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

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

[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]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

...
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. . . .

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.
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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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 ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

...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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

...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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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:...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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
...
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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

...
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

---

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!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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....

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

Your cynicism is understandable, 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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

Your cynicism is understandable, Shepherd,...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

Your cynicism is understandable, Shepherd,...

---

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.")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joo90ZWrUkU

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

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

---

(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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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....

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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....

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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....

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

...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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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....

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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...

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

I'm not sure I agree that ...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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 ...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

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

---

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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 ...

---

Quote:

---

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.

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.

"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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

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.

---

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".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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....r

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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".

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

A new society requires both a new consciousness and a new culture.
To try and envision what life, the world and society might be like before we have
gained this new consciousness and built the new culture is like trying to imagine
what it would be like to live in a place we've never been.

The new culture is built within small groups, and the new society arises from consciousness
that has at least begun a process of re-integration. It arises from relationships of mutual caring,
trust and support that are the basis of the new culture being formed within small groups.

We also don't build a holistic, sustainable way of life by analyzing resources
and calculating what the local environment can sustain.
We do it by building a relationship with the place we wish to call home.

This is the difference between the old and new ways and societies:
The old way is every person for her/himself; find a place to fit in or a situation to exploit
and make the best of it. If you're exceptionally talented or capable in a culturally rewarded way,
you might do very well by capitalizing on your art or profession.
The new (and ancient) way is much more relational; we don't need - or wish -
to live separated from a community of our fellow humans.

I don't believe it's possible to really imagine a new society or way of life
from within the existing culture or consciousness, which are both burdened with
beliefs of powerlessness and scarcity.
Can we even imagine what it would be like to be part of a small group of people
who have come to deeply know, trust, care for and support each other?
Can we know the empowering effect of realizing we can co-create a group in which
everyone can feel safe, respected, accepted, welcome, valued, trusting, seen and heard,
free, encouraged, etc?
A group that has become the home we may have never had:
a home where our heart is - safe to open to others;
a home where our participation brings us deep gratitude and joy.

This is the 'great turning' that needs to happen:
from separateness - to togetherness.
Until that happens, we are wandering in all directions
and the real work of designing and building the new society
in any coherent, integrated way cannot begin.

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

They were sustainable only in the Darwinian sense. Because they were pretty efficient at keeping their populations low, they didn't suffer shortages.

Dr. Dana Meadows: Envisioning A Sustainable World.

I just posted at the "Reader" - https://www.waccobb.net/forums/editp...epost&p=192945 a video - https://vimeo.com/13213667

Dr. Meadows stresses the need of having a vision (model) of a sustainable world _before_ implementing steps that would take us there.

However, creating a vision of a goal to be achieved is not some kind of an afflatus, or any such ...

The idea of knowing what one wants to get before setting out to get that what one wants, despite its being so commonsense, takes a while to get used to ...

The best start for learning visioning is Robert Fritz's "The Path of Least Resistance", I think (Fritz, Robert 1984 The Path of Least Resistance. Salem, MA: DMA Inc., ISBN: 0-930641-00-0)

Thanks Hearthstone.

Yes, I would agree that visions and models are necessary. To me, they are rather different, however. A vision is something we might picture (visualize) in our minds and describe on paper. It is more like a theory or hypothesis, waiting to be tested. It may even lack anything about how it will be realized.

A model on the other hand demonstrates the feasibility of a vision. It could be done on paper or with a computer, but this will be less persuasive than something done in the real world. For example, I might have an idea for an invention which I could convey verbally or describe on paper as a vision of something I believe could work. If I want to do anything with this idea, however, I'll need to build a model that demonstrates that it can actually work.

I think this is especially true of a new society. Presenting a vision will not likely go far unless there's some compelling reason for many people to join in realizing it. But most of us need to see - and even experience personally - the society actually working. It takes a huge leap of consciousness to go from one culture or society to another, except as an observer. What do most people do when they go to a foreign country and observe the ways of the people there? My guess is that most of us think something like: Well, that's okay for them, but I'd never want to live like that. Unfortunately, we can't really get a sense of another culture unless we try it on for a while. And this is the leap that pioneers of a new society must make: we must be willing to make a radical departure from the way of life we've known if we want to create - even on a very small scale - a society that supports a peaceful, humane, sustainable way of life.

What's missing for me from what Dana Meadows said (and she was more a systems analyst than a designer of systems, I believe) is the need to have - in addition to a vision - a clearly defined purpose for what you want to create. As Robert Fritz talks about in "The Path of Least Resistance," you don't change things within the structures that produce what you want to change. This is evident from looking at all the efforts to end human hunger and other forms of economic injustice. Not much changes within the context of global economic and political structures that are inherently unjust and inequitable. Nor is it useful to try to change those structures, as they strongly resist any change.

If you want to create a society that is just and equitable, you need to create structures that enable access to and sharing of resources. And, to me (and probably others), the first question that must be answered is: what is the primary purpose or function of what we want to create? Something as far-reaching as a human society needs to be designed using a "whole systems" or holistic approach, and the purpose and values are the foundation from which such a design arises. I think we can't really know what it is we want to create until we have clear answers to these fundamental questions, and any effort to envision what it might be like before we have the function and values clearly stated may not be real useful.

So, the starting point is: Why and for what purpose do we want a human society, even one that has the qualities of being peaceful, humane and sustainable?

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

Dr. Dana Meadows: Envisioning A Sustainable World.

I just posted at the "Reader" - https://www.waccobb.net/forums/editp...epost&p=192945 a video - https://vimeo.com/13213667 ...

---

Never mind "vision", "model" .... What is essential is that one knows what one wants, otherwise, if one doesn't know what they want, what will they ever get? How they know what it is that they want is up to them ...

In the case of achieving a whole world that would be sustainable the thing is to know for _all_ who have a stake in creating such a world to agree on what a "sustainable world" should be. Without all such knowing what a "sustainable world" should be, we'll just continue what we have been doing all the time, resolving our differences in real life, incurring real waste of time, resources, lives (very frequently). In order to avoid incurring such waste we all have to agree on what a "sustainable world" should look like. How do we arrive at such an agreement?

Thanks, Hearthstone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

Yes, I would agree that visions and models are necessary. To me, they are rather different, however. A vision is something ...

---

I completely agree that we need to know what we want if we're ever to create anything new - or anything that meets our needs or fulfills our desires. For me, it's rather simple: I want to work with others in building environments that support the flow of life energy within and between us, which are those within which all real human needs can be met. And of course I want those environments to work well and sustainably with the local and regional ecosystems. This, to me, is the creative approach to building a society that can support us in realizing our higher potential as humans to live in peaceful, caring, harmonious relationships with our fellow humans and with the natural world.

The problem you talk about is one that exists in the context of the dominant society, and I suspect it would not exist in a society that supported everyone in being able to meet their real needs. This is something radically different from what now exists, and it seem pretty clear to me that this is where we need to begin. We act in destructive, violent and self-defeating ways when we believe that our real needs cannot be met. It is coming from powerlessness and scarcity consciousness, which are pervasive in the dominant culture - because, I believe, many real human needs are discounted or ignored.

Also, since I'm reading his book, I think Robert Fritz would say that you're coming from a problem-solving orientation rather than a truly creative one. He says that such an approach - though it can be useful in some situations - doesn't tend to create anything new. And if we proceed to design and build a new society - one based on close working relationships between humans and between us and the natural environment - we may find that questions of what is/is not sustainable are easily answered.

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

Never mind "vision", "model" .... What is essential is that one knows what one wants, otherwise, if one doesn't know what they want, what will they ever get? How they know what it is that they want is up to them ...

In the case of achieving a whole world that would be sustainable the problem is to know for _all_ who have a stake in creating such a world to agree on what a "sustainable world" should be. Without all such knowing what a "sustainable world" should be, we'll just continue what we have been doing all the time, resolving our differences in real life, incurring real waste of time, resources, lives (very frequently). In order to avoid incurring such waste we all have to agree on what a "sustainable world" should look like. How do we arrive at such an agreement?

Thanks, Hearthstone.

---

Why do you think that I am coming from a problem-solving orientation?

What edition of "The Path of Least Resistance" you got?

Thanks, Hearthstone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

...
Also, since I'm reading his book, I think Robert Fritz would say that you're coming from a problem-solving orientation rather than a truly creative one. He says that such an approach - though it can be useful in some situations - doesn't tend to create anything new. And if we proceed to design and build a new society - one based on close working relationships between humans and between us and the natural environment - we may find that questions of what is/is not sustainable are easily answered.

CSummer

---

Clint,
you want "... to work with others in building environments that support the flow of life energy within and between us, which are those within which all real human needs can be met. ..."

I want to find a way that would make it possible to reconcile all the differences that there are amongst all of the various ideas about what the ideal world should be like, before the reconciliation of our ideas happens in real life, incurring real waste of time, resources, and lives, as this has been happening for millennia.

What I want the ideal world to look like is fairly well presented at www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html .

Thanks, Hearthstone.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

I completely agree that we need to know what we want if we're ever to create anything new - or anything that meets our needs or fulfills our desires. For me, it's rather simple: I want to work with others in building environments that support the flow of life energy within and between us, which are those within which all real human needs can be met. And of course I want those environments to work well and sustainably with the local and regional ecosystems. This, to me, is the creative approach to building a society that can support us in realizing our higher potential as humans to live in peaceful, caring, harmonious relationships with our fellow humans and with the natural world.

The problem you talk about is one that exists in the context of the dominant society, and I suspect it would not exist in a society that supported everyone in being able to meet their real needs. This is something radically different from what now exists, and it seem pretty clear to me that this is where we need to begin. We act in destructive, violent and self-defeating ways when we believe that our real needs cannot be met. It is coming from powerlessness and scarcity consciousness, which are pervasive in the dominant culture - because, I believe, many real human needs are discounted or ignored.

Also, since I'm reading his book, I think Robert Fritz would say that you're coming from a problem-solving orientation rather than a truly creative one. He says that such an approach - though it can be useful in some situations - doesn't tend to create anything new. And if we proceed to design and build a new society - one based on close working relationships between humans and between us and the natural environment - we may find that questions of what is/is not sustainable are easily answered.

CSummer

---

To answer your questions:

You wrote: Why do you think that I am coming from a problem-solving orientation?

From your previous post: "In the case of achieving a whole world that would be sustainable the problem is to know for _all_ who have a stake in creating such a world to agree on what a "sustainable world" should be."

To me, this problem exists within the context of a society and economic system that is largely constructed by and for the super-rich and powerful. It is a social order based on scarcity consciousness and the false premise that there are only a few ways to accomplish what needs to be done. Of course, this premise can be expected when the systems are built for the purpose of keeping the rich and powerful in their positions of wealth and power. If systems were designed and built cooperatively and for a more humane purpose, e.g., to meet all real human needs, the question of what is or is not a workable vision of a sustainable world may be much less significant.

In other words, if we begin with a rational and humane design purpose for our society, we may find that it's not at all difficult to build it in a sustainable way, because we would recognize that there are real human needs for such things as economic security and feeling safe from attack. So we of course want to design and build systems that don't degrade our resource base or deprive others of access to healthy, life-sustaining resources.

To me, our first challenge is how to make the transition from a society in which a tiny minority "call the shots" to one that is truly co-designed and created. This requires learning to build relationships of mutual respect, acceptance, caring, trust and support. It's a huge transition from having others manage our resources and our affairs to learning to trust and rely on ourselves and each other to do that.

It seems you believe it's necessary for large numbers of people to agree on a vision of a sustainable world. My sense is that we'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people in the world who have a well-defined vision of a sustainable world. It's hard to imagine life in the ocean if you live in an aquarium!

Hearthstone: What edition of "The Path of Least Resistance" you got? (CS) 1989 revised edition.

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

Why do you think that I am coming from a problem-solving orientation?

What edition of "The Path of Least Resistance" you got?

Thanks, Hearthstone.

---

Just change "the problem" to "the thing"--no more problem oriented! I'll edit the original forthwith!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

To answer your questions:

You wrote: Why do you think that I am coming from a problem-solving orientation?

From your previous post: "In the case of achieving a whole world that would be sustainable the problem is ...

---

Thanks for clarifying this, Hearthstone. It seems to me you have a good grasp of our fundamentally different approaches to bringing about a peaceful, humane, sustainable society and world. I can only speak to my approach and how I've come to that; I'll let you speak to yours.

So, why do I believe "working with others in building environments that support the flow of life energy within and between us, which are those within which all real human needs can be met" is the best way to build a peaceful, humane, sustainable society and world?

What does it mean to "support the flow of life energy" or to meet real human needs? The simple analogy is the environment we commonly call a garden. Plants grow in environments, and the better a plant's specific needs are met, the more it will thrive and realize it's true potential. This is why we humans - at least some of us - create gardens: to provide this special environment that's conducive to certain plants thriving (and 'thriving' is synonymous with 'life energy flowing freely').

Why do we not now live in a peaceful, humane, sustainable world? Why is there war, violence, injustice, human-caused suffering, environmental degradation, illness - both physical and psycho-spiritual? I don't think it's because this is what we want. It seems to me that we lack both a clear sense of what we want (to a great degree because we feel powerless to create it), and we tend to give our power and our responsibility to design our socio-economic environments to (often unknown) others - to a tiny minority of the super-rich and powerful. And it is apparently not in their interest to create socio-economic environments that support the meeting of real human needs. Rather, it seems to be in their interest to keep us in a state of dependence on their systems through which we can try to meet our real needs.

In other words, we don't believe we are able to work together to create environments in which our real needs can be met, so we must be subject to the policies, decisions and manipulative tactics of a ruling class. This is our present society, which defines and supports a certain way of life: one in which most people feel quite powerless and suffer from an illusion of scarcity. We don't believe it is within our power to create the lives, society and world we really want.

So I see no other way for us to begin the journey to a new society than by discovering that we do have the power to cooperatively create environments in which we can experience at least some of our real needs being met. The most recent realization for me is that this is best done in small groups by focusing not on our "basic" needs (which for most of us are at least somewhat met), but on the needs that are typically ignored or discounted - hence unmet - in the dominant culture: our emotional-relational needs. From my experiences with groups, it seems evident that this is what can liberate us from our cultural conditioning - from the illusion of powerlessness and scarcity - and enable us to make the transition to a self-organized, co-created society.

And until we discover that we have the power to create such environments, we will not be able to design and build a peaceful, humane, sustainable society and world.

I imagine that I may have left you with more questions. I will add that in this process, we need to learn to distinguish between real needs and "pseudo-needs," the latter being all those things we do to keep us distracted from the powerlessness, frustration, despair, etc. we feel around having failed to get our real needs met (especially our emotional-relational needs from the earliest years of our lives). This is essential because socio-economic systems designed around meeting real human needs are much more likely to be sustainable than those focused on meeting pseudo-needs.

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

Clint,
you want "... to work with others in building environments that support the flow of life energy within and between us, which are those within which all real human needs can be met. ..."

I want to find a way that would make it possible to reconcile all the differences that there are amongst all of the various ideas about what the ideal world should be like, before the reconciliation of our ideas happens in real life, incurring real waste of time, resources, and lives, as this has been happening for millennia.

What I want the ideal world to look like is fairly well presented at www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html .

Thanks, Hearthstone.

---

The end-result of "working with others in building environments that support the flow of life energy within and between us, which are those within which all real human needs can be met" is supposed to be, according to you, a way of achieving a "peaceful, humane, sustainable society and world".

You still need to know what the "peaceful, humane, sustainable society and world" should look like in order to achieve it, no matter by what means!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

... I believe "working with others in building environments that support the flow of life energy within and between us, which are those within which all real human needs can be met" is the best way to build a peaceful, humane, sustainable society and world ...
CSummer

---

I think the vision must be built step by step, starting on the micro-scale and growing from there. I don't see any purpose or need to have a vision for what is not within our power to create in the near future.

Also, my sense is that realizable shared visions for the world - or even for our immediate surroundings - are most likely to arise from small groups that have done a process of coming together. There's a book called "The Power of Collective Wisdom and the Trap of Collective Folly" which says (in so many words) that there's a process of learning and growing that needs to happen before collective wisdom can arise. I wouldn't trust a vision that's not coming from such a process, which I believe is most likely to happen in a small group.

And in small groups, true visions don't come from voting or consensus; they arise organically when a group has made a lot of progress in coming together. Then one or two group members will have the intuition to express a vision (or what Robert Fritz calls a "primary choice") with which the whole group will resonate.

I also think a global vision will become better defined as ecovillage-type communities become more common and visible. Two examples that demonstrate the viability of a sustainable way of life and technologies are Gaviotas in Colombia and Dancing Rabbit in Missouri. Once there are perhaps 50 or 100 such communities, the world will have a variety of models that exemplify a sustainable society.


CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:

The end-result of "working with others in building environments that support the flow of life energy within and between us, which are those within which all real human needs can be met" is supposed to be, according to you, a way of achieving a "peaceful, humane, sustainable society and world".

You still need to know what the "peaceful, humane, sustainable society and world" should look like in order to achieve it, no matter by what means!

---

An individual vision involving the whole world can be gotten whichever way; what I am concerned with is how to unify, harmonize all such various visions into one that would be agreeable to all who have a stake in having a wholesome world to live in. How I propose to do this is at www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html .
Hearthstone.