System building

[lebing]

It was requested from another thread that I discuss what I meant when referring to system building. Not the kind that is made out of code, but the kind that creates a system of provision whereby enabling us to live our lives.

Here are some of the properties/symptoms of the cultural OS we currently use:

Provision via rapidly globalizing markets
Massive global inequity
Systemic fragility, many single points of failure
Finite resource capacity approaching max based on capitalist profit seeking extractive model, monocultural dependence
Largest global extinction event since the dinosaurs
Climate change
Psychological and heath issues due to separation from each other and from our sources of provision
high degree of specialization inherent in provision today leading to boredom/ stifling of creativity
etc

I could go on here and I'm sure I'll get some people who flat out disagree with some of the above, but for the purpose of this thread I'd like to avoid discussing whether any of the above is true and stick to discussing what else is possible. The above is simply a rationale for what follows. If you want to discuss the above, make another thread please.

Now that we have considered some of the above issues with our existing system, what can we do to change it?

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
—Buckminster Fuller

We are all familiar with this model as we are actively participating a new system which is poised to replace the existing, outdated model. What else besides finance is outdated in our culture and in need of a remodel?

Many of the issues mentioned above are tackled by adopting a more connected, communal way of life. By connected, I mean connected to each other and to the earth. Literally getting your hands dirty in the soil, understanding where your sustenance comes from is extremely powerful, but almost unknown to all of us. From being connected to each other, many of us only know a level of connection from family and sometimes friends, but community/ the tribe is nearly nonexistent.

Here are some things that a connected system would look like in comparison to our existing OS:

Provision via local networked markets
Systemic reslience, decentralized/ hyper local forms of energy, fuel, water & other provisional needs
Increasing resource bases due to micro management of land with overyielding polycultures & integrated ecosystemic practices (permaculture)
Climate stabilization
Increased psychological and physical health
Increased amount generalized provisional behavior increasing energy levels and creativity

There is much more to say about each of these topics. It's easier for me to answer than just to spout everything I know.

thanks for reading this far 

[deeplink]

Is this just theory, like Resource Based Economy and the Venus Project, or are you building towards a system like you described?

Can you give an example of what you are doing?

[lebing]

Is this just theory, like Resource Based Economy and the Venus Project, or are you building towards a system like you described?

Can you give an example of what you are doing?

This is not a theory, this is the way I am living my life. This is not a top down system that is created via revolution, this is a bottom up system which is created one person at a time. By increasing my level of provision at home (and in the future in a network), I decrease my reliance on (and contribution to) governmental structures.

I live in an intentional community where we grow a high % of our own power, food, fodder and fuel on site. The type of food system we use to grow food actually increases biodiversity over the area and over previous uses of the land (permaculture). We share many things that most people require one of each of (cars, hairdryers, dishwashers, etc). We have group process which allows us to be transparent with each other and thereby raise the level of empathy to get through many otherwise unresolvable egoic issues. We hope that in the future we will be able to have a network of similar communities/ farms in our area that will allow us to increase our level of specialization & systemic resilience.

[deeplink]

Is this just theory, like Resource Based Economy and the Venus Project, or are you building towards a system like you described?

Can you give an example of what you are doing?

This is not a theory, this is the way I am living my life. This is not a top down system that is created via revolution, this is a bottom up system which is created one person at a time. By increasing my level of provision at home (and in the future in a network), I decrease my reliance (and contribution to) on governmental structures.

I live in an intentional community where we grow a high % of our own power, food, fodder and fuel on site. The type of food system we use to grow food actually increases biodiversity over the area and over previous uses of the land (permaculture). We share many things that most people require one of each of (cars, hairdryers, dishwashers, etc). We have group process which allows us to be transparent with each other and thereby raise the level of empathy to get through many otherwise unresolvable egoic issues. We hope that in the future we will be able to have a network of similar communities/ farms in our area that will allow us to increase our level of specialization & systemic resilience.

Suppose an individual does not belong to a similar community but wants to trade. Is that possible?

[lebing]

Is this just theory, like Resource Based Economy and the Venus Project, or are you building towards a system like you described?

Can you give an example of what you are doing?

This is not a theory, this is the way I am living my life. This is not a top down system that is created via revolution, this is a bottom up system which is created one person at a time. By increasing my level of provision at home (and in the future in a network), I decrease my reliance (and contribution to) on governmental structures.

I live in an intentional community where we grow a high % of our own power, food, fodder and fuel on site. The type of food system we use to grow food actually increases biodiversity over the area and over previous uses of the land (permaculture). We share many things that most people require one of each of (cars, hairdryers, dishwashers, etc). We have group process which allows us to be transparent with each other and thereby raise the level of empathy to get through many otherwise unresolvable egoic issues. We hope that in the future we will be able to have a network of similar communities/ farms in our area that will allow us to increase our level of specialization & systemic resilience.

Suppose an individual does not belong to a similar community but wants to trade. Is that possible?

Yes, of course (unless I find out you are working for monsanto). The way I do it is definitely not the only way, just my preferred method.

[Richy_T]

So you're aiming for some kind of robust commune type arrangement?

I definitely agree there's more to life than 'It's the economy, stupid". Specialization has allowed some magnificent things to be accomplished but you are correct in that it's a very fragile system. I've been considering myself ways to mitigate the risk. We are on a very high plateau with a long way to fall. Even without going all the way to a system such as you advocate, there are definitely things that could and should be done to cushion any drastic change in the global economic environment. I try to be a generalist somewhat myself. Who knows what skills might be needed? If all you know is how to rubber-stamp forms in government office, you might be setting yourself up for trouble.

As Heinlein said: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” I'm a few short on that but I do what I can.

[myrkul]

Is this just theory, like Resource Based Economy and the Venus Project, or are you building towards a system like you described?

Can you give an example of what you are doing?

This is not a theory, this is the way I am living my life.

Kudos for practicing what you preach. I wish you and yours the best of luck.

[lebing]

So you're aiming for some kind of robust commune type arrangement?

Yes, my dream (fantasy) is an economy which is both primarily based on the trade between communities, which is supplemented to a much lesser extent with trade on a global level.

I definitely agree there's more to life than 'It's the economy, stupid". Specialization has allowed some magnificent things to be accomplished but you are correct in that it's a very fragile system. I've been considering myself ways to mitigate the risk. We are on a very high plateau with a long way to fall. Even without going all the way to a system such as you advocate, there are definitely things that could and should be done to cushion any drastic change in the global economic environment. I try to be a generalist somewhat myself. Who knows what skills might be needed? If all you know is how to rubber-stamp forms in government office, you might be setting yourself up for trouble.

As Heinlein said: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” I'm a few short on that but I do what I can.

Yep, generalization is in general in good for us, for many reasons. Even from a purely selfish perspective, it helps with your longevity, creativity and emotional wellbeing to be able to wear many hats (which is accomplished by always allowing yourself to stay open to learning new things).

[lebing]

Kudos for practicing what you preach. I wish you and yours the best of luck.

=)

[myrkul]

As Heinlein said: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” I'm a few short on that but I do what I can.

Yep, generalization is in general in good for us, for many reasons. Even from a purely selfish perspective, it helps with your longevity, creativity and emotional wellbeing to be able to wear many hats (which is accomplished by always allowing yourself to stay open to learning new things).

Generalization and specialization are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Having many skills is good, but being good at all of them is next to impossible. You'll note that Sv. Heinlein did not say that a human being should be able to do all of that well. Specialization is indeed for insects, but the fact that one species is capable of being both a generalist and a specialist is what sets us apart from the insects. Humans are not interchangeable cogs in some great machine. Natural talent or inclination will lead some members to be better at some things than others. The gears are not perfectly round. And when you try to use an oblong gear where a round one goes, you get stresses that tear the machine apart. Oblong gears, however, can mesh perfectly. You just have to design the system so that each gear fits into the pattern in the proper way. With human interaction, the best way to design the system is to let the market build the machine, and the gears will select their own place.

Now, I feel I've stretched that metaphor quite far enough, so I'll just add this. So long as you're allowing some specialization, and not enforcing equality, you'll get a very robust system, as people pick the jobs they like, and do them well.

[ElectricMucus]

Three words, one term:

Post-structural Anarchism.

[lebing]

As Heinlein said: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” I'm a few short on that but I do what I can.

Yep, generalization is in general in good for us, for many reasons. Even from a purely selfish perspective, it helps with your longevity, creativity and emotional wellbeing to be able to wear many hats (which is accomplished by always allowing yourself to stay open to learning new things).

Generalization and specialization are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Having many skills is good, but being good at all of them is next to impossible. You'll note that Sv. Heinlein did not say that a human being should be able to do all of that well. Specialization is indeed for insects, but the fact that one species is capable of being both a generalist and a specialist is what sets us apart from the insects. Humans are not interchangeable cogs in some great machine. Natural talent or inclination will lead some members to be better at some things than others. The gears are not perfectly round. And when you try to use an oblong gear where a round one goes, you get stresses that tear the machine apart. Oblong gears, however, can mesh perfectly. You just have to design the system so that each gear fits into the pattern in the proper way. With human interaction, the best way to design the system is to let the market build the machine, and the gears will select their own place.

Now, I feel I've stretched that metaphor quite far enough, so I'll just add this. So long as you're allowing some specialization, and not enforcing equality, you'll get a very robust system, as people pick the jobs they like, and do them well.

There are generally two different types of generalization & specialization I was referring to. The first is personal, the second is organizational (in this case on a community level). I expect generalization to be the norm at the infancy stage of this system for both types, but as the networks grow in size, the desire for more specialized products built locally will emerge and will be accomplished a corresponding increase in specialization of the communities. This does not necessarily mean that all of the members of the communities will be increasingly more specialized as the community itself specializes. It depends on what the members decide is best for them.

Regarding the forcing something on someone else, this system allows each person to choose their own governance structure. I, personally like living in an egalitarian style community where everyone is more or less equal. If, however you want to live in a village setting (or even a community) which is run by the market, then that is absolutely your own choice.

In my vision I dream that the interaction between these communities would be primarily trade and commons management. There isn't necessarily any need for hierarchy within these parameters.

[lebing]

Three words, one term:

Post-structural Anarchism.

Sort of. I prefer to think of it more of a system akin to: http://p2pfoundation.net/

Anarchy implies without structure - there is structure here, its simply horizontal, not vertical.

[myrkul]

There are generally two different types of generalization & specialization I was referring to. The first is personal, the second is organizational (in this case on a community level). I expect generalization to be the norm at the infancy stage of this system for both types, but as the networks grow in size, the desire for more specialized products built locally will emerge and will be accomplished a corresponding increase in specialization of the communities. This does not necessarily mean that all of the members of the communities will be increasingly more specialized as the community itself specializes. It depends on what the members decide is best for them.

Regarding the forcing something on someone else, this system allows each person to choose their own governance structure. I, personally like living in an egalitarian style community where everyone is more or less equal. If, however you want to live in a village setting (or even a community) which is run by the market, then that is absolutely your own choice.

In my vision I dream that the interaction between these communities would be primarily trade and commons management. There isn't necessarily any need for hierarchy within these parameters.

You know, if we were both playing some simulation game where we built little villages and run them according to our philosophies, I don't think that your little village and my little village would look that much different. Perhaps your villagers would directly trade product for product, mine might use a medium of exchange. Certainly in neither would there be a mayor.

[lebing]

There are generally two different types of generalization & specialization I was referring to. The first is personal, the second is organizational (in this case on a community level). I expect generalization to be the norm at the infancy stage of this system for both types, but as the networks grow in size, the desire for more specialized products built locally will emerge and will be accomplished a corresponding increase in specialization of the communities. This does not necessarily mean that all of the members of the communities will be increasingly more specialized as the community itself specializes. It depends on what the members decide is best for them.

Regarding the forcing something on someone else, this system allows each person to choose their own governance structure. I, personally like living in an egalitarian style community where everyone is more or less equal. If, however you want to live in a village setting (or even a community) which is run by the market, then that is absolutely your own choice.

In my vision I dream that the interaction between these communities would be primarily trade and commons management. There isn't necessarily any need for hierarchy within these parameters.

You know, if we were both playing some simulation game where we built little villages and run them according to our philosophies, I don't think that your little village and my little village would look that much different. Perhaps your villagers would directly trade product for product, mine might use a medium of exchange. Certainly in neither would there be a mayor.

Yep, possibly 

Regarding value exchange, here is what I would choose based on the size of the group:

>25 people communities: gift economy
25>150 communities/villages: LETS/ mutual credit systems
150-10,000: reputational currencies
10,000+: anonymous currencies

[asdf]

Three words, one term:

Post-structural Anarchism.

Anarchy implies without structure - there is structure here, its simply horizontal, not vertical.

Close. Anarchy implies without hierarchy (hence the "archy" part). Horizontal structure, not vertical.

I didn't read the whole thread, but what you're doing sounds like voluntarism combined with agorism. I approve :-) and think this is exactly the way to transition to a free society: bottom up.

[deeplink]

Anarchy implies without hierarchy (hence the "archy" part). Horizontal structure, not vertical.

Anarchy has different definitions. In my definition you can have both hierarchy and structure, be it voluntary.

[myrkul]

Anarchy implies without hierarchy (hence the "archy" part). Horizontal structure, not vertical.

Anarchy has different definitions. In my definition you can have both hierarchy and structure, be it voluntary.

Right. No rulers, not no leaders.

[ElectricMucus]

Actually the correct term is post structuralist Anarchism.

It's basically anarchism with the difference that it acknowledges that the abolishment of the government isn't the magic pill and that government is just a result of the society we live in. It acknowledges that not all power is abusive and it does not assume that human nature is good, spoiled by government like some of the other schools are. It also intents to fight regnancy (hard to come up with the correct term, the english language is so restrictive, that is something of a concern too ...) everywhere not just the one which happens to be inside government.
(Of course in the end government would still be abolished  )

[myrkul]

Actually the correct term is post structuralist Anarchism.

It's basically anarchism with the difference that it acknowledges that the abolishment of the government isn't the magic pill and that government is just a result of the society we live in. It acknowledges that not all power is abusive and it does not assume that human nature is good, spoiled by government like some of the other schools are. It also intents to fight regnancy (hard to come up with the correct term, the english language is so restrictive, that is something of a concern too ...) everywhere not just the one which happens to be inside government.
(Of course in the end government would still be abolished  )

Doesn't sound much different from AnCap.