Envisioning a new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world

[CSummer]

This is a continuation of a thread started on WaccoReader from a post by Hearthstone. We've begun a brief discussion (partly offline) on this topic that we wanted to share with others and invite respectful participation. What I think we're both interested in is expanding our sense of what such words as peaceful, humane, sustainable, etc might mean as applied to a vision of a new society or the world. My view is that this vision could also apply to a micro-society, e.g., an intentional community.
Here are some of my thoughts on these words:

Peace: the absence of war and other forms of violence, both institutional and interpersonal. It looks like: people relaxed, happy, free of fear, able to dance, play and create freely. It is a secure peace, not one over which a threat of annihilation hangs and not one that depends on the oppression of other humans.

Humane: closely related to peace, this is a world in which everyone is treated with respect and included in the wealth the earth and the society have to offer. There is no dividing the world into people who matter and people who don't, or denying anyone access to the resources, tools and knowledge that a healthy, thriving, fulfilling life requires; i.e., everyone is included in our circle of caring and compassion.

Sustainable: our way of life - of meeting our needs - is designed so it can continue indefinitely without degrading or depleting the natural environment or any natural resources. Ideally, it is a way of life that restores the earth to a state of health and abundance. This is best achievable by those who live in communities sustained primarily by local resources; communities that have built a relationship with the natural world that sustains us. If the members of those communities have the intention to be conscious of how all their activities affect the environment, it will become evident over time if any of those activities are not sustainable.

What kind of world do you want to live in? I invite you to step out of the box of the dominant society and economy and imagine the world you really want to live in. Perhaps allow yourself to go - in your imagination - to an uninhabited island with adequate resources to support a small community. Take a small group of people with you and imagine the society and culture you'd most like to create with them. When you return, share with us what it was like if you feel so inclined.

More questions to come . . .

CSummer

[hearthstone]

[B]This has been done in most of Oceania, Polynesia, and many other parts of the world in times before the arrival of more advanced (??) peoples. Take New Guinea--many different kinds of sustainable cultures.[B]

...
What kind of world do you want to live in? I invite you to step out of the box of the dominant society and economy and imagine the world you really want to live in. Perhaps allow yourself to go - in your imagination - to an uninhabited island with adequate resources to support a small community. Take a small group of people with you and imagine the society and culture you'd most like to create with them. When you return, share with us what it was like if you feel so inclined. . . .

[hearthstone]

To my previous post--thinking about it, they did have warfare in New Guinea, and on the larger Polynesian islands also, which would put in question their social sustainability ... But, the smaller islands were mostly lived on fully sustainably, they just had to get along well with themselves and their environment. Thanks, Hearthstone.

What kind of world do you want to live in? I invite you to step out of the box of the dominant society and economy and imagine the world you really want to live in. Perhaps allow yourself to go - in your imagination - to an uninhabited island with adequate resources to support a small community. Take a small group of people with you and imagine the society and culture you'd most like to create with them. When you return, share with us what it was like if you feel so inclined.

[Shandi]

I was curious about a place described, and looked up New Guinea. This is one thing I found, which doesn't inspire me to want to live there:

PNG repeals sorcery law and expands death penalty

Prime Minster Peter O'Neill pledged to toughen laws in May, after several high-profile crimes Papua New Guinea has repealed its controversial Sorcery Act but has expanded its use of the death penalty.
Under legislation passed in parliament on Tuesday, killings linked to allegations of witchcraft will now be treated as murder.


The death penalty will be applied to more crimes, including rape, and more methods of execution have been approved. Amnesty International condemned the move to toughen penalties. "Papua New Guinea has taken one step forward in protecting women from violence by repealing the Sorcery Act, but several giant steps back by moving closer to executions,

In parts of Papua New Guinea, deaths and mysterious illnesses are sometimes blamed on suspected sorcerers, usually women. But officials say accusations of witchcraft are used to justify violence.
The repeal of the 1971 Sorcery Act, which acknowledged the accusation of sorcery as a plausible defence in murder cases, came after a series of brutal public killings.


In February, a 20-year-old mother accused of sorcery was burned alive in a village market. Two months later, a woman accused of black magic was beheaded. Sorcery-related killings will now be treated as murder and the death penalty will be applicable, local media said.


Ms Arradon called the repeal of the act "long overdue" but accused the government of "attempting to end one of form of violence by perpetrating state-sanctioned violence". Lawmakers have also approved legislation allowing the death penalty to be applied to aggravated rape - gang-rape, the use of a weapon, or rape of a child - and armed robbery, PNG's The National reported.


Parliament approved several methods for applying the death penalty, the Post Courier reported, including hanging, lethal injection, firing squad and electrocution. Penalties for kidnapping, theft and white-collar crime were also toughened, with longer jail terms prescribed. The laws were tough but reflected crime levels and community demands, The National quoted Justice and Attorney General Kerenga Kua as saying.

Papua New Guinea has not carried out an execution since 1954, despite parliament's decision to reintroduce the death penalty for murder in 1991. At least 10 people are currently on death row, Amnesty said.
PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neil announced plans to begin implementing the death penalty and to increase prison sentences for violent crimes last month, saying "draconian" measures were needed.
His move followed a number of high-profile crimes in the Pacific nation, including the gang-rape of a US academic in April.

To my previous post--thinking about it, they did have warfare in New Guinea, and on the larger Polynesian islands also, which would put in question their social sustainability ... But, the smaller islands were mostly lived on fully sustainably, they just had to get along well with themselves and their environment. Thanks, Hearthstone.

[Shandi]

Papua New Guinea profile - Overview

• 25 February 2015
• From the section Asia

Papua New Guinea occupies the eastern part of the world's second largest island and is prey to volcanic activity, earthquakes and tidal waves. Linguistically, it is the world's most diverse country, with more than 700 native tongues.


Some 80% of Papua New Guinea's people live in rural areas with few or no facilities of modern life.
Many tribes in the isolated mountainous interior have little contact with one another, let alone with the outside world, and live within a non-monetarised economy dependent on subsistence agriculture.

At a glance

• Politics: Separatist rebellion on island of Bougainville was finally resolved with election of first autonomous government in 2005
• Economy: With abundant oil and natural gas reserves, Papua New Guinea has potential to become major energy exporter
• International: Australia has been a major supplier of aid and has also provided peace-keeping forces. It has a detention centre for asylum seekers on Manus Island

Country profiles compiled by BBC Monitoring

A very small proportion of the land can sustain cash crops, including coffee and cocoa. Abundant rainforests provide the raw material for a logging industry, which is dominated by Malaysian-owned companies.
Conservation groups have criticised the social and environmental impact of the activity.

Mineral deposits - including gold, copper and nickel - are extensive, but the difficult terrain and poor infrastructure make exploitation slow. There are significant reserves of oil and natural gas and the country has pinned its hopes on becoming a significant energy exporter.

The separatist struggle in the neighbouring Indonesian province of Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya, prompted the flight of thousands of Papuans into Papua New Guinea from the mid-1980s onwards. Many of them remain in border-area jungle camps.

Although there is strong public concern in Papua New Guinea over the treatment of indigenous people in the western part of the island, the Papua New Guinean government is keen not to let the issue undermine relations with Indonesia, and has said it will not tolerate the use of its territory for separatist attacks on the Indonesian army.
Papua New Guinea had to deal with separatist forces of its own on the island of Bougainville in the 1990s. Up to 20,000 people were killed in the nine-year conflict which ended in 1997.

Papua New Guinea has one of the highest incidences of HIV and AIDS in the Pacific region

A peace deal signed in 2001 provided the framework for the election in 2005 of an autonomous government for Bougainville.
Papua New Guinea has strong ties with its southern neighbour, Australia, which administered the territory until independence in 1975. Canberra's substantial aid programme aims to relieve poverty and to boost development.


Australia has also despatched police officers and civil servants to support their local equivalents.

Concerns have been raised over high levels of crime and violence in the country, especially gender-based violence. The incidence of HIV/Aids is extremely high, and diseases such as cholera and malaria are endemic.

There has also been criticism of Papua New Guinea's human rights record. Refugees in the country have been the targets of xenophobic attacks, and police brutality is commonplace.

Though the death penalty has not been used since 1954, in May 2013 legislation extending it to cover a wider range of crimes was passed.
Corruption is rife, with Transparency International rating the country one of the most corrupt in the world in 2012.

Analysts see political corruption as being a product of the patronage system of governance, and the fact that many politicians are also businessmen has exacerbated the problem.

Papua New Guinea has several active volcanoes, including Mount Tavurvur, which erupted in 2014

I was curious about a place described, and looked up New Guinea. This is one thing I found, which doesn't inspire me to want to live there: PNG repeals sorcery law and expands death penalty...

[podfish]

To my previous post--thinking about it, they did have warfare in New Guinea, and on the larger Polynesian islands also, which would put in question their social sustainability ... But, the smaller islands were mostly lived on fully sustainably, they just had to get along well with themselves and their environment. Thanks, Hearthstone.

yeah, these aren't the best role models for the modern vision of a sustainable society. They were sustainable only in the Darwinian sense. Because they were pretty efficient at keeping their populations low, they didn't suffer shortages. It would be interesting if you could find a society that did manage to peacefully manage their population size so they didn't overreach the land's capacity. I haven't heard of one yet.
It probably would need to be pre-agricultural, too, because the price of agriculture is that you don't quite starve. The pre-agricultural populations were far healthier as individuals than (at least early) agricultural societies.

[CSummer]

Interesting, Hearthstone, but not really relevant to what I see as the purpose of the visioning process - if we want that process to lead to actually building a new society. We (or at least I) don't know what the purpose or mission - and the values - was behind the design of these other societies, if any. Was it a conscious design or was living together peacefully just an inherent aspect of their culture?

I'm coming from the belief that societies can be consciously designed and built, at least on a small scale (e.g., intentional communities). Visioning is just the first step in the process (and may not be really necessary). From our visions we can distill the purpose and values that guide the building of the society. For example, if my vision includes people living peacefully - in harmony (or at least nonviolently) with their fellow humans, then I can say that peace is one of my values and that whatever we do within our society we ideally do it in a peaceful way.

But this doesn't, for me, define our purpose. That comes more from how people feel about living in this ideal society. What I would want is to feel healthy, happy, relaxed, loved and loving, energized, a sense of belonging and commitment, with my creative juices flowing, etc. When am I most likely to feel this way? When all my real needs - physical, learning-creative, emotional-relational, existential-spiritual - are (or can be) met.

How do these needs get met? The same as some of them are now. For example, my physical needs for food and water are met by my finding those things in my environment and, perhaps after some preparation, ingesting them. I don't normally need someone to meet those needs for me, though I may need help from others to have them available. So this is what I see as the true function of a human society: to coordinate or facilitate people working together to create environments within which all real human needs can be well met in ways that reflect our values (e.g., in fair/just, peaceful and sustainable ways).

There may be thousands of visions that could fit within this purpose, but we need an understanding of what that purpose is if we're going to work together to create a society that fulfills this purpose. Another way of putting it is to say: we humans, like plants and animals, need certain things in order to keep our life (and love) energies flowing - in which we can thrive and realize our true potential on all levels. Can we cooperate in creating environments where all those basic elements (and for humans, there are many) are available - even abundantly so?

Once we have a clear purpose and are agreed on it, we can begin looking for ways to fulfill it. What are the first steps on our journey?

Stay tuned . . .

CSummer

To my previous post--thinking about it, they did have warfare in New Guinea, and on the larger Polynesian islands also, which would put in question their social sustainability ... But, the smaller islands were mostly lived on fully sustainably, they just had to get along well with themselves and their environment. Thanks, Hearthstone.

[hearthstone]

About warfare--the actual armed conflict is only, of course, the "tip of the iceberg", the rest of which is the whole human civilization. All competition is for resources ultimately, whether the competition takes form of commerce, sport, or a revolution. It is a fully natural process happening at a time when our species is still in the nascent phase, after which we will be in balance with ourselves, all other species, and in balance with our environment. If the same were to be happening in a different species, we might consider it interesting, perhaps. It is that when we feel the suffering, we start getting worried.
Since, evolutionary, we end up being in harmony with all other life and our environment anyhow, the intelligent choice would be to replace our competition for making more profit with a competition for being in harmony/balance with all other life and the environment before we are made so by natural processes anyhow, and thus we would spare ourselves a lot of unnecessary grief.
Of course--balancing ourselves with all other life in the world and with the global environment would have to start by replacing our natural desire to best others at others' expense with the concern for the welfare of all life and the whole environment ...

[podfish]

...It is a fully natural process happening at a time when our species is still in the nascent phase, after which we will be in balance with ourselves, all other species, and in balance with our environment.....
Since, evolutionary, we end up being in harmony with all other life and our environment anyhow, ...

you have a very different idea of 'natural processes' than I do. Or a different definition of 'harmony'. The word "evolution" itself implies the absence of balance, if you take the conventional meaning implying stability.

[hearthstone]

Yes, humans are still evolving after a worldwide catastrophe, caused by a giant meteorite striking the Earth some over sixty mill. years ago, causing the relatively stable environment become upset, some species (notably the dinosaurs) dying out, becoming replaced by mammals, and, by the process of evolution, we come to humans (still evolving). The picture is being confounded by humans themselves causing a global-wide extinction of other species, of which consequences we are still very unsure of.
The whole time all the evolutionary processes are tending towards a state of a relative stability (harmony), such as had been enjoyed by the dinos and company.
It all depends on what point of the geological/cosmic time we train our time magnifying glass on. From the point of dinosaurs, their time was a time of stability, till the extraterrestrial body arrived. From our point of view evolution is very real, but all will become relatively stable again, till another upset happens (heavenly body?, major volcanic action?, sun acting up?).
Thanks, Hearthstone.

you have a very different idea of 'natural processes' than I do. Or a different definition of 'harmony'. The word "evolution" itself implies the absence of balance, if you take the conventional meaning implying stability.

[podfish]

...The whole time all the evolutionary processes are tending towards a state of a relative stability (harmony), such as had been enjoyed by the dinos and company.
It all depends on what point of the geological/cosmic time we train our time magnifying glass on. From the point of dinosaurs, their time was a time of stability, till the extraterrestrial body arrived. ...

yeah, they did last quite a while. And really, as far as the theme of this thread is concerned, humans have been pretty stable too.

I'm really intending to suggest that natural processes are inappropriate models for creating a sustainable and more germane to your topic, a humane world. Nature, red in tooth and claw, and all that. Although utopian thought has a long history, it's really a new idea of our species. It's not something nature has really cared much about. And our species hasn't had lots of success at it. That's not an indictment of the idea - just an observation that you really are searching for something unprecedented. There are lessons to draw from earlier efforts, and from nature, but they're largely cautionary ones. The best hope for achieving a humane society will be to exploit some of the new capabilities mankind has achieved, because judging by the evidence of the past, we haven't had the tools before. Education and philosophy have had their millennia-long turn, and that seems long enough to judge that they weren't sufficient on their own. Some pretty sharp people have turned their efforts to it, but human nature and the realities of social interactions defeated every attempt I know of. There really are a lot of new forces in the world, and you see a lot of posts about their dangers on Wacco. They also have promise, but until entrenched ways of thinking are superseded by new ones, the forces that made earlier efforts fail are likely to do so again. And people won't change consciously; it takes years of living with new systems for social adaptation to occur. We no longer are 'home for visitors' on Wednesday after lunch; we're available by text 24-7 (well, not all of us). My guess is that it's this - the ability of people to broadcast and interact world-wide instead of with their neighbors in their jungle village or even desert city - will be the factor that shakes up societies in a way that has no precedent.

[CSummer]

In terms of creating something new and something we want - that fulfills our vision and purpose, there are at least two things that I and others consider inadvisable:

1) Focusing on the past, as we're not looking to recreate it
2) Focusing on what we don't want

The fact that other societies have/had characteristics that to us are undesirable does not, to me, indicate we can't create a society (at least on a small scale) that does not have these. True, it might be useful to understand why there is war so we can avoid those factors in what we create. In this country, most wars have been based on lies - both lies about the reasons for war and about those we're encouraged to view as "the enemy." So it is obvious we need to ensure everyone has access to truthful information. Another reason for war is the absence of real human-to-human relationships between nations, so international relationship-building would be essential. Then of course there's the profit motive, which is perhaps the largest underlying cause of war. This would be much less likely in a community-based society in which people know each other and have access to true information.

A lot of the violence and exploitation in human societies is possible because of general ignorance about what's really going on. There are those who take advantage of this ignorance on many levels: from the auto repair shop to the highest levels of national governments. This can be remedied by ensuring that people know each other - including who is trustworthy - and that everyone has reliable access to good information. These are both inherent aspects of true community.

CSummer

To my previous post--thinking about it, they did have warfare in New Guinea, and on the larger Polynesian islands also, which would put in question their social sustainability ... But, the smaller islands were mostly lived on fully sustainably, they just had to get along well with themselves and their environment. Thanks, Hearthstone.

[Shandi]

I think that wars start with greed, and lies follow close behind to deceive people about it. Before children are old enough to understand language, they jealously guard their favorite toy, and become upset if another child takes it. They have to be taught about sharing, because it's not a natural inclination. Babies and young children also have "separation anxiety" which comes from fear of loss, until they've experienced that parents do come back, until they don't, which sets the whole mistrust pattern in action again.

And as for "truth", sometimes the exact opposite can be said about the same thing. Who will ultimately be looked to for truth? And how will we know who's trustworthy? If we're talking about a handful of people, it would be obvious after awhile who we could trust, but even then behaviors are not set in stone, and something could affect people in a way that they would resort to lying. We've all had the experience of trusting someone, only to have them betray us.

It seems that utopia is for another generation of beings that aren't actually human, but more likely programmed with desirable traits for living in peace and harmony. That could be the future that rises from the ashes of humanity.

In terms of creating something new and something we want - that fulfills our vision and purpose, there are at least two things that I and others consider inadvisable:...

[hearthstone]

Then--again:
What is it that we do want? (In this case, presumably, for the whole planet.) Is what I want the same as what you do? Because, if it is not the same thing that we want for the whole planet, then the business is as it has been always--we continue resolving our differences in real life, creating real damage.
We have to find a way of resolving our differences before those differences get resolved in real life!
Hearthstone.

In terms of creating something new and something we want - that fulfills our vision and purpose, there are at least two things that I and others consider inadvisable:

1) Focusing on the past, as we're not looking to recreate it
2) Focusing on what we don't want
...
CSummer

[CSummer]

I appreciate your first question, Hearthstone: "What is it we do want?" So far on this thread it seems we've mostly confirmed what Donella Meadows said: that it's difficult for us to go to that place of allowing ourselves to envision what we really want. Instead, we focus on the past, on what we don't want, or perhaps hoping that at some time in the distant future the world will be a better place.

Our sphere of power and influence doesn't extend beyond ourselves, those with whom we have relationships and perhaps to others who are willing to listen to us and heed our advice. As the saying implies, we can think globally, but we can only act locally. So here is where our energy and attention need to be, and the way I'd put the question is: What do we want here where we live? What kind of life do I want? What kind of environment(s) do I want to live in? How do I want my life to affect both the natural and human worlds? Do I want others to have the same good life I want for myself?

It seems to me we all probably have similar ideals for our lives: we want them to be peaceful, enjoyable, creative, healthful, energized, with love flowing between ourselves and others. We want to be free and supported in being who we are and realizing our highest potentials. We want to offer our gifts to the world and have them received. We want to know that our way of life is not causing problems for others or for the earth that sustains us. We want to feel safe, secure and joyful enough to celebrate life!

Personally, I want to work with others on developing ways of meeting human needs that have minimal impact on the earth and that don't demand long hours of work. I believe this is possible if we start designing systems around our real needs instead of working to support an inhumane and destructive economic system. I also want to see if we can come together in small groups and support each other in growing beyond the illusions of scarcity, powerlessness and separateness that the dominant culture has programmed into us. I see this as an essential first step in our becoming people who can create the kind of society we desire.

Have I left anything out? Are any of these things unwelcome in your world? I look forward to reading your vision of an ideal life, society and world.

CSummer

Then--again:
What is it that we do want? (In this case, presumably, for the whole planet.) Is what I want the same as what you do? Because, if it is not the same thing that we want for the whole planet, then the business is as it has been always--we continue resolving our differences in real life, creating real damage.
We have to find a way of resolving our differences before those differences get resolved in real life!
Hearthstone.

[Shandi]

Your sentence "Our sphere of power and influence doesn't extend beyond ourselves, those with whom we have relationships and perhaps to others who are willing to listen to us and heed our advice." doesn't make sense to me.

I also wonder about where our confidence to give "advice" comes from. For me, it's not about taking someone's advice, but looking at the congruence between what they say, and what they do. I have found very few people in my lifetime who actually walk their talk. With the Internet, truths about behavior eventually rise to the surface.

As for what we want where we live, this continues to be expressed by members on WaccoBB. I think that your statement may be true for many of us: "It seems to me we all probably have similar ideals for our lives: we want them to be peaceful, enjoyable, creative, healthful, energized, with love flowing between ourselves and others. We want to be free and supported in being who we are and realizing our highest potentials. We want to offer our gifts to the world and have them received. We want to know that our way of life is not causing problems for others or for the earth that sustains us. We want to feel safe, secure and joyful enough to celebrate life!" Although as you can see, this may be expressed by opposite views.

The vaccine issue is one of those. Feeling safe is expressed by those in favor of vaccines, and by those opposing vaccines. How is this possible? It comes down to perceptions and beliefs. People on both sides believe that it's a "public health issue." How do we reconcile these opposing beliefs? How can we work together when we have opposing goals of what we want? This is just one issue that's up in our community and beyond. GMOs and Fluoride are others.

[Shepherd]

In my opinion, the word "sustainable" has been so green-washed by corporations, including Big Wine, that it is no longer useful. It has been co-opted. I like the word that was used this weekend at the graduation of the students from the Permaculture Skills Center's school--"Re-Generation." I do not want to "sustain" the current way of doing things, which is bankrupting us. I want to end it.

Being "peaceful," in my opinion, is not enough. ML King, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, for example, were all militants. The new film "Selma" documents this, when Dr. King spoke strong words even to the U.S. President.

"Free of fear"--give me a break. I am afraid of fire, and you should be too. Fear is a double-edged sword, that both protects and harms. I am afraid of the Wine Empire, which is why I struggle against it.

I believe in non-violence and oppose war. Conflict, however, is an essential aspect of nature. Plants conflict with each other, to get the sun and water. Too many people, in my opinion, are conflict-avoidant. I do not advocate confrontation, but conflict just is. One avoids it at a risk.

"Perilous optimism" refers to those who put their lives at risk when they pursue peaceful, passive ways and ignore the realities coming down. Let's face it, the Jews who got out of Europe in time survived. Many of those who were optimistic did not.

Perhaps it is because I lived in Chile during the democratic government of Dr. Salvador Allende, whom the fascists killed, along with thousands of others, when they took over. I attended marches with over 250,000 people in a small country. All that was ended by the military. From that experience in my body, I am, indeed, fearful for the liberties that we seem to be loosing here in the U.S. and throughout the world by our continuing war-making. It is time to demand more than mere "sustainability."

Please pardon my rant.

This is a continuation of a thread started on WaccoReader from a post by Hearthstone. We've begun a brief discussion (partly offline) on this topic that we wanted to share with others and invite respectful participation. What I think we're both interested in is expanding our sense of what such words as peaceful, humane, sustainable, etc might mean as applied to a vision of a new society or the world. My view is that this vision could also apply to a micro-society, e.g., an intentional community.
Here are some of my thoughts on these words:

Peace: the absence of war and other forms of violence, both institutional and interpersonal. It looks like: people relaxed, happy, free of fear, able to dance, play and create freely. It is a secure peace, not one over which a threat of annihilation hangs and not one that depends on the oppression of other humans.

Humane: closely related to peace, this is a world in which everyone is treated with respect and included in the wealth the earth and the society have to offer. There is no dividing the world into people who matter and people who don't, or denying anyone access to the resources, tools and knowledge that a healthy, thriving, fulfilling life requires; i.e., everyone is included in our circle of caring and compassion.

Sustainable: our way of life - of meeting our needs - is designed so it can continue indefinitely without degrading or depleting the natural environment or any natural resources. Ideally, it is a way of life that restores the earth to a state of health and abundance. This is best achievable by those who live in communities sustained primarily by local resources; communities that have built a relationship with the natural world that sustains us. If the members of those communities have the intention to be conscious of how all their activities affect the environment, it will become evident over time if any of those activities are not sustainable.

What kind of world do you want to live in? I invite you to step out of the box of the dominant society and economy and imagine the world you really want to live in. Perhaps allow yourself to go - in your imagination - to an uninhabited island with adequate resources to support a small community. Take a small group of people with you and imagine the society and culture you'd most like to create with them. When you return, share with us what it was like if you feel so inclined.

More questions to come . . .

CSummer

[Shandi]

Shepherd,

Thank you for your wisdom, and sharing your experiences. You bring up some very important points, and factual evidence that being peaceful is not enough. Sometimes survival means fighting those who would easily oppress us, either through direct or subtle means.

In my opinion, the word "sustainable" has been so green-washed by corporations, ...

[hearthstone]

How do we think globally, so that our local actions have any proper effect?
Thanks, Hearthstone.

...
Our sphere of power and influence doesn't extend beyond ourselves, those with whom we have relationships and perhaps to others who are willing to listen to us and heed our advice. As the saying implies, we can think globally, but we can only act locally. ... CSummer

[Shepherd]

I appreciate Hearthstone's invitation to "think globally" and have that impact our "local actions." When I think globally, I notice that the U.S. military, which I used to be a member of, is murdering people all over the globe. It lost the American War Against Vietnam, the war of my generation. It has been losing the American Wars against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus creating more terrorists around the globe. These are all small nations. The U.S. has the most mighty military ever, yet it cannot defeat these small nations, because we no longer have moral and spiritual integrity as a nation. Meanwhile, the U.S. threatens large, powerful nations, such as Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, as well as Russia and China.

So I think that actions to protest American war-making are essential. Yet too many U.S. citizens have been pacified and bought off by high-tech toys. Meanwhile, we are loosing our freedoms of privacy. The militarization of the police has lead to the murder of young, innocent people of color, such as Andy Lopez here in Sonoma County, and unarmed African-Americans in Florida, Baltimore, and elsewhere, as well as a few older people. The once mighty U.S. Empire is in serious decline.

Meanwhile we have a disastrous food system run by corporations such as Monsanto. They poison our food supply with Roundup and all kinds of chemicals. So learning how to garden and farm is important, as is supporting local "sustainable" farms. The recent March Against Monsanto, which brought out a couple of hundred people here to the streets, was an important success, as it was around the world. GoLocal!

How do we think globally, so that our local actions have any proper effect?
Thanks, Hearthstone.

[hearthstone]

Obviously, we don't undertake any proper actions locally in order to have a good effect globally.
Again--how do we think globally, so that our actions have a proper effect locally, and, consequently, a proper effect globally?

I appreciate Hearthstone's invitation to "think globally" and have that impact our "local actions." ...

[CSummer]

Your cynicism is understandable, Shepherd, and once again confirms Donella Meadow's findings when she asked activists to envision the kind of world they wanted to live in. Most weren't able to go there at all until they'd gotten some things "off their chests."

All of our words need re-defining if we're to really understand each other. Take the word "community," for example. What does that mean?!

My interest here is in sharing my vision of what I want to create in terms of a society or culture, which is something radically different from the dominant society and culture. I've seen for too long what protesting and demanding get us. So I'm primarily interested in reinventing human society, not in trying to repair the obsolete dinosaur that's destroying the earth and causing vast human suffering. It was ill-conceived from the beginning and lacking any kind of a rational purpose for existing.

CSummer

In my opinion, the word "sustainable" has been so green-washed by corporations, including Big Wine, that it is no longer useful. It has been co-opted. I like the word that was used this weekend at the graduation of the students from the Permaculture Skills Center's school--"Re-Generation." I do not want to "sustain" the current way of doing things, which is bankrupting us. I want to end it....

[CSummer]

I appreciate that question, Hearthstone. My answer is: We can begin with a real human need and ask: How can we meet this need by making the best use of local resources? We may come up with a few different approaches, so of each one we can ask: What if everyone on earth met their needs in this way? Would it degrade the natural world, restore it or have a neutral effect? Ideally, it would have a restorative effect, but a neutral effect is also acceptable.

We can also ask: What kind of world do we want to live in? Would this action be appropriate for that world, even if everyone did it? (To me, this also answers the question: What is moral action?)

"We are bound by nothing except belief." - Ernest Holmes

CSummer

Obviously, we don't undertake any proper actions locally in order to have a good effect globally.
Again--how do we think globally, so that our actions have a proper effect locally, and, consequently, a proper effect globally?

[Shandi]

Do you believe that human suffering began with "human society?

Your cynicism is understandable, Shepherd...

[Shepherd]

The Cynics were an ancient Greek group of philosophers who focused on self-control and believed that people are motivated by selfishness. I do not believe in self-control alone but advocate discharging one's emotions, including laughter and crying. I do not advocate selfishness, but follow the teachings of Erich Fromm that self-love is important.

Being cynical means that one is bitter, mocking, and sneering. Instead I am an activist and do believe in challenging both colleagues, such as yourself, and one's opponents and adversaries, whom I do not believe are "enemies." Some of them can be won over, even former generals.

If you look at my writing, you will see that I am not guilty of what Donella Meadow's describes as activists without a vision of the world they want to live in. I have worked, patiently, here on my farm for two decades to develop that agrarian vision, as well as with many groups, and share it widely.

That vision is based partly on my studies at the Findhorn Foundation's intentional community in Scotland and my work with Scott Nearing in Maine, the co-author with his wife of the book "Living the Good Life." I seek to apply their good teaching, rather than that of the Cynics. I believe that "a better world is possible."

The protesting and demanding that you criticize has been employed by ML King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and is an essential element of cultural, social, and political change. It is certainly not enough, but the 200 people at the Santa Rosa March on Monsanto are heros and among those doing their best to build a better society.

Your cynicism is understandable, Shepherd,...

[Shandi]

The word "community" has several meanings, depending on who's defining it. WaccoBB is identified as "progressive" community, but some of us may view comments posted as not very progressive at all. The only thing that we may all actually have most in common is that we live in Sonoma County. There are neighborhood communities, like the mobile home park I live in, but most of us only know a few people out of the 260 homes in this community. So, what we have in common is the area we live in. There are religious communities, athiest communities, nudist communities, gated communities, and so on. So, the basic definition of community seems to be a group of people who have something in common, even if it's only the land they live on.

I think that most of us want to be with "kindred spirits" that share important mutual values. I just discovered that two people I consider "kindred spirits" are pro mandated vaccines. This surprised me, but this was a new topic of conversation. They live a very "unconventional" lifestyle, yet their views about this include a traditional approach of not questioning issues that I find extremely important to question. The way I'm handling this is to provide them with some information that they may not know about, and see if they still feel the same way.

You might share what "community" means to you.

Your cynicism is understandable, Shepherd,...

[CSummer]

Thanks for that intriguing question, Shandi! My short answer is: No, I don't believe human suffering began with human society. Indeed, society as we know it today may have arisen as a result of human suffering, conflict and unhappiness.

This brings to mind the biblical story of the two brothers, Jacob and Esau. Though I never can remember which was which, one was a hunter-gatherer type, while the other was more of a cultivator of crops. The hunter returned one day after a long time in the wilderness hunting. He hadn't done well and was famished when he arrived home. His brother, who had prepared a large pot of food, offered him food in exchange for his birthright. Out of desperation, the starving brother agreed.

To me, this seems like the dominant society that is designed by unknown others for unknown purposes. To gain the benefits of this society, we must give up our birthright of self-awareness and self-determination. Instead of leading inner-directed lives, we end up living other-directed lives, looking outside ourselves to the society's economic and political systems, religions, etc. for what we need. We traded life in relationship with nature, each other and ourselves for a more alienated existence. We still suffer, but now it's more predictable and controlled. Now, that pot of food is contaminated with GMOs, pesticides and herbicides that will damage your health. But, they have drugs that will help you feel better, most of which have side effects - but, there are other drugs to treat the side effects.

(Remember the line from that song Tennessee Ernie Ford sang? "St Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I sold my soul to the company store.")



CSummer

Do you believe that human suffering began with "human society?

[CSummer]

(Note that I'm not writing in direct response to what others have written but sharing the thoughts that come up after reading through other posts. Seems a bit more creative to me than addressing specific statements in those posts.)

I took two theater improv classes years ago and would like to begin by sharing something I learned that was significant to me. When just a few of us were doing a total improv skit, it would be up to someone to initiate some dialog and the others would come up with responses that in some way fit. I found that when I was the initiator, I seemed to have more creative possibilities. But when someone else started, it was more challenging for me to come up with responses that felt appropriate, authentic and creative. It was not nearly as enjoyable to me, and it seemed like I was more reactive as I fumbled to come up with something to say, not knowing where we were going. (I did also learn that I'm not really good at improvising dialog. I do much better with movement/dance - which gets my head out of the way.)

This seems to fit my preferred approach to life and activism or social change work. I really don't do well with protests, demonstrations, petitions, demands, etc. To me, they seem to be reactive kinds of actions that produce little. An analogy to the typical activist's life in this society might be going on a journey that's led by someone we don't know, going someplace that's a mystery to us, with lots of things happening we don't like and yelling out in the direction of the leader: "We don't like this! We don't want to keep going this way and being part of this! We don't know whose idea this is, but we don't like it and really don't want to be part of this." Yet we continue to be part of this journey.

What I want to do is head in another direction entirely - a direction that I and others are choosing. A direction that seems more sane, survivable and likely to get us somewhere we want to go. I also want off this destructive mode of conveyance (socio-economic system) that wreaks havoc with the natural world and shows little regard for the lives and well-being of my fellow humans. To me, finding a new direction - a new way of life and society - for humans would be much more creative and much more likely to produce positive results than continuing to participate in an insane march toward self-destruction while trying to challenge its leaders and get them to change course. Wouldn't it be wiser to learn to share leadership (it may actually be possible!) and become our own leaders than to follow someone we don't know and whose intentions and motivations are highly questionable (and who is largely unresponsive to our protests)?

I realize most people are not ready to fall out of line and head in a new direction - ideally one that brings us more together with the earth, each other and with ourselves. But perhaps, I want to believe, a few of us can at least begin to consider what we want in a society, what kind of society makes sense for humans on a small planet, what a society actually is and what might be a reasonable purpose or mission for one. If we dare, we might even try envisioning what life and the world might be like if the kind of society we want were widely adopted.

Another interesting discovery from a theater improv class happened when we were challenged to incorporate the following statement into a dialog: "You can't get there from here." The more we worked with it, the more absurd it seemed. What I value from that is seeing the amazing reality of life on this plane: from here I can go just about anywhere I can imagine wanting to go. Is there any street or road that doesn't - directly or indirectly - connect with every other street or road on the continent? And where they don't connect - e.g., an island, is there not always provided some way to get from one to the other? If you go to the coast and look out at the ocean, you see a body of water that connects to every other ocean on earth and directly or indirectly to every continent and island.

The challenge those of us who believe another way of life and society are possible face is not unlike what must be dealt with by those who try to improve the lives of people for whom life is quite difficult: how to get them to believe that there are real possibilities they aren't familiar with that could make life much better for them. That may be the first task for those of us who feel an urgent need to head off in a new direction: to support each other in believing that another way is possible.

We don't have to make a big leap and abandon our current way of living. What we can do is begin to create the environments that make up the new society. We can start with a small group learning to build what I call the emotional-relational (E-R) environment, a place where our real human needs for respect, trust, caring and support (and several others) can be met. Starting with that environment makes sense to me because it is what the dominant society is most lacking, and it is what will enable us as individuals to make the transition from that society to a cooperative one.

CSummer

[Shandi]

Clint, I do appreciate your desire and intentions, and know that you aren't alone in your quest. There have been others in the past who have felt the same, and have taken steps to create their desired result. We can read about these experiments in creating the beginnings of a new society. What happened to them is not a mystery.

If you're not finding anyone on WaccoBB who resonates with your picture of a new society, and actually wants to participate in it's development, why not take it to a broader audience? Would you be willing to move to another place if you connected with others of like mind and willingness? How far are you willing to go to find your tribe? What considerations and attachments do you have? Is this truly your primary passion? If you knew that there was a group of people who needed your leadership in this project, would you join them, no matter where they are or what language they spoke?

How does your present life reflect your desired goals? Off grid? No smart phone? Growing your own produce? Vegan? No vehicle? Volunteering? These are just a few things I'd be doing if I had your passion for a new society.

Words are powerful, but actions are even more so. Showing, not telling, is the best way to share.

(Note that I'm not writing in direct response to what others have written but sharing the thoughts that come up after reading through other posts. Seems a bit more creative to me than addressing specific statements in those posts.)

I took two theater improv classes years ago and would like to begin by sharing something I learned that was significant to me....

[CSummer]

Thanks for enlightening me - and maybe others - about who the Cynics were, Shepherd. My use of the term in response to what you wrote earlier may have been somewhat of a projection - or misreading. I appreciate also that you advocate discharging emotions; have you by any chance been into RC/co-counseling? I also value authentic expression of emotions.

There seem to be different definitions of cynicism, e.g.: "an attitude or state of mind characterized by a general distrust of others' motives believing that humans are selfish by nature, ruled by emotion, and heavily influenced by the same primitive instincts that helped humans survive in the wild before agriculture and civilization became established." My assumptions about the generally accepted meanings of words may at times be wrong, so i may misuse them. Please forgive my ignorance.

I appreciate this: ". . . one's opponents and adversaries, whom I do not believe are "enemies." Makes me think that in my ideal world or society, there would be no such thing as an "enemy!"

Sounds like you've had some very interesting life experiences - at Findhorn and with Scott Nearing! I may have read at least part of "Living the Good Life." Seems I recall they (Scott and Helen) lived a simple and fairly private life in Vermont, at least not working with others as a community. I do appreciate their example (and that of others) and believe the "good life" is a simple life. It does seem that Scott had given up on reforming society and didn't explore the option of creating/inventing a new one (e.g., in the form of an intentional community). Of course, many others have tried doing what the Nearings did, which I agree is very admirable. However, I don't see any new society - even on a micro-scale - coming of such efforts, with the possible exception of some ecovillage communities.

Shepherd wrote: "If you look at my writing, you will see that I am not guilty of what Donella Meadow's describes as activists without a vision of the world they want to live in." I can well imagine that is true, and I'd be happy to read more about your vision if you'd be into sharing some of it here!

I agree with what you say about some great people (Gandhi, King, Mandela) having had profound influences on Society, and my sympathies are certainly with the anti-Monsanto protesters. My interest though is in reinventing society. Partly this is because the "great changes" we've seen have been more addressing certain symptoms or grievances than making major fundamental reforms. We continue to have socio-economic systems that are seriously ill-conceived and major sources of human suffering and environmental degradation. And what I see activists working for appears to be more damage control of some of the most unjust, inhumane or ecologically destructive practices or policies of these extremely dysfunctional institutions, rather than any fundamental changes (which is probably pretty hopeless).

Envisioning is really a preliminary step to what I see as the process of designing a new society, and it's a step that may not be easy for most of us. Camping out in a wilderness area, working in a farm or garden with simple implements or reading about primitive tribes might be the closest we can come to imagining life without the trappings of the modern techno-industrial society. Our cultural programming makes it a challenge to know what we really want, since most of our lives we've been encouraged to look outside ourselves at what's available rather than within to discover what would really bring contentment and fulfillment.

The real design process doesn't begin for me, though, until we move from envisioning to formulating the purpose or mission for a human society. The visions are helpful, as our purpose needs to be one that can guide us in realizing our visions - at least the compatible ones. An example of this could be applying this principle to a garden: If I envision a healthy, thriving garden producing abundant food and maybe flowers, it would make sense for my purpose to be providing an environment in which the needs of the plants I want to grow can be well met.

A quite similar purpose applies, I believe, to a human society. We have, however, a huge transition of consciousness to go from the dominant culture (as we each experienced it in a formative years) to one in which we are much more inner-directed. This requires a very significant expansion of self-awareness so we can operate from a holistic sense of what is true and right for us. My impression is that this does not come easily to those of us who've grown up and lived our lives in a culture filled with distractions, and with self-distraction being the most common and supported approach to life. How can we design and build a society for people who don't know what brings them happiness, satisfaction and fulfillment? We may think we do, but my sense is that we have a lot of inner re-integration to do before we can know fully what a good life would be for us.

What is needed - and mostly missing - is something very simple: presence. Perhaps soon I will write about what presence is and why it is an essential element in a well-functioning society or community.

Peace,
CSummer

The Cynics were an ancient Greek group of philosophers who focused on self-control and believed that people are motivated by selfishness. I do not believe in self-control alone but advocate discharging one's emotions, including laughter and crying. I do not advocate selfishness, but follow the teachings of Erich Fromm that self-love is important....