Possible future Solution 2.0 (with paragraphs)

Hi Joe

It took us centuries separate church and state (if we succeeded). How long for bank and state? I think what is missing from the resource based economy is recognition that structural systemic solutions are simply more of the problem. One of the many advantages of grouping on a human scale is that no structure or system is necessary. At least at the group level. We don’t need card systems either at that level. Everyone is accountable in the most real and intimate of ways. Some, maybe most, groups would fail but the ones that succeed can be models for others. And we get to keep our social and cultural diversity that is presently dissapearing at a staggering rate. There can be no global solution until we can establish our social and community identities again. There is no room for powerful elites in human scale groups only in large societies. None can sham or posture for long. Its worked for us for millions of years. Monkeys in troops, wales in pods, fish in schools, humans in tribes.

Don

_________________________________________

7 billion people can be wrong, very wrong

[quote=pir8don]

Hi Joe

It took us centuries separate church and state (if we succeeded). How long for bank and state? I think what is missing from the resource based economy is recognition that structural systemic solutions are simply more of the problem. One of the many advantages of grouping on a human scale is that no structure or system is necessary. At least at the group level. We don’t need card systems either at that level. Everyone is accountable in the most real and intimate of ways. Some, maybe most, groups would fail but the ones that succeed can be models for others. And we get to keep our social and cultural diversity that is presently dissapearing at a staggering rate. There can be no global solution until we can establish our social and community identities again. There is no room for powerful elites in human scale groups only in large societies. None can sham or posture for long. Its worked for us for millions of years. Monkeys in troops, wales in pods, fish in schools, humans in tribes.

Don

[/quote]

Don,

I’ve noticed that you’ve been suggesting this "grouping on a human scale" concept for quite some time. However, I’ve never taken the time to ask you: What do you consider an appropriate number for this group or tribe? Also, how would you propose such groups be created? Would you want to empty cities and divvy people into xx size groups?

How would you manage this grouping? Who would be in charge of making this happen? What if people resisted being forced into groups? Where would all these groups exist? Is there enough arable farm land to support all these groups?

What if folks wanted to migrate from one group to another? Would you prevent that? What if two or more groups wanted to form one larger group? Would you prevent that also? Lots and lots of questions here.

Its worked for us for millions of years. Monkeys in troops, wales in pods, fish in schools, humans in tribes.

You’re absolutely right – it did. But, bear in mind that this was when the human population was much smaller. How do you reconcile the realities of today with the human population of 1000’s of years ago?

Enquiring minds want to know! 

Hi Sam

Thanks for your interest

[quote=SamLinder]

I’ve noticed that you’ve been suggesting this "grouping on a human scale" concept for quite some time. However, I’ve never taken the time to ask you: What do you consider an appropriate number for this group or tribe? Also, how would you propose such groups be created? Would you want to empty cities and divvy people into xx size groups?

[/quote]

I expect that group size should at most be in the low hundreds. Sufficiently small so that all can be known well by each other and most see (work with) each other on a daily basis throughout their lives.

What is wanted for success is the greatest diversity possible; unfortunately affluence or its lack often determines our residence but it remains the only practical way we can group. Neighbours based on physical boundaries where possible or practical. Could be a city block a single floor of an apartment building or whatever.  I would imagine that each group once established would begin to look at its situation with regard to long term viability. Central city groups might decide, as dmitry suggests to, migrate seasonally to places outside the city where they can grow food. It is for each group to decide for themselves together. 

[quote=SamLinder]

How would you manage this grouping? Who would be in charge of making this happen? What if people resisted being forced into groups? Where would all these groups exist? Is there enough arable farm land to support all these groups?

[/quote] 

It is an idea. No one manages it. We do it or we don’t. But it is one thing we can do now or soon within our localities. No intention to force anyone that’s what we need to leave behind. I expect suburban and rural groups would form in place and attempt to use their local resources. City groups may consider that they have too few resources or for other reasons, migrate as a group. 

[quote=SamLinder]

What if folks wanted to migrate from one group to another? Would you prevent that? What if two or more groups wanted to form one larger group? Would you prevent that also? Lots and lots of questions here.

[/quote]

My intent is to offer a practical course of radically different action modelled on our successful past in tribes. Instead of the old vision with new programmes. A new vision with no programs. If people wanted to leave groups or form new ones or move to another who would or should stop them? This is a vision but it has no programs. I would hope that groups would work on consensus and that any that didn’t would be quickly abandoned by many of their members. I also hope that people would trust themselves sufficiently to not accept leaders but all of these are for each group to decide for themselves.

[quote=SamLinder]

[quote=pir8don] 

Its worked for us for millions of years. Monkeys in troops, wales in pods, fish in schools, humans in tribes.

[/quote]

You’re absolutely right – it did. But, bear in mind that this was when the human population was much smaller. How do you reconcile the realities of today with the human population of 1000’s of years ago?

[/quote]

Hope this is answered above. We know that there are far to many of us and that at some time our numbers will have to be constrained either by our local or global resources. What I am suggesting is a way some or all of us could begin to face our future locally. I see no reason why groups or their members might not contribute to the welfare of society through specialisation, science or technology. We must first take back responsibility for our own survival at the group level so as to be freed of the chains that presently bind us. Those of us who are store fed have very few options as individuals or families but we could have many many more options in human scale groups. 

Enquiring minds want to answer! I think this is my longest post ever!

Know how keen you are on spelling so I have checked it for you. Meaning is use (Witgenstein).

Don

____________________________________________

7 billion people can be wrong, very wrong

Don,

When you describe your idea, I always tend to look at it from a
broad perspective – thus all my questions. I try to imagine how we
can turn 7 billion people back into tribal groups.   Nope – doesn’t work.

The only way I see your concept happening is if small groups of people take it upon themselves to venture out and set up communities in some location. This has been done throughout history by groups of people leaving behind a lifestyle or system that doesn’t work for them.

We have seen it in my own country. E.g. in the ’60’s we had hippie communes. Today, we have the Amish and other religious sects that choose to live/work detached from the rest of American society.

If society begins to collapse into anarchy, we may see a resurgence of "tribes" dotted across the landscape. Other than that worst-case scenario, I don’t see tribal groups returning as a viable option. Living off the land can be a hard-scrabble existence as shown by the millions of people all over the world who migrate to the cities to escape the desperation of their village/town.

Good examples are the thousands of Mexican and South American migrants who move to the U.S. and Canada as well as the millions of Chinese who leave their villages behind to seek a better life in the "big city".

I guess this is the part where you and I have to agree to disagree, Don. You are an optimist and there is nothing wrong with that. I am a pessimist – after all, somebody has to keep up the "grouchy old man" image around here!

Hi Sam

First time I’ve been called an optimist, you must be very pessimistic.

Note that in order to form neighbourhood groups their members don’t need to start doing anything different. Just forming human scale groups would be a good start.

I expect we may see the tide change with regard to cities, they filled very slowly but they may empty very fast.

Only groups who are able to successfully live isolated are those with very strong cultural or religious ties. 

Yes we must agree to disagree.  

Don

__________________________________________________

7 billion people can be wrong, very wrong

[quote=pir8don]

Hi Sam

First time I’ve been called an optimist, you must be very pessimistic.

Note that in order to form neighbourhood groups their members don’t need to start doing anything different. Just forming human scale groups would be a good start.

I expect we may see the tide change with regard to cities, they filled very slowly but they may empty very fast.

Only groups who are able to successfully live isolated are those with very strong cultural or religious ties. 

Yes we must agree to disagree.  

Don

__________________________________________________

7 billion people can be wrong, very wrong

[/quote]

Don,

I think you are an optimist because you believe that a "return to tribal groups" is a viable option.  I consider myself a pessimist because I believe the opposite. 

I expect we may see the tide change with regard to cities, they filled very slowly but they may empty very fast. 

Well said!

[quote=JK121]

[/quote]

Sounds like the Skynet computer system from The Terminator…Judgement day, machines taking over the world! 

After reading his post then reading the comments I was surprised with some of the comments. Yes there are some potential issues in his system however it was a basic summary. 

In no order:

Farmer Brown

I will ask this question a third and final time:   Who writes the formula that determines how much value my doors are worth????  The computer doesn't program itself.  Who does program it??

I don't see how this would prevent unemployment.  What if 50 doors are needed but there are 100 carpenters who could together make 200 doors?  What if nobody needs what you happen to be good at because there is an oversupply in the market?

Q: Who writes the formula:

A: A programmer: 

A better question would be who decides what formula is best?. 

Either way this question offers no assistance and makes it look like you have no interest in moving away from a system that is riddled with issues. 

Who writes the formula for your credit score? who writes the formula for your insurance score? who writes the formula for your crime score?

I write formulas for all of the above however no one bothers to ask the question who when a system is currently in place so why are you focusing on something that is not important at the early stages. At the end of the day a productive discussion would be working out some of the variables and rules that could apply to make a system work. Pointing out the faults is good however it is a waste of time if you are not going to offer a potential solution or raise the fault in a more constructive way.

What is a door worth? why is that important to you at this stage. I wrote a formula that calculated the cost and retail price of doors, windows, stairs and every product a joinery company made. Wasn't very hard.

There are always over supplies in the market, people end up changing industries by themselves. 

SamLinder

Since you threw the "straw man" out there for comment, you have to take the lumps.  (ouch!)

Your concept, like so many others that have been suggested, fails due to a reality check. You, and all the others, assume an altruistic society will magically develop. Never has – never will. Humans ain't wired that way, son!

However, kudo's for trying to come up with an alternative – new idea's are always welcome here, even if they do get battered about a bit.  

Good to see you welcome the effort to come up with a alternative however was shutting him down by saying "Your concept, like so many others that have been suggested, fails due to a reality check"

You provide no useful or supportive information in your reply. If you really welcome alternative suggestions wouldn't you point out an area that could work and offer a suggestion?

poisonivy113

So who gets to decide exactly HOW "resources are used to benefit everyone"????? 

 

how is the owner of a carpet cleaning company, for example, benefited when "somebody" decides that his company is no longer needed because there are already "enough"?????