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

[hearthstone]

A long thread, but I still have the same question: how do we reconcile __all__ of our differences, controversies, conflicts before they are reconciled in real life, incurring real damage?
Reconciling, in real life, our differences about our future, about what kind of a world we want, etc., is something that we are all too familiar with, it's the stuff of our news--more disasters than much else; whatever attempts at reconciling our differences preventively there might be, it is pitifully inadequate--the tide is not turning yet, things are not getting better and better for everybody in the world yet ...
Thanks, Hearthstone.

[Shepherd]

Thanks for this thoughtful response. I am up picking boysenberries, since my farm's harvest just started. I wanted to acknowledge your helpful comment and will respond as soon as I can. I do want to say that I have indeed, as you correctly surmised, been involved in RC/co-counseling, which has been helpful for me over many decades. There is a new Fundamentals Class starting, if anyone might be interested. I can look up the information and send it out.

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....

[CSummer]

It seems you're trying to be helpful here, Shandi. All of these are things I am or have considered and/or explored. About the list of things you say you'd do if you had my passion for a new society: I don't see any way doing these things would bring about a new society. What any one person does - other than proposing ideas or a plan - seems unlikely to bring about a new society of any scale. As Margaret Mead implied, it takes a small group.

I know there's also the famous saying: "Be the change you want to see in the world." So I often consider how I could do that more than I am now. I think that being authentically who we are and not trying to be something we're not exemplifies what is needed in a new society more than trying to meet others' expectations about what's politically (or even ecologically) correct.

I have no great expectations from my participation in this dialog, but I do appreciate that it's happening and that it provides opportunities to practice expressing our ideas and visions.

My experience in groups is that advice or other ways of trying to help is generally discouraged, as it tends to imply that someone knows better than another person what's right for them to do. It seems to work best if we instead simply offer our presence, take care of ourselves and express what's true for us.

CSummer

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.

[hearthstone]

To come up with a mere definition of what a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" would not be enough. We have to _know_ what a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" is--if we were to bump into one of those on the street, we would be able to immediately recognize it to be a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world". Here I am very roughly paraphrasing what Robert Fritz writes in his "The Path of Least Resistance" (Fritz, Robert, 1984, The Path of Least Resistance. Salem, MA: DMA Inc., ISBN: 0-930641-00-0).

It was Robert Fritz's friend and collaborator Peter Senge who inspired Donella Meadows' "visioning", which Robert Fritz calls in his "The Path of Least Resistance" a "choice", a "desired result".

Not only we have to know what a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" is, we also have to reconcile all the possible versions of it each individual might have, so that we don't aim for different results!. Merely comparing our verbal descriptions of it would be enough, we should have a model (of sorts) of it for the reference of anybody wanting to improve on it, or to contest it.

I wrote an article - "The State of the Ideal Earth Design" ( www.modelearth.org/state.html ) some time back, might interest you?.
Thanks, Hearthstone.

[CSummer]

It would be helpful, Hearthstone, to have an example here of what you mean by reconciling of differences, etc in real life. If you mean wars and other forms of international violence and injustice, I would question whether those are the result of unreconciled differences or unresolved conflicts. Those who have access to advanced military weaponry, for example, may use it to impose their will on foreign peoples and nations and show little interest in reconciling or resolving anything. They are of the "might makes right" conviction, have divided the world into people who matter and people who don't matter and could care less for the lives and well-being of the latter. Then there are those who profit from war and have little interest in peace. I have read that at least one intelligence organization worked actively to undermine peace initiatives between antagonistic parties.

Of course, differences, controversies and conflicts may arise in societies and communities as they do in relationships of all kinds. The first requirement to prevent them from turning into violence is to be committed to nonviolence or peaceful negotiation and resolution. The next is the building of true community, defined as people coming together (ideally in small groups and councils made up of representatives of those groups) to build relationships of mutual respect, acceptance, caring and support. In such groups, we can connect on the level of our humanity, which is the level of our true feelings and needs. When we're relating on that level, we can ask what the real needs are that are not being met and look for creative ways in which everyone's needs can be met. This is possible (though not always within the same space) because we all have essentially the same needs and can find ways to meet everyone's needs if we're not stuck in scarcity consciousness.

"Our task must be to free ourselves from our prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all humanity and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Albert Einstein

CSummer

A long thread, but I still have the same question: how do we reconcile __all__ of our differences, controversies, conflicts before they are reconciled in real life, incurring real damage?
Reconciling, in real life, our differences about our future, about what kind of a world we want, etc., is something that we are all too familiar with, it's the stuff of our news--more disasters than much else; whatever attempts at reconciling our differences preventively there might be, it is pitifully inadequate--the tide is not turning yet, things are not getting better and better for everybody in the world yet ...
Thanks, Hearthstone.

[newdawn707]

...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.

I think it comes down to choice.
In a new society, or even here now, we all should have the Freedom to decide for ourselves.

[newdawn707]

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.

wow! what a great thought and thanks for helping us to open up our minds

[newdawn707]

This is a nice thread and great brainstorming of ideas...
I would add that we can envision something great and grand and different from now, is one way, or
we can start where we are at.
For example, sharing what we have with our neighbors, Like I have cilantro you have tomatoes!

Im from another state and I do think Sonoma county has it going on in this department. It really has so many farms and small businesses and then bigger businesses that Buy from those local places. I think this is huge for building a new society. Its a way of supporting each other.

And allowing for the other to have different views and ways of living, as long as you harm none its fine!
And allowing ourselves to change. Like if what were doing our way of living is infringing on others 'too much'.
To prevent large conflicts, we can self- regulate, and have a win win attitude. How can I get what I want and they can too? kind of idea.

blessings and happy creating!

[hearthstone]

A real life example: I and many others are competing for a place to live. Only a few of us are able to secure a place to live that is satisfactory, if not ideal. This competition for a non-renewable, finite resource is very stressful, causing no end problems for the individuals involved, and for the whole society. This competition creates real problems (sometimes even resulting in armed conflict) in real life.
All this stress resulting from this competition is wholly unnecessary! The way to prevent any on-going, even escalating stress producing fight for a place to live, the designing of anyone's home has to include the needs of all others for a good home also. It would have to be acknowledged that this planet has to be shared by many humans and non-humans alike.
I don't imagine this idea would become popular suddenly, but being pursued consistently it would, because it makes sense, and, in this way, a whole lot of unnecessary suffering can be prevented.
Of interest might be
"Home: The Very 'Leverage Point"'" - www.modelearth.org/leverage.html and
"This Paradise Earth: Philosophy in Practice." - www.modelearth.org/paradise.html

Thanks, Hearthstone.

It would be helpful, Hearthstone, to have an example here of what you mean by reconciling of differences, etc in real life. ...
CSummer

[hearthstone]

If anybody is interested, I wrote a couple of pieces on R.B. Fuller's "World Game":

https://www.modelearth.org/buckymodelearth.html

https://www.modelearth.org/buckymodelearth-gabel.html

Thanks, Hearthstone.

[Shandi]

This is a wonderful idea, and I've seen some examples of it in places designed for community living, like Frog Song. Each unit of humans has a private space, and the community has shared space, like the kitchen and garden.

I've believed for a long time, that sharing resources like structures, tools and land, make sense. Sharing actual living space is on a different level, and much more complex. Anyone who's lived with others out of necessity, rather than choice, can testify to this.

When we choose to live in an area where real estate values are high, and we don't have the income to pay the going rates even for shared space, we are truly at a disadvantage. My sister used to live in the San Fernando Valley in a home my mom gave to her. Her husband got sick and she had to quit working to care for him. The house payments were unmanageable, and they couldn't afford to rent in the area. Her daughter and 2 children also lived with them. They moved in with my mom, until she also lost her home. Eventually they gave up, and moved to Mojave. My mom is renting a 4 bedroom apt. for $400 a month, and my sister is living in a two bedroom for $200 a month. Her two daughters and their husbands and 2 cats are living with my mom. The area is far from desirable, but at least they have a roof over their heads.

One of the daughters and her family had moved to Arkansas when they couldn't find housing in the area they had lived in all their life. Once this place had been rented in Mojave, she moved back to live in the 4 bedroom apt. Job opportunities are scarce there, so long hours of travel to jobs are necessary to maintain basic living expenses. Medical facilities are also a distance.

I have a friend who owns a large property and house in Sebastopol, and has developed some rudimentary living structures for others. It has been a costly proposition, in terms of basic needs such as plumbing and heating, in addition to making the structures passable for inspection. My friend is not wealthy, but has a generosity of heart. She has also opened her own living space to others in need.

In the years I've known her, she's had to deal with various issues arising from this generosity. Work/trade arrangements not honored, squatters unwilling to leave when asked, clandestine cannabis growing which threatened the loss of her property, and many other situations that left her stressed with compromised health.

A recent thread on WaccoBB involves a new resident who is refusing to grant access across her land, due to privacy and other issues which must involve some actual fear of liability. It looks like this may be resolved legally, and the resident will be forced to allow access. Imagine the upset feelings that have arisen on both sides.

This is a small example of the complex issue of sharing property, whether land, tools, or a vehicle. Many times I've wanted to loan my car to someone without one, but I have to ask the question "what happens if there's an accident and the car is totaled or damaged beyond what my insurance will pay?" My own wisdom tells me to only share what I can reasonably afford.

I have actually shared my twin bed (not intimately) with another adult, who was homeless. I suffered sleepless nights from being cramped against the wall, or on the edge of the bed. This went on for 10 months. The work/trade agreement wasn't honored after the first month. Looking back, I realize that I didn't have enough to share, without extreme suffering to myself. Hopefully that decision has given me more wisdom.

As a 5 year old child living in poverty, upon finding a quarter, I felt rich. I spent ten cents, and gave the remaining fifteen cents to a friend. I remember saying "I bought what I wanted, so you can have the rest." You would think that I would have hoarded that remaining money for another time. But since my immediate desires were met, I felt generous. This small event has set the theme for my entire life, and my sharing has created some financial hardship for me, along the way.

Nowadays, there's not much to share, except some time and wisdom, which actually can have more value than money or things.

A real life example: I and many others are competing for a place to live. Only a few of us are able to secure a place to live that is satisfactory, if not ideal. This competition for a non-renewable, finite resource is very stressful, causing no end problems for the individuals involved, and for the whole society. This competition creates real problems (sometimes even resulting in armed conflict) in real life.
All this stress resulting from this competition is wholly unnecessary! The way to prevent any on-going, even escalating stress producing fight for a place to live, the designing of anyone's home has to include the needs of all others for a good home also....

[CSummer]

A "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" could, I believe, take many forms. If we have a clearly defined function or purpose and values for such a society, however, it wouldn't take long to tell if any given society fulfills that purpose and values. It would be fairly easy to come up with criteria for evaluating any given society's (of any scale, real or proposed) "design" and determine if the society meets those criteria.

For example, we might determine and agree that a reasonable design purpose for a society would be to cooperatively coordinate human activity so as to build environments in which all real human needs can be well met, to do so in a way that has either a neutral or restorative effect on the natural ecosystems and that doesn't prevent anyone else from doing the same. Our values are to be happy, healthy humans peacefully coexisting within a thriving natural environment. It seems to me there are a great many possible societies (or even sub-societies) that could fulfill this purpose and values.

The criteria for evaluating any given society are obvious: Are all real human needs being met? Are the people happy, healthy and doing great creative work? Are the local ecosystems thriving or being restored to a healthy state?

Hearthstone: "Not only [do] we have to know what a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" is, we also have to reconcile all the possible versions of it each individual might have, so that we don't aim for different results!".

I don't see why this would be true. As long as everyone in the society is agreed on the basic purpose and values, we only need to ask if any given version can be realized in a way that fulfills that purpose and values. I don't expect any real society that might be created in the near term will be at all large-scale. If you want to figure out a way to create a large-scale (e.g., national or global) society, I think we'll be here for a very long time working on that! What might be possible (I'd like to think) is to come up with a clear, well-expressed statement of purpose and values and find a few people who resonate with those principles and want to begin building a small-scale model (e.g., a community) of that design.

To me, it seems very simple if we just ask the right questions. How do we want our lives to feel in our society? Do we not want to be healthy, happy and following our creative urges? Do we not want our relationships to be peaceful, loving and strong enough to weather occasional difficulties?

If you go to this page on the Nonviolent Communication (NVC) website, you'll find two long lists of human needs.
One list is headed: Feelings when your needs are satisfied;
the other is titled: Feelings when your needs are not satisfied.

You'll notice that the first list includes all the feelings we prefer to have, and the second are what might be called "difficult feelings." This is only one source that validates the idea that we are happiest when our real needs can be met. (Note that it's important to distinguish real needs from pseudo- or acquired needs. If you'd like to see a list of real needs, go to this page on the NVC site. You'll notice that it doesn't include such things as "needs" to be distracted, stoned, drunk, in control, etc.- all of which are ways we have of masking the pain of the real needs we carry that seem unmeetable.)

What kind of a physical environment do we want to live in? My guess is most of us feel best in natural settings where plants and animals are healthy and thriving, and we want a relationship with our natural environment so that our physical needs can be met in ways that are ecologically balanced. We also have real needs for safety and security, and realize these needs can't be met if we exclude or exploit our fellow humans, all of whom have the same real needs we do.

It seems to me it's not that difficult to describe a human society that is far healthier, conducive to peaceful coexistence and that supports people in leading healthy, happy lives. Our great challenge is to find our way from our present way of life, characterized by inner and outer fragmentation and almost constant distraction, to a way that arises from inner wholeness and that supports presence, with ourselves, each other and with nature. It is only from such presence that we can heal and grow to become people who can build a society that is a place of peace and abundance, and that supports everyone in realizing their true potentials.

CSummer

To come up with a mere definition of what a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" would not be enough. We have to _know_ what a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" is--if we were to bump into one of those on the street, we would be able to immediately recognize it to be a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world". Here I am very roughly paraphrasing what Robert Fritz writes in his "The Path of Least Resistance" (Fritz, Robert, 1984, The Path of Least Resistance. Salem, MA: DMA Inc., ISBN: 0-930641-00-0).

It was Robert Fritz's friend and collaborator Peter Senge who inspired Donella Meadows' "visioning", which Robert Fritz calls in his "The Path of Least Resistance" a "choice", a "desired result".

Not only we have to know what a "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" is, we also have to reconcile all the possible versions of it each individual might have, so that we don't aim for different results!. Merely comparing our verbal descriptions of it would be enough, we should have a model (of sorts) of it for the reference of anybody wanting to improve on it, or to contest it.

I wrote an article - "The State of the Ideal Earth Design" ( www.modelearth.org/state.html ) some time back, might interest you?.
Thanks, Hearthstone.

[Shandi]

In looking at the "needs inventory" (this page on the NVC site) I notice that "choice" is one of those needs. So, it's understandable that frustration and backlash occur when these needs are thwarted, as in the mandated vaccine issue. Being peaceful in the face of this "spiritual violence" will not work in our favor to get these needs met. Although it seems that "choice" isn't equally important to everyone, as shown in several posts.

A "new society for a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" could, I believe, take many forms. If we have a clearly defined function or purpose and values for such a society, however, it wouldn't take long to tell if any given society fulfills that purpose and values. It would be fairly easy to come up with criteria for evaluating any given society's (of any scale, real or proposed) "design" and determine if the society meets those criteria...

[CSummer]

Yes, the lack of adequate housing is an artificial scarcity created by what is perhaps the most egregious injustice of the dominant society: the requirement that to have a fair share of the natural resources - especially land - we must either inherit it or participate in the dominant economy in order to gain enough of that economy's wealth so we can buy what should be freely available to us. This may be viewed as the basis of economic enslavement made possible by depriving people of access to vital resources. Such is the reality of life on what some call a "prison planet." It is the context within which we must seek ways to free ourselves.

It is also an indication of the immaturity of humanity and the fragmented nature of the society that we would allow this situation to exist and so many to be without homes. If a micro-society (e.g., an intentional community) were formed for the purpose of creating environments in which all real needs can be met, eventually that would include providing a place for members to live (at least those who needed that). We're all familiar though with the saying: "Home is where the heart is," and I believe the first focus of a small group interested in building a community is for the group itself to become a "community of the heart." This is an environment in which our "heart-level" or emotional-relational needs can be met. Once we have established relationships of mutual respect, caring, trust and support and learned to keep the channels of communication flowing freely, all the rest becomes rather obvious. We hardly need to concern ourselves about such things as rights and justice, as when we've expanded our circle of caring and compassion to include at least all members of the community, then we of course want to ensure that everyone's needs are well met. And we would be energized to do whatever we need to do to make that happen.

In the absence of true community, we have this. And it is only from here that we can begin our journey.

CSummer

A real life example: I and many others are competing for a place to live. ...

[CSummer]

I'm not sure I agree that choice is an actual need; seems more like a condition that applies to many needs. For example, if I have a need for food, what are my choices for where to get it or the quality of the food, etc. It seems very close to having options, which is having the power to meet our needs. To be included or welcome are real needs, and of course mandating vaccination as a condition of school attendance would make that conditional.

Shandi wrote: "Being peaceful in the face of this "spiritual violence" will not work in our favor to get these needs met."

Are you suggesting that a violent response would get our needs met? It seems to me that if we look at what the real need(s) are and all the options that are available, we could probably come up with a peaceful (nonviolent) response. And I'm not sure that a non-peaceful response will get us anything we really need or want, though I don't know what you have in mind.

CSummer

In looking at the "needs inventory" (this page on the NVC site) I notice that "choice" is one of those needs. So, ....

[newdawn707]

She means that taking action or Doing something may be required.

I'm not sure I agree that ...

[Shandi]

This information on needs was taken from the non violent communication website, as I noted. We all have different perspectives and definitions of "needs". Our basic survival needs are food, water, air, and protection from weather. Choice is not a survival need, but then neither is being "included" or "welcome". Many people survive on their own, through choice or necessity.

I'm not clear what you mean by this"mandating vaccination as a condition of school attendance would make that conditional". Can you explain?

Violence is also up for interpretation. Most people may think of violence as an act that hurts, but in general it can be viewed as a great uncontrolled force or energy which can come from human behavior or nature. I see mandated vaccines as violence to our bodies. Being forced to do anything against our will can also be seen as a kind of violence, even if those doing it believe it's "for our own good".

Rebellion can be seen as an act of violence by those who are forcing their will on us. Pointing a gun, (toy or real) may be seen as a violent act. Self defense may necessitate violence. As a 6 year old child, I defended myself with the claw end of a hammer, which I was quite prepared to use. Being peaceful in all situations is an ideal, but not realistic. Sometimes it does take a violent response to get our needs met. Peaceful obedience is the goal of governments, employers and anyone with power over our choices, to get their "needs" met.

Since we have different interpretations of words, communication becomes a complex matter, as if we were speaking different languages. I remember an exercise in a college class where we were given a list of words to define. It was very revealing how differently people perceived the meanings. And as time goes on, meanings change, mostly initiated by the youth of each generation.

So, it seems that before a small group can agree on what a new society looks like they would have to come to some agreement about the meanings of words.

I'm not sure I agree that choice is an actual need; ...

[hearthstone]

There is no competition for a home-site in an ideal world, because there are not enough many people (due to the minimal possible number of humans in the world) to compete with for living space or any other resources. The lifestyle ranges from the basic hunter/gatherer one to any more complex one. At the basic level everything needed for life is situated next to the doorstep, is gotten by gathering or by growing (food, construction materials, medicine, etc.).
Even though the more complex lifestyles require more complex social organization, they are perfectly socially sustainable, because no one is pressured by any means to participate in activities (social or production ones) that require more people to cooperate together--people participate in those activities because they want to. If they should not like what they are doing, they go to living a simpler, more relaxed lifestyle.
Please read: "Universal Platform ..." - www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html .
Thanks, Hearthstone.

[CSummer]

I wrote: "To be included or welcome are real needs, and of course mandating vaccination as a condition of school attendance would make that conditional."

What I mean is that you will be included or welcome in the school system IF you meet the condition of having been vaccinated. Being included or welcome are experienced as survival needs when they come up in infants and young children - and perhaps even in tribal societies, where being excluded from the tribe can be life-threatening. Being excluded from a public school is probably less likely to be a survival issue; it may even be to your advantage!

I don't think it's useful to quibble about the meaning of words. It is true that words are used and abused in many ways (e.g., referring to peaceful activists as "terrorists"). I see no need for us to do that here, or to be burdened by the abuse of words that others may commit. If what we mean is unclear, we can clarify our meaning by stating how we're defining a word. This can be quite essential if we're to understand each other.

Violence is action that harms or injures someone in a significant way, and can include emotional violence. Civil disobedience, peacefully protesting or demonstrating are nonviolent ways of expressing opposition. Peaceful or nonviolent responses are almost always an option, though I will agree that there may be times when violence (in self-defense) may be deemed appropriate. It's true that someone may label a nonviolent action as violent, but this is likely to be a way of justifying their violent response to the action. This is an abuse of power to repress legitimate dissident expression.

But I'm here to focus on how a peaceful, humane society can be designed and built, and such things as violence and repression don't at all fit what I envision for such a society. Violence happens when some real needs are unmet for too long, and the person who's experiencing great frustration is not allowed a peaceful way of expressing their needs and feelings. This is why we need to spend a lot of time in small groups, where all such things can be expressed and heard - even those that have been buried or hidden much of our lives.

And, yes, we will certainly need to be clear about our statements of purpose and values, including what we mean by any special terms.

CSummer

This information on needs was taken from the non violent communication website, as I noted. We all have different perspectives and definitions of "needs". Our basic survival needs are food, water, air, and protection from weather. Choice is not a survival need, but then neither is being "included" or "welcome". Many people survive on their own, through choice or necessity.

I'm not clear what you mean by this"mandating vaccination as a condition of school attendance would make that conditional". Can you explain?

Violence is also up for interpretation. Most people may think ...

[CSummer]

This is a dialog between Hearthstone and myself that took place offline. We decided to share it here in case anyone else has additional input or feedback.
______________________

(Begins with a private response to Hearthstone's post of 6/12 that starts:
There is no competition for a home-site . . .)

CSummer: Would this sentence convey the same thing?

> There is no competition for a home-site (or other natural resources) in an ideal world, because local (or global) populations are low enough relative to resource supply that there is no need to compete for those resources.

Hearthstone: It has to be both--global and local together. Otherwise wanting a "peaceful, humane, sustainable world" locally only would be wanting an
imperfect ideal.

CSummer: We cannot do anything "globally." We can only do things locally - and do them in such a way that they would be sustainable if done globally. Also, there is no real shortage of resources - with the possible exception of fresh water in drought areas. The problem is in how resources are used. Of course, this is my view, and I'm open to opposing arguments.

Hearthstone: We cannot do anything globally, unless we first _envision_ what "a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" should look like. One would hardly envision this ideal as consisting of only some localities perfectly peaceful, humane, sustainable, with the rest of the world not included in the vision.

CSummer: I don't see how we can do anything globally, even if we do "envision what a peaceful, humane, sustainable world" should look like. Please give me a hint as to how this might be possible.

Hearthstone: One would hardly envision this ideal as consisting of only some localities perfectly peaceful, humane, sustainable, with the rest of the world not included in the vision.

CSummer: I have no problem with including the whole world in our vision. But I see no way we can impose that vision on the world, no matter how great a vision we believe it to be. I do see it as possible to realize a vision locally and offer those local micro-societies as a model to the rest of the world.

We can share our vision with the world, but I don't think it will have much effect until we can demonstrate a working model. I don't see a paper or on-line model having much effect. People will ask, it's great to live sustainably, but will this really make my life better? This is what must be demonstrated in a real-world model.

Hearthstone: But you do want the whole world to become a "peaceful, humane, sustainable world"?

CSummer: Yes, indeed, I/we do want the whole world to become peaceful, humane and sustainable. For that we need a human society that has this as it's fundamental ethic. What I'm interested in is exploring with others how we can actually begin building this society, and it seems obvious to me that we can't do this on a large scale. We could, however, do it on a small, local scale by creating a cooperative intentional community that has the purpose I've stated elsewhere.

Hearthstone: Is your "peaceful, humane, sustainable world" the same thing as my "peaceful, humane, sustainable world"? How do we make sure that we want to achieve the same end?

CSummer: In my very first post I talked about what these words mean to me. It seems to me that's the place to begin to answer these questions. Once we've agreed​ on the meanings of these words, we can talk about a "design function" or purpose of a human society that could ​bring about this kind of world.

Hearthstone: You, and many others, feel that by going sustainably locally would eventually result in the whole world becoming so.

I have my doubts about this and I would pursue other ways.

However!: since we both (and many others) would be aiming for the same goal, we do well to make sure that we indeed do aim for the same goal.

How do we make sure that we do aim for the same goal? For me verbal definitions don't do much. I would prefer models (of any kind), as long as they make the depiction of an ideal world clear.

CSummer: To me, it's about much more than "going sustainable" or creating a sustainable model. Our present non-sustainability is an integral part of our way of life, so we must offer a way of life - and an entire society to support it - that is sustainable. And just being sustainable is not enough, partly because it's a somewhat abstract concept and not something people actually easily experience.

What is needed is a way of life and society that improves the quality of human life - especially our health and enjoyment of life. It must also empower people to be full participants in the life, planning and decision-making of the society.

I've read some of your writing on: Universal Platform for Developing Sustainable Earth Vision1/Model Cooperatively. It's not yet clear to me what you mean by a "model." Do you mean a model on paper, a computer model, an online model or an actual working micro-society? The last is the kind of model I believe is needed to demonstrate what an actual society is like.

> However!: since we both (and many others) would be aiming for the same goal, we do well to make sure that we indeed do aim for the same goal.

This is why I say we need to come up with a statement of purpose that is clear to everyone and that everyone (who chooses to) is agreed upon and willing to commit to. To me, it's not so much about having or working toward a goal as about having a common direction, and in that direction there are many desirable possibilities.

> How do we make sure that we do aim for the same goal? For me verbal definitions don't do much. I would prefer models (of any kind), as long as they make the depiction of an ideal world clear.

Yes, for me also a model is needed, and it needs to be an actual working model, e.g., an intentional community formed to develop and demonstrate a way of life and society based on cooperation, mutual trust, caring and support - and one that values meeting all real human needs in ecologically sustainable ways above all else. This kind of model is the only way I believe people from the dominant culture can get a sense of this alternative society and see that it works much better - not only for the earth but for the people who are members of the society.

A few such communities exist, but I have yet to see or hear of one that I believe offers a universally-applicable or highly appealing alternative. And it would need to be very appealing to a significant percentage of the population, as that's the only way it's likely to be adopted more widely.

[Shandi]

I wonder if anyone reading this dialogue can see the basic challenge presented by two people who think/believe that they have the same goal, but aren't able to articulate it in a way that's mutually agreeable. It reminds me of two people who want to start an endeavor, but can't get beyond their differences in the way they express language and meanings of words.

Can this be overcome by their expansive vision? What's needed for these two people to act on their ideas and visions for a new society? Should they each find another person who has the same vision and the same understanding of what words mean to them, and see if that helps? It doesn't appear that those people are responding to the statements presented on this topic, or this recent dialogue.

This is a dialog between Hearthstone and myself that took place offline. ...

[CSummer]

I don't see us having different goals or seeking different eventual outcomes. One of us is more concerned about the meaning of words than the other. It seems to me that if we put peace and non-peace (violence?) side by side, we can tell the difference; the same is true about humane vs inhumane or sustainable vs unsustainable. We are both interested in an outcome that could result in a peaceful, humane, sustainable world. I suspect there would be many micro-societies (e.g., communities) built that are approximations of a society that could result in such a world, and it will become evident where they stand on a continuum for each of these criteria (i.e.., in terms of how peaceful, humane and sustainable they are). Those that express these ideals most optimally would become models that new communities can use as patterns. (A few such communities do already exist - some focused on sustainability, others on peace. None may be an ideal model yet, but they're a positive beginning.)

So I don't see a significant difference in the goal but in how we get from here to there. Hearthstone, if I understand him correctly, believes we need to come up with a model that incorporates the vision of everyone in the world. (Correct me if I'm mistaken here, Hearthstone.) I believe we will wait a very long time for that to happen - longer than the lifetimes of even the youngest people on the planet. My sense is that what we need to begin building the new society is rather simple, and only a small group (initially) needs to agree to it.

We need to first agree on what a reasonable purpose for a human society is - a purpose that could be universally applicable, and then we need to reorient our lives to move in a new direction: a direction that would fulfill that purpose. If a small group can do this and share their experience with others, it seems to me many would join them, because fulfilling this true purpose means that people coexist happily, gratefully and creatively. They also enjoy what might be called "supported freedom," which is far more than freedom as "nothing left to lose."

If anyone's curious, the "new direction" I see is from living and working separately and competitively to doing so together, cooperatively. From parallel or divergent paths toward a dubious future - to converging paths toward the future we desire for ourselves and the world. This becomes possible once we come together and discover that even within a small group we can create what we want: an environment in which everyone's needs can be met (at least emotional-relational needs). This is possible because we all have essentially the same needs, even if they come up in different ways and at different times. Creating these environments cooperatively is what I believe to be the true purpose of a human society.

Of course, most all of us have a lot of learning and growing to do in making the transition to such a society. So this would be the main focus of that first group: to create an environment that enables the members to leave behind the attitudes and world-views that tend to keep us separate and powerless. At the same time, it can enable us to develop "community consciousness," a much more expanded sense of self and an inclusive view of others and the world, bringing them with us into our circle of caring and compassion.

CSummer

I wonder if anyone reading this dialogue can see the basic challenge presented by two people who think/believe that they have the same goal, but aren't able to articulate it in a way that's mutually agreeable. It reminds me of two people who want to start an endeavor, but can't get beyond their differences in the way they express language and meanings of words.

Can this be overcome by their expansive vision? What's needed for these two people to act on their ideas and visions for a new society? Should they each find another person who has the same vision and the same understanding of what words mean to them, and see if that helps? It doesn't appear that those people are responding to the statements presented on this topic, or this recent dialogue.

[hearthstone]

We have to know what it is that we want first! If we do not know what it is that we want well, then we just end up with anything to no one satisfaction! But even when I know what I want well, is it the same thing that everybody else wants? How can we know that we are not pursuing different ideals?

It is seldom that people compare their visions for the future of the world with each other, we are not accustomed to doing so, but all of us who have a stake in a satisfactory future of the Earth should do it, because, if we don't, then we all would be working towards an ideal that could be different from the ideals of others, which would mean that all our differences would have to be reconciled in real life (causing real waste of time, resources, etc.), instead of _before_ we start realizing those ideals in real life. But it has to be started, never mind that it would be only a few people at the start.
Here I try to describe my vision for the future of the world:

The basic unit of the society would be one's fully self-sufficient, fully transparently sustainable home that together with other such homes would form a community where everybody would know everybody else well. Everything needed for life would be situated within a comfortable walking, paddling, sailing distance. There would be plenty of space in this world for both--human and all other life, all life forms living in balance. That would mean that a zero human population would never cause any inconvenience to other humans, or any other life form generally.

All other forms of more complex sustainable societal situations would be possible. Those would form fully voluntarily on the basis of the society described in the above paragraph. There would be no pressure to earn profit, because in a truly sustainable society the only profit there can be is more harmony among people and all other life forms. Social sustainability would be ensured by people being free to disassociate themselves from any complex undertaking and go back to a more basic sustainable lifestyle.
More on this at "Universal Platform ..." - www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html

This is just for a start.

Thanks, Hearthstone.

I don't see us having different goals or seeking different eventual outcomes. ...

[CSummer]

Relevant to this, just want to make sure you-all know about the movie and panel discussion tonight at the Sebastopol Grange. Click here for link to announcement. See you there?

We have to know what it is that we want first! If we do not know what it is that we want well, then we just end up with anything to no one satisfaction! But ...

[hearthstone]

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
(R. Buckminster Fuller - https://bfi.org/about-bfi/updates/20...ntdown-begins/ )

Not much can more needs to be said; the way I read is that all the protesting against anything we don't like in our reality might change things at best superficially, but in the end it might result in having even more problems we started with.

Of note is his"World Game" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Game.

Thanks, Hearthstone.

[hearthstone]

The Necessary Qualities of Sustainable Earth Vision.

A sustainable Earth vision has to be universal --it has to
optimally accommodate everyone's personal vision of what a
sustainable life on Earth should be like.

A sustainable Earth vision cannot be proscriptive ; It has to be
descriptive; it has to show why things in the vision are presented
the way they are--how they organically relate to all other things in
the vision sustainably.

By showing why the components of the vision are supposed to
be the way they are, a sustainable Earth vision would educate .
This education would enable the participants of the vision
creation to continually improve on the vision while actively
implementing it.

Furthermore - by actively participating at realizing the vision
people would learn--"hands on", "on the job".
This education would would become a second nature to
humans; always showing why it is necessary to optimally
accommodate all others within the vision along with one's own
self.

Maintaining the vision to be harmonious, while continuously
fine-tuning it, will become a worthy life's purpose. It would become the most significant cultural trait, and thus it would be preserved in perpetuity.

Thanks, Hearthstone.

[CSummer]

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

This is one of my favorite quotes. To me it means: don't try to fix something that's badly designed. You'll just end up with something that's still badly designed. If you don't like what people are doing within the existing systems, it can be pretty useless to try to get them to do what they "should" be doing. Once you're within a system, there's a strong tendency to do what that system rewards or supports. For example, if it's a system that concentrates power and wealth while hiding much of what goes on within the system, one can expect corruption and other abuses of power.

This is why my present form of "activism" is reinventing human society. It seems to hold much more promise than trying to change the dysfunctional dinosaur we've lived in for centuries.

CSummer

Not much can more needs to be said; the way I read is that all the protesting against anything we don't like in our reality might change things at best superficially, but in the end it might result in having even more problems we started with.

Of note is his"World Game" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Game.

Thanks, Hearthstone.

[Shandi]

I disagree that we can't change things by fighting the existing reality. Many changes would never have happened without "resistance" to the status quo in the form of courageous people taking a stand.

What kind of new model would have given women legal rights to vote, and to own property, or not be "owned" by their husbands? What do you suggest could have been done to "build a new model" in these cases? What about slavery? Child labor? Gender rights?

Power easily corrupts, and power over masses of people will not give in to a new model. Corruption of power that dominates the masses is seen in every country. Only revolution has had an impact.

I think this is what's needed in this country, but when the poor and disadvantaged must be slaves to eat, there's no time or thought for revolution. The people who are actually able to build new models are those who aren't struggling to eat or find housing for themselves and their families.

Any of us who are or have been slaves to the system, working long hours for menial pay, know what I'm talking about. Or those who are so disabled that they can't work any longer, and must rely on a monthly pittance of $600-800 a month. Is there anyone who will speak up for that reality? Most of this population can't afford to live in Sebastopol, unless someone allows them to pitch a tent on their land.
Now, there's a "new model". Get a few "tent communities" going, and see how that changes things.

If you had a piece of land would you create a tent community? How many people would? (Even if it was legal.)

Last summer the Fairgrounds parking lot in Petaluma was opened for the homeless to stay overnight, providing meals and counseling. For some reason, it's not happening again this year. Does anyone have information on this? This was an example of a "new model".

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

This is one of my favorite quotes....r

[hearthstone]

We no longer have slavery, because wage slavery is more efficient. How long will it take to abolish wage slavery?

The trouble is that to make any progress in issues like women's rights, etc., is that you need a lot of victims that get together and protest, and only then you might get some kind of a change (for better or worse--see the example of slavery).

With creating a vision of an ideal world a lot of negative societal aspects can be preventively dealt with. Even individual cases of societal abuse can thus be prevented from arising at all!

E. G.--with incorporating a truly and fully sustainable home for every individual included in the vision, not a single instance of homelessness would be then possible!
I was made homeless unjustly many years ago, and because I did not want to to be rehabilitated into the very same society that makes such a gross injustice as homelessness possible, I eventually started developing the concept of designing the vision of an ideal world cooperatively: "How I Arrived at the Concept of Designing the Future Collectively" - www.modelearth.org/mecirc.html .

Thanks, Hearthstone.

I disagree that we can't change things by fighting the existing reality. Many changes would never have happened without "resistance" to the status quo in the form of courageous people taking a stand.

What kind of new model would have given women legal rights to vote, and to own property, or not be "owned" by their husbands? What do you suggest could have been done to "build a new model" in these cases? What about slavery? Child labor? Gender rights?

Power easily corrupts, and power over masses of people will not give in to a new model. Corruption of power that dominates the masses is seen in every country. Only revolution has had an impact.

I think this is what's needed in this country, but when the poor and disadvantaged must be slaves to eat, there's no time or thought for revolution. The people who are actually able to build new models are those who aren't struggling to eat or find housing for themselves and their families.

Any of us who are or have been slaves to the system, working long hours for menial pay, know what I'm talking about. Or those who are so disabled that they can't work any longer, and must rely on a monthly pittance of $600-800 a month. Is there anyone who will speak up for that reality? Most of this population can't afford to live in Sebastopol, unless someone allows them to pitch a tent on their land.
Now, there's a "new model". Get a few "tent communities" going, and see how that changes things.

If you had a piece of land would you create a tent community? How many people would? (Even if it was legal.)

Last summer the Fairgrounds parking lot in Petaluma was opened for the homeless to stay overnight, providing meals and counseling. For some reason, it's not happening again this year. Does anyone have information on this? This was an example of a "new model".

[CSummer]

Not only do we need to know what we want, we need to know why we want it - both the purpose for it and why that is a useful purpose. We need to know these things if we're going to design any system using a holistic approach.

If you were to ask a thousand people what they want in terms of a world or society, I think you'd get a thousand different answers. I also think they would distill down to one thing: people want to live happy, fulfilling lives in a sustainable way (i.e., without degrading the natural environment). To me, the best - and only feasible design - is one that will allow, support and empower each person to create the lives and relationships that work well for her or him. This might be the same as saying: we each have our own vision of an ideal life (which may change as we learn and grow) and we should feel free and encouraged to realize that vision. Of course, this would need to be within the limits of what is eco-sustainable and not infringing on the right of others to do the same.

To me, it seems unrealistic to imagine we could design or build anything that would incorporate the visions of millions of people. But we can design systems that address what we all share in common: our real human needs. And that's all we really need to do, because if people can meet their real needs in quality ways, they will feel content, happy, supported and empowered.

One might ask: what's keeping us from meeting well all our real needs now? Is it the lack of resources, tools and mutually supportive connections, or is it the belief that certain needs cannot be met - or that life has to be unpleasant and difficult? Seems pretty evident to me that it's both. The only real possibility is to come together in small groups to support each other in growing beyond these negative beliefs and to collaborate in finding ways to provide ourselves with the resources the dominant society fails to provide.

By the way, I'm reading "The Path of Least Resistance," by Robert Fritz. Did you mention that book Hearthstone? Have quite a bit to read still, but so far my sense of what he's saying is that we all need a more creative approach to life, rather than a problem-oriented approach. I totally agree with that - especially when it comes to social change!

Why make it harder than it needs to be? If we can design and build something that works well for a small group or community and is based on sound principles or philosophy - a design that arises from and holistically addresses our common humanity, it will be applicable to humans everywhere.

CSummer

We have to know what it is that we want first! If we do not know what it is that we want well, then we just end up with anything to no one satisfaction! But even when I know what I want well, is it the same thing that everybody else wants? How can we know that we are not pursuing different ideals?

It is seldom that people compare their visions for the future of the world with each other, we are not accustomed to doing so, but all of us who have a stake in a satisfactory future of the Earth should do it, because, if we don't, then we all would be working towards an ideal that could be different from the ideals of others, which would mean that all our differences would have to be reconciled in real life (causing real waste of time, resources, etc.), instead of _before_ we start realizing those ideals in real life. But it has to be started, never mind that it would be only a few people at the start.
Here I try to describe my vision for the future of the world:

The basic unit of the society would be one's fully self-sufficient, fully transparently sustainable home that together with other such homes would form a community where everybody would know everybody else well. Everything needed for life would be situated within a comfortable walking, paddling, sailing distance. There would be plenty of space in this world for both--human and all other life, all life forms living in balance. That would mean that a zero human population would never cause any inconvenience to other humans, or any other life form generally.

All other forms of more complex sustainable societal situations would be possible. Those would form fully voluntarily on the basis of the society described in the above paragraph. There would be no pressure to earn profit, because in a truly sustainable society the only profit there can be is more harmony among people and all other life forms. Social sustainability would be ensured by people being free to disassociate themselves from any complex undertaking and go back to a more basic sustainable lifestyle.
More on this at "Universal Platform ..." - www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html

This is just for a start.

Thanks, Hearthstone.