and thinking that could help us in the rethinking of a working human organization?
--> Lazlo: Actually we’re not in a ressource based economy as it is explained by Project Venus, the idea is to have an economy that is based on the renewal of the resources, our economy today doesn’t care about the renewal process of the materials they extract, which is why we’re consuming much too much, and at this rate we’ll dry up the planet completely, a little like what supposedly happened to the Easter Island. And concerning the incentive, we know today that money is a very inefficient incentive, that proof is that all the great scientists, all the great people that discovered or created new technologies, new ideas, and so on, those people never did it with money on their minds, they were always interested in something else. Now I don’t say that there aren't many people that wouldn’t do anything anymore if money wasn’t there, but that’s because we’ve all been educated in this system, so we’ve accepted this logic and now it’s very hard to get out of the money logic. I think that if we keep money as THE incentive, even if you change everything around it, you’ll always end up coming back to the situation we’re at today, where some people have taken total control by and over money. I’m personally completely fed up of this system, money is something that really doesn’t motivates me.
--> Providence and Ernie Nemeth: I couldn’t agree more with you.
--> Everybody: The native Americans surely had a system much more ethical and moral. But as Lazlo is saying, this system doesn’t permit to get to an advanced societal complexity, and our system as it is today doesn’t allow well behaved humans. So this is the question, how could we do to have a system allowing both of those? A system in which humans are behaving well without being forced to, and that at the same time allows advanced societal complexity? This is a very tough question, we need a genius idea, and something that is completely different to what we’re doing today, a all new way of organizing, but all we’ve ever known is the money system, so we need to use our imaginations to invent something totally new, maybe we should inspire of nature, generally when we do things like nature does, it always feels better, it always feels like this is the way to do it.

[Alie]

Posted by Asyloth (here)
-->
--> Everybody: The native Americans surely had a system much more ethical and moral. But as Lazlo is saying, this system doesn’t permit to get to an advanced societal complexity, and our system as it is today doesn’t allow well behaved humans. So this is the question, how could we do to have a system allowing both of those? A system in which humans are behaving well without being forced to, and that at the same time allows advanced societal complexity? This is a very tough question, we need a genius idea, and something that is completely different to what we’re doing today, a all new way of organizing, but all we’ve ever known is the money system, so we need to use our imaginations to invent something totally new, maybe we should inspire of nature, generally when we do things like nature does, it always feels better, it always feels like this is the way to do it.

You are quite astute with this question. If there is a reset point (which we are all hoping for), then it's possible it will shock people back into family/neighborhood/community gatherings. If that were to occur, then the tribal system could indeed get a foothold.

[Providence]

Posted by Asyloth (here)
--> Knowrain: I’m interested in your experience with people, what else can you tell us about human behavior and thinking that could help us in the rethinking of a working human organization?
--> Lazlo: Actually we’re not in a ressource based economy as it is explained by Project Venus, the idea is to have an economy that is based on the renewal of the resources, our economy today doesn’t care about the renewal process of the materials they extract, which is why we’re consuming much too much, and at this rate we’ll dry up the planet completely, a little like what supposedly happened to the Easter Island. And concerning the incentive, we know today that money is a very inefficient incentive, that proof is that all the great scientists, all the great people that discovered or created new technologies, new ideas, and so on, those people never did it with money on their minds, they were always interested in something else. Now I don’t say that there aren't many people that wouldn’t do anything anymore if money wasn’t there, but that’s because we’ve all been educated in this system, so we’ve accepted this logic and now it’s very hard to get out of the money logic. I think that if we keep money as THE incentive, even if you change everything around it, you’ll always end up coming back to the situation we’re at today, where some people have taken total control by and over money. I’m personally completely fed up of this system, money is something that really doesn’t motivates me.
--> Providence and Ernie Nemeth: I couldn’t agree more with you.
--> Everybody: The native Americans surely had a system much more ethical and moral. But as Lazlo is saying, this system doesn’t permit to get to an advanced societal complexity, and our system as it is today doesn’t allow well behaved humans. So this is the question, how could we do to have a system allowing both of those? A system in which humans are behaving well without being forced to, and that at the same time allows advanced societal complexity? This is a very tough question, we need a genius idea, and something that is completely different to what we’re doing today, a all new way of organizing, but all we’ve ever known is the money system, so we need to use our imaginations to invent something totally new, maybe we should inspire of nature, generally when we do things like nature does, it always feels better, it always feels like this is the way to do it.

Maybe, the adoption of an "advanced societal complexity" i.e. civilization as we know it, is where we lost our connection to the earth and to each other. Maybe, we have fooled ourselves into believing that civilization is good, when in reality, it is probably the most damning and confining aspect of our present existence.

[Kindred]

The first criteria for any 'civilization' needs the definition of how it is organized, be that from the 'top>down', or from the 'bottom>up'. Next is how the members of that civilization obtains the 'organizers' - whether it be, again, top>down or bottom>up. I do feel that all 'gov't' should be at the local level, with 'upper levels' derived from the local level. And, I'm not talking about the conventional 'voting' process. As has been suggested, the native North American cultures have a lot to teach us, particularly so in this area.

These cultures, generally speaking, had a system of 'elders'... older people known within their communities for their knowledge, wisdom and insight. NOT 'who they know', or what 'power' they had accumulated. I feel This is the model we, as a species, needs to emulate.

I will say, the advanced social organizations of Mu, described in Thiaoouba Prophecy, give us a good example of how this particular method of organization was/is accomplished. Simply stated, it all starts at the local level, where the inhabitants elect by a Show Of Hands, their preference for their representative. This method is carried up the chain, where each level is created by a consensus, based Again on the knowledge, wisdom and insight of the people being chosen.

Probably the biggest 'caveat' in this scenario, is that we, as a species, has yet to develop the intuitive insight and psychic ability to fully implement such a self-correcting system. (negative / manipulative persons would be immediately identified, and thus unable to gain the necessary support)

In the interim, until this level of personal development can be achieved, it will be of utmost importance that we, the people, recognize that anyone striving for power needs to be fully evaluated by multiple levels via the above method - starting locally, and then through the larger demographics. One of the primary controls for this determination should be that they be no younger than a given age... I'd suggest a minimum age of 65 to start, possibly older, as that would insure that the individual has had sufficient experiences to address most problems, and would mitigate the potential for long-term problems.

Another 'control' for these positions is that there should be NO financial offerings for ANY public office holders. The People will give these individuals what they need to survive and do their job, but No More. This will help insure that anyone seeking these positions have the well-being of the society first and foremost.

I feel these suggestions are merely the beginning... there is a whole lot more to the details, but this gives a general outline of the beginnings of a True Civilization.

In Unity and Peace

[Asyloth]

Posted by Providence (here)

Posted by Asyloth (here)
--> Knowrain: I’m interested in your experience with people, what else can you tell us about human behavior and thinking that could help us in the rethinking of a working human organization?
--> Lazlo: Actually we’re not in a ressource based economy as it is explained by Project Venus, the idea is to have an economy that is based on the renewal of the resources, our economy today doesn’t care about the renewal process of the materials they extract, which is why we’re consuming much too much, and at this rate we’ll dry up the planet completely, a little like what supposedly happened to the Easter Island. And concerning the incentive, we know today that money is a very inefficient incentive, that proof is that all the great scientists, all the great people that discovered or created new technologies, new ideas, and so on, those people never did it with money on their minds, they were always interested in something else. Now I don’t say that there aren't many people that wouldn’t do anything anymore if money wasn’t there, but that’s because we’ve all been educated in this system, so we’ve accepted this logic and now it’s very hard to get out of the money logic. I think that if we keep money as THE incentive, even if you change everything around it, you’ll always end up coming back to the situation we’re at today, where some people have taken total control by and over money. I’m personally completely fed up of this system, money is something that really doesn’t motivates me.
--> Providence and Ernie Nemeth: I couldn’t agree more with you.
--> Everybody: The native Americans surely had a system much more ethical and moral. But as Lazlo is saying, this system doesn’t permit to get to an advanced societal complexity, and our system as it is today doesn’t allow well behaved humans. So this is the question, how could we do to have a system allowing both of those? A system in which humans are behaving well without being forced to, and that at the same time allows advanced societal complexity? This is a very tough question, we need a genius idea, and something that is completely different to what we’re doing today, a all new way of organizing, but all we’ve ever known is the money system, so we need to use our imaginations to invent something totally new, maybe we should inspire of nature, generally when we do things like nature does, it always feels better, it always feels like this is the way to do it.

Maybe, the adoption of an "advanced societal complexity" i.e. civilization as we know it, is where we lost our connection to the earth and to each other. Maybe, we have fooled ourselves into believing that civilization is good, when in reality, it is probably the most damning and confining aspect of our present existence.

Wow you got me thinking even deeper now xD But there must be a good way to do this, there can't be anything inherently right or wrong about civilisation, it's what we do of it, and today we've made something really dark out of civilisation but what we do of a civilisation is up to us, but man you got me thinking there ^^ Like are we supposed to form civilisations? Man I don't know, but I feel like it could be done in a way that makes us better and not worst.

[Asyloth]

Posted by Kindred (here)
The first criteria for any 'civilization' needs the definition of how it is organized, be that from the 'top>down', or from the 'bottom>up'. Next is how the members of that civilization obtains the 'organizers' - whether it be, again, top>down or bottom>up. I do feel that all 'gov't' should be at the local level, with 'upper levels' derived from the local level. And, I'm not talking about the conventional 'voting' process. As has been suggested, the native North American cultures have a lot to teach us, particularly so in this area.

These cultures, generally speaking, had a system of 'elders'... older people known within their communities for their knowledge, wisdom and insight. NOT 'who they know', or what 'power' they had accumulated. I feel This is the model we, as a species, needs to emulate.

I will say, the advanced social organizations of Mu, described in Thiaoouba Prophecy, give us a good example of how this particular method of organization was/is accomplished. Simply stated, it all starts at the local level, where the inhabitants elect by a Show Of Hands, their preference for their representative. This method is carried up the chain, where each level is created by a consensus, based Again on the knowledge, wisdom and insight of the people being chosen.

Probably the biggest 'caveat' in this scenario, is that we, as a species, has yet to develop the intuitive insight and psychic ability to fully implement such a self-correcting system. (negative / manipulative persons would be immediately identified, and thus unable to gain the necessary support)

In the interim, until this level of personal development can be achieved, it will be of utmost importance that we, the people, recognize that anyone striving for power needs to be fully evaluated by multiple levels via the above method - starting locally, and then through the larger demographics. One of the primary controls for this determination should be that they be no younger than a given age... I'd suggest a minimum age of 65 to start, possibly older, as that would insure that the individual has had sufficient experiences to address most problems, and would mitigate the potential for long-term problems.

Another 'control' for these positions is that there should be NO financial offerings for ANY public office holders. The People will give these individuals what they need to survive and do their job, but No More. This will help insure that anyone seeking these positions have the well-being of the society first and foremost.

I feel these suggestions are merely the beginning... there is a whole lot more to the details, but this gives a general outline of the beginnings of a True Civilization.

In Unity and Peace

I like your thought, especially the idea of evaluating people in power but yet there would always be people smart enough to go through it without being noticed. You see Palpatin in Star Wars? He would have made it through your idea of a system ^^

I don't know if you've ever heard of the democracy as it was when it was invented by the Greeks (What we call "democracy" today has less to do with what democracy was when it was invented by the Greeks), actually they didn't vote, the people that took decisions and were put in positions of power were "tirés au sort" (drawn on hazard) and were framed by people who knew the stuff to help them in their decision making, but that way no one could use the governments for its own means since no one chose who was to be put in power. (I don't know if I made myself clear This is a little complicated for me to explain in English ^^)

[Bo Atkinson]

Thanks to all. I can appreciate ideas suggested here. I think a critical piece of the puzzle is to emphasize 'decentralization' (and thereby to deemphasize 'centralization').

I actually reject the popular assertion that 'civilization' is the most advance stage of human social development. I respect that many great people might predict advanced social civilizations to appear like Star Trek or the Venus Project. Perhaps pockets of advancement could indeed pass that way. More power to that which works well. However, beyond that, in my mind, could exist freer forms of social organization. In this regard the tribal models of lifestyle, could provide beneficial elements, for building upon. I simply doubt that large masses of people are required for social organization, to exist, at all.

Furthermore, i might add that the pressure pushing masses of people together, into cities, does increasingly raise suspicions for me. A number of respected sources offered evidence. A well documented example is the Romans conquering the Etruscans and many other smaller peoples. Wars followed by wars while harmonization was procrastinated, until it was deemed fully corruptible, (in the NWO double-speak, etc...) Cities have been developed to shackle the human soul. To deprive the soul from exploring a world of it's own making. To deprive souls from discovering life individually and harmoniously, from youth onwards.

What civilization really comes from this behavior? Besides sustaining greedy power games? Complex priesthoods or hierarchies enslaved people on one hand. With bread and circuses to weaken the other hand. To deprive natural evolvement of humans, to their next, progressive state of existence. To cut the lifespan potential in half and degenerate the mind of humans from infancy. It has worked effectively for centuries. To enslave the talented minds, pillage all prosperity, ruin the land, and elevate the psychopaths to hierarchical permanence.


These notion have increasingly persuaded me, concerning human organization systems.

[NedC]

Greetings! (This is a great thread!)

In reading through the posts made so far on the thread, I found the following proposals (please correct or add to the list as needed):

Asyloth (Post #1)

• Proposal: Create A New Social System
  Let us undertake a project to (peacefully, collaboratively) create, test, demonstrate, popularize, legitimize, start up, and grow a new global social system. (-p-)

Knowrainknowrainbows! (#2)

• Proposal: Participation
  Let us (in the new social system that we are designing) generally choose that participation be voluntary rather than mandatory. (-p-)

Lazlo (#3)

1. Proposal: Capital Organization & Deployment
   The new social system must have the ability to organize and deploy capital, at least as well as our current social system can. (-p-)
2. Proposal: Means of Production
   Let us arrange that ownership and control of the means of production be distributed. (-p-)
3. Proposal: Social Decision Making
   Let us arrange that social decisions be made collectively. (-p-)
4. Proposal: Conduct of Business
   Let us ensure that business is conducted in a fair and equitable manner. (-p-)

spiritguide (#4)

• Proposal: Selfishness and Greed
  Let us arrange that our new social system does not reward and encourage selfishness and greed. (-p-)

Lazlo (#6)

• Proposal: Huge Projects
  Our new social system must have the ability to organize and tackle the huge projects required by a modern, complex society. (-p-)

Providence (#7)

• Proposal: Tribalism
  In our new social system, let us return to more of a tribal system, in which elders are respected and heeded. (-p-)

Ernie Nemeth (#8)

1. Proposal: Inequality, Superiority, Privilege
   Let us arrange that in our new social system there is no inequality or superiority or privilege. (-p-)
2. Proposal: Survival Basics
   Let us arrange that everybody gets an equal share, a certain minimum of basics (food, water, housing, clothing, education, transportation, medical care). (-p-)
3. Proposal: Incentives
   Let us arrange that our new social sub-systems have in them appropriate incentives, to ensure that the work gets done. (-p-)
4. Proposal: Charter of Rights
   Let us (at the outset) reach consensus concerning a Charter of Rights for all people worldwide. (-p-)
5. Proposal: Work & Workers
   The new social arrangements must be such that the right people are doing the right work. (-p-)
6. Proposal: Consensus OR Voting
   Let us not use voting as our primary social decision mechanism, but rather consensus. (-p-)

Lazlo (#10)

1. Proposal: Large & Complex Systems
   Our new social arrangements must be capable of sustainably handling all of the large and complex systems that a modern global civilization requires. (-p-)
2. Proposal: Competitiveness, Greed, Ambition
   Our new social system must able to effectively neutralize the adverse societal effects of competitiveness, greed, and ambition (without contravening free will). (-p-)

Asyloth (#13)

1. Proposal: Renewal of Resources
   Our new social system must effectively arrange full renewal of all resources. (-p-)
2. Proposal: Money As Incentive
   Either the new social system must arrange that money functions as an efficient incentive to effect socially positive outcomes, or must implement other sorts of incentives (as necessary) to serve in the place of money. (-p-)
3. Proposal: Morality AND Advanced Societal Complexity
   The new social system must both allow well behaved humans and fully enable advanced societal complexity. (-p-)

Alie (#14)

• Proposal: Return to Tribalism
  Our new social system should be tribal. (-p-)

Providence (#15)

• Proposal: Abandon Civilization
  Let us abandon "advanced societal complexity" (civilization as we know it). (-p-)

Kindred (#16)

1. Proposal: Local => Global
   Let all 'government' be at the local level, with 'upper levels' derived from the local level. (-p-)
2. Proposal: Elected Elders
   Let us elect elders to make social decisions. Elders would be elected locally by a consensus show of hands, to be representatives at the next level up of a hierarchical social decision system. Elder representatives on that level would again elect (from amongst themselves, by a consensus show of hands) elder representatives to serve on the next level up of the hierarchy, and so on. (-p-)
3. Proposal: Minimum Age
   Let the minimum age to be eligible for election as an elder be 65. (-p-)
4. Proposal: No Financial Offerings
   Let there be no financial offerings for ANY pubic office holders. (-p-)

Asyloth (#17)

• Proposal: Better NOT Worse
  The new global social system (civilization) must make us better not worse. (-p-)

Asyloth (#18)

1. Proposed Objection (Antithesis to Kindred #16b): Palpatin
   Palpatin (in Star Wars) would have been able to make it to the top of the elder hierarchy proposed. (-p-)
2. Proposed Alternative (to Kindred #16b): Sortition
   In the new social decision system, fill decision making positions by random drawing of names. (-p-)

wavydome (#19)

1. Proposal: Centralization
   In the new social system, emphasize 'decentralization' and deemphasize 'centralization'. (-p-)
2. Proposal: Hierarchies
   Let the new social system contain no complex priesthoods or hierarchies. (-p-)
3. Proposal: Measures of Social System Success
   Use the following as measures of the success or failure of social system arrangements: (-p-)
   • natural evolvement of humans (-p-)
   • lifespan potential (-p-)
   • generation/degeneration of minds (-p-)
   • prosperity / poverty (-p-)
   • ecological health/degradation (-p-)
   • amount of power vested in psychopaths (-p-)

Creating & Consensus

Those of us that are serious about undertaking the project that Asyloth has proposed will have as our first work to continue to create proposals such as those in the list above, and then (for each proposal) to go through the process of attempting to reach consensus.

Consensus

In what follows, the operational definition of consensus is this: consensus has been reached -- at least temporarily -- when there are no unresolved objections to the proposal.

Seeking Consensus

The forum software we are using is actually not well suited at all to facilitate the process of proposing and seeking consensus. But, it is what we have, so for now we will just have to make do, and kludge along as best we can. (Forum software produces "spaghetti code" discussions that generally just run down like wind-up toys, having perhaps produced a little entertainment while they lasted.)

Single-Proposal Threads

In the list of proposals above, I have appended "(-p-)" to each proposal. I am proposing that each "(-p-)" be replaced by a link to a separate thread, with the proposal itself as the first post of the new thread. (Perhaps the administrators can be persuaded to create a "proposals" sub-folder within the more general "Future Talk" folder, so we don't junk up the general folder.)

For each proposal (each in its new dedicated thread), the aim would be to seek consensus through raising and resolving objections to the proposal. (In the "someday" software that fully supports the seeking consensus process, each objection would be itself a separate proposal that could be objected to and so on, but we don't have that software yet.)

The strategy is to have each individual proposal be as simple as possible (but not simpler), to facilitate reaching consensus as efficiently as possible. Proposals that depend on sub-proposals that can be proposed separately should invoke rather than include the sub-proposals, after those sub-proposals have been proposed and have successfully passed through the "seeking consensus" gauntlet.

When a new version of a proposal is proposed, it will again have its own thread, with a link to the original version. In the original version, there will be a post that links to the new version, and discusses the reasons for proposing the new version from the perspective of the original version. (The "someday" software will also support objections inheritance and such.)

Project Forks

As routinely happens in open source software projects, the initial project may undergo some forks. One group may go off to design a tribal social system capable of scaling to the global level, that eschews "advanced societal complexity" altogether. Another group may go off to design a libertarian paradise capable of scaling to the global level. I will be proposing a social system that is very different than either the tribal or libertarian model, and also very different than the social system that the USA Founding Fathers tried to set up through the USA Constitution. ("Let a thousand flowers bloom ...")

The Network of Proposals

From the beginning, we will need a thread (actually, we need an object-oriented database) that contains the master list of all proposals, that lays out the relations among the proposals, and that indicates the consensus status of each proposal (how many unresolved objections it is currently facing). Until the "someday" software arrives, we will need to maintain that thread manually -- ugh.

Higher Vibrational States, Creativity, Consensus

Being in higher vibrational states will presumably make it easier for us generate creative proposals and to reach consensus. Being more creative and more successful at reaching consensus (thereby making better progress toward solving humanity's mundane problems through better social arrangements) may raise our vibrational states. A positive feedback loop -- what's not to like?