I have written that in the future human individuals will have access to the privilege of Reproduction based on fairness, equality, and mutual benefit to both humanity as Individuals and humanity as Community. The Life Trustegrity would monitor, administrate and adjudicate the Trust privilege of Reproduction. In our present human culture the right of reproduction is viewed as a basic right of every individual, that must change.

The truth is especially hard to believe if it requires that we take action — if it requires that we change. If humanity is to have a future, we must take action — we must change. If humanity is to have a future, we must believe the truth. This morning wiseman Daniel Quinn tells us the truth.

Reaching for the Future with All Three Hands

Daniel Quinn

A few days ago I was feeling depressed and said to my wife, Rennie, “I don’t see why I should give THIS speech at Kent State University. Why can’t I talk about something that will send everyone home with warm, fuzzy feelings and smiles on their faces?”

“Well, why don’t you then?” Rennie said. “Why did you decide to speak on this subject in the first place?”

“Because it’s the most important subject in the world right now,” I told her.

“But why do YOU have to tackle it?”

“Because no one ELSE is tackling it, at least not for the general public.”

“Then I guess you’re pretty well stuck, aren’t you?” Rennie said.

I thought I’d start with this little story, just to let you know what I’m doing here. The Phrygian sage Epictetus said: Everything has two handles, one by which it can be carried and a second by which it cannot. The sage who stands before you here today says: There’s a third handle on the other side, but it can only be reached by people who realize they’ve got a third hand to reach with.

I think the reason people invite me to speak at events like this is that they vaguely sense, from reading my books, that I have a third hand I use to grab at things that most people only use two hands on.

They want to see what a three-handed man will make of whatever theme they’re exploring—whether it’s social investment, health care reform, or the future of business in the 21st century.

Ours is an obsessively two-valued culture. For example, we have all sorts of two-sided games—chess, checkers, tennis, boxing, pool, and so on—all sorts of two-sided team games—bridge, football, baseball, soccer, basketball, and so on. And we have all sorts of any-sided games (poker, baccarat, track events, skiing events, and so on). But we have no three-sided games of any kind. You will never see three teams take any court or field anywhere.

Our justice system is intrinsically two-valued. There must be prosecution and defense, plaintiff and respondent—one winner and one loser, always. Everyone HATES a hung jury.

Everyone takes it for granted that there are exactly two sides to every argument. When it comes to abortion, for example, there’s the pro-choice side and the pro-life side, and people who haven’t chosen one of these two sides don’t represent a third side, they just don’t represent any side at all. The same is true of issues like animal rights, capital punishment, and drug legalization.

The media play an important role in shaping reality into two-sided events. Very often two-sidedness isn’t clearly evident in developing situations. The fundamental news-gathering process helps to clarify—or manufacture—that desired two-sidedness. If one expert says that X is wonderful, the reporter is expected to find another expert who will say that X is terrible—or that Y is much more wonderful than X. This is, to a large extent, what makes the story NEWS.

When it comes to “the environment,” it hasn’t been so easy to polarize the community. Where do you send a reporter to get a quote AGAINST clean water? Or AGAINST clean air? Obviously EVERYBODY wants clean water and clean air. The issue had to be recast into one that doesn’t put everyone on the same side—and so it was. After a lot of pushing and pulling, a lot of tweaking, a way was found to represent the interests of the environment as being opposed to the interests of PEOPLE. This is kind of mind-boggling but that’s how it’s shaken out. You can’t be for people and for the environment—you’ve got to “choose sides.” This is an interesting example of taking a thing that originally presented only one handle and rotating it so as to expose two handles—thereby putting the third handle completely out of sight.

The arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union started when I was ten years old, so I watched the whole race from beginning to end. I’m sure you all know how it went. We made an atomic bomb, they made one. We made a hydrogen bomb, they made one. We made an intercontinental ballistic missile, they made one. We pointed twenty missiles at them, they pointed thirty at us. We pointed a hundred at them, they pointed two hundred at us, and so on. It was a race with no finish line (except catastrophe). Apparently it was a race no one could either win or quit.

As you’d expect, the arms race presented two handles. You could take one of two positions. If you were a Hawk, you said Better dead than red, and if you were a Dove, you said Better red than dead, and every presidential candidate had to talk tough enough to placate the Hawks but also nice enough to placate the Doves.

Then in the mid-sixties there appeared a generation of children who didn’t value either of these two handles. They were sick of the arms race, and they began groping for a third handle on this whole thing. In fact, they began to look like regular three-handed monsters. During the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Chicago police waged war on them, and the mayor gave out orders to “Shoot to Kill.” A couple years, as I’m sure you all know, more of the three-handed monsters staged a protest against the invasion of Cambodia right here at Kent State University. After National Guardsmen killed four of them, people began to understand just how dangerous these monsters were. It was time to start shooting on sight when you saw people exhibiting signs of three-handedness.

But the youngsters of that generation ultimately failed to find the third handle they were seeking. It was found—and it probably had to be found—by a Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who said to us, “I’m going to do something really nasty to you. I’m going to deprive you of an enemy.” He ended the arms race the only way such a race CAN be ended—by pulling out of it.

Everyone in the world knew the arms race was dangerous—globally dangerous, mortally dangerous—to the entire human race and to the planet itself. I’m here to talk to you today about another race, no less globally dangerous, no less mortally dangerous—to the entire human race and to the planet itself. In some ways it’s even more dangerous than the arms race—first because almost no one is aware of it, and second because almost no one wants it to stop.

I’m talking about the food race—the race to produce enough food to feed our growing population.

There are people in the world—calm, intelligent, reasoning people—who believe that we’ve already gone over the limit, that even our present population of six billion can’t be fed sustainably on this planet. I have no evidence that they’re right—and I certainly hope they’re wrong. But the six billion is not nearly as alarming as the twelve billion that we will be in your lifetime if we go on growing at this rate.

Now—of course!—there are two handles to this thing. I recently read an Associated Press story that reported that food scientists are confident that they can WIN the food race. By the time there are twelve billion of us, they’ll be able to FEED twelve billion. That constitutes a win. SO: Not to worry, folks. The scientists are confident that food will ultimately triumph over population. That’s one handle.

The other handle is the one the Union of Concerned Scientists has grabbed. In their “Warning to Humanity,” they say: “We must stabilize population,” which is of course unarguable. But then they go on to say, “This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.” I’m afraid that grabbing this handle is an act of faith that has virtually nothing to do with science, but it’s easy to do, because it means that, really, nobody has to do anything but pray that someday, through some magical, unknown process all nations of the world will improve social and economic conditions and adopt effective, voluntary family planning.

It has been my misfortune to saddle myself with the really thankless task of bringing into view the third handle on this issue. This is a simple and well-known biological fact—well known at least to biologists and ecologists—that a food race like the one I’ve just described can no more be won than the arms race could be won—and for the same reason. Because neither race has a finish line—except catastrophe. You can’t win an arms race with your enemy, because every advance you make in your weaponry will be answered by an advance in your enemy’s weaponry, which of course must be answered by an advance in YOUR weaponry, which stimulates an advance in THEIR weaponry, and so on in a never-ending escalation.

And in the same way, food cannot win any race with population, because every advance in food production is answered by an advance in population. This isn’t a statement that is happily or readily accepted by most members of the public, because, I’m afraid, most members of the public don’t really understand the connection between food and populations. I’m therefore going to take a minute to explain that connection.

If you fence off a shopping mall parking lot, put a bull and a cow inside, along with a bale of hay every day, you will soon have three or four cows. But no matter how long you wait, you will NOT have thirty or forty cows—not on one bale of hay a day. If you want to have thirty or forty cows, then you’re going to have throw ten bales of hay over the fence. Of course they also need water and air—but all the water and air in the world will not turn three or four cows into thirty or forty cows in the absence of those ten bales of hay. You can’t make cows out of sunshine or rainbows or moonbeams. It takes hay.

Now when you have your forty cows, you don’t have to start throwing eleven bales of hay over the fence. If you just want forty, then ten bales is plenty. There isn’t going to be a famine among these cows just because you stop at ten bales—there just isn’t going to be any population growth. On those ten bales a day, those forty cows are NEVER going to turn into four hundred. But if you WANT four hundred cows, then you’ve got to provide more hay, and you’re going to end up buying a hundred bales a day to feed those four hundred cows.

Now the exact same thing is true of humans. Fence off the parking lot, toss in a man and a woman and a couple bags of groceries every day, and before long you’ll have a family of four. But those four will NEVER turn into forty if all you’re throwing over the fence is a couple bags of groceries a day. Can’t happen. Because people are just like cows—you can’t make them out of sunshine or rainbows or moonbeams. It takes corn flakes and bananas and hot dogs and split pea soup and raisin bread and broccoli.

If you want these four to turn into forty, then you’re going to have throw twenty bags of groceries over the fence instead of two. And when you get those forty people, if you decide that’s ALL you want living in this parking lot, all you have to do is keep throwing twenty bags of groceries over the fence. There’s not going to be a famine. Twenty bags of groceries fed these forty people yesterday and they’ll feed them today. On these twenty bags of groceries, the population is going to be stable at around forty people. But if you change your mind and decide you want 400 people living in this parking lot, then all you have to do is start throwing a couple hundred bags of groceries over the fence instead of twenty—and by golly, eventually there WILL be 400 people living in that parking lot.

There WILL be, but our cultural mythology says there doesn’t HAVE to be. According to our cultural mythology, forty people COULD make up their minds to remain forty. It could of course happen. It’s imaginable. But on this big parking lot we call the earth it never HAS happened.

It didn’t happen last year, obviously. Last year we increased food production, gave ourselves two percent more groceries, and our population grew by two percent. The year before that we increased food production by two percent, and our population grew by two percent.

The year before that we increased food production by two percent, and our population grew by two percent. The year before that we increased food production by two percent, and our population grew by two percent. The year before that we increased food production by two percent, and our population grew by two percent. I could stand here all day repeating that sentence 10,000 times—because that’s how long we’ve been increasing food production, starting back there in the Fertile Crescent. Last year we increased food production by two percent, and our population grew by two percent. THIS year we’ll increase food production by two percent, and our population will grow by two percent—there’s no doubt at all that this will happen. NEXT year we’ll increase food production by two percent, and our population will grow by two percent—and there’s no doubt at all that this will happen. And the year after that we’ll increase food production by two percent, and our population will grow by two percent—and there’s no doubt at all that this will happen. But ONE OF THESE YEARS we’ll increase food production by two percent—and our population will NOT grow. That’s what our cultural mythology says.

For ten thousand years we’ve been increasing food production to feed an increasing population—and for ten thousand years our population has grown. Every single “win” in food production has been answered by a “win” in population growth. Every single one. But, according to our cultural mythology, this doesn’t have to happen—and one of these years, magically, it will not happen. The magic will presumably be that all nations will achieve improved social and economic conditions and adopt effective, voluntary family planning, just like the Union of Concerned Scientists recommends. This magic didn’t happen last year or the year before that or the year before that or the year before that or the year before that—but one of these years, by God, every guy on earth will put on a condom and super-glue it in place and it WILL work. One way or another, there will come a year when we increase food production—and miraculously there won’t be an answering increase in population to consume it.

Our cultural mythology explains why it was vitally important for us to increase food production last year. We HAD to, in order to feed the starving millions. Everyone knows that. But, oddly enough, we increased food production to feed the starving millions, and guess what? The starving millions went on starving. The population went up—but the starving millions didn’t get fed. And of course we know why it’s vitally important to increase food production THIS year. We’ve got to do that in order to feed the starving millions. We WILL increase food production this year—there’s no doubt of that—but is there anyone in this room who believes that the starving millions will be fed, this year, for the first time in living memory? I guarantee you, my friends, that by year’s end this year, the starving millions will still be starving—and I guarantee that our population will have grown by two percent.

But of course our cultural mythology tells us it doesn’t HAVE to be this way. It was this way last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that—and it will be this way this year and next year and the year after that and the year after that. But one of these years, according to our cultural mythology, we’ll increase food production and by God those starving millions will get fed and our population won’t grow a bit.

Let me explain why those starving millions are not getting fed. Every year here on this parking lot we call earth, the human population grows by about two percent—all segments of it grow by two percent. This means that there are more blue-eyed people here this year than last year—and more brown-eyed people. It means there are more red-haired people here this year than last year—and more brown-haired people. It means there are more people here growing up well fed—and more people here growing up hungry. The starving population goes up just like all other populations, and producing more food can do NOTHING BUT produce more starving millions. We’re not making hunger go away by increasing food production, we’re just creating more and more people to go hungry. Increasing food production actually INCREASES the number of hungry people, the same way it increases the number of rich people, poor people, tall people, short people, smart people, and dumb people.

The most horrific element of cultural mythology that has to be dealt with on this topic is the notion that if we DIDN’T continue to increase food production—year after year after year—we would face mass starvation. I think at the base of this notion is the strange idea that our population explosion would continue to run on—even if there was no food to fuel it. This is rather like thinking that the engine in your car might continue to run even if the gas tank was empty or like thinking that the lights in this room might keep on burning even if the electricity was turned off.

But though I say this, I know from experience that very few of you believe it. Let me give you an example that I hope will convince you.

There are about 50 people in the Quinn clan, counting myself and my wife, all my siblings and all my wife’s siblings, all their children and grandchildren, and all my children and grandchildren. Last year the Quinn clan consumed a certain amount of food, and let’s say that they’re going to have to subsist on the same amount of food this year—and next year and all the years after that, forever.

Just as in any representative sample of the population, quite a few of the clan are past the age where they can or want to have more children and quite a few haven’t yet reached the age where they can or want to have children. But of course there are a few who are of an age to want to have children. This doesn’t mean they’re all pregnant at once, of course. In any given year, what you’d expect is that about two percent of the clan would be pregnant—in this case, that means one woman. But let’s not make it too easy for me. Let’s say she has twins. Now we have to feed fifty assorted people and two infants on the same amount of food that last year we fed fifty assorted people. Of course the same odds that apply to birth apply to death, but again I don’t want to make it too easy for me. I’m going to say that two are born to the Quinn clan but none die. Of course these infants don’t need the same amount of calories per day as a longshoreman. Let’s say, just to keep the numbers round, that the fifty of us have to come up with about 2000 calories for the two infants every day. That means each of us is going to be short about forty calories a day—three ounces of orange juice.

Now, this is what I want to know. Does this sound like mass starvation to anyone here? Are there people here who feel they’d be starving if they missed a couple of swallows of orange juice a day? I know I certainly don’t.

But what about next year? Let’s say that the same damn thing happens. A new pair of twins, no deaths. Wow, we’re really in trouble now. With last year’s twins to support and this year’s twins to support, each of us is going to be giving up a whole glass of orange juice a day! Now, once again, does this sound like mass starvation to anyone here? Are there people here who feel they’d be starving if they missed a glass of orange juice a day? I know I certainly don’t.

But of course I can’t go on weighting the statistics against me forever. Birth isn’t the only fact of life. The population of the Quinn clan isn’t going to go on growing forever. There are going to be deaths as well as births.

But the point I want to make is that in two years of even abnormally high births, offset by no deaths, there has been no onset of famine. Not even a hint of starvation anywhere. But let’s continue to weigh things against the Quinn clan and see what happens. Five years pass, twins every year, no deaths at all. Now, instead of 50 mouths to feed there are 60. Let’s say that when we started out at 50, each of us was receiving, on the average, 2500 calories a day. At a population of 60 we’re now down to about 2100 calories a day. That piece of double fudge chocolate cake is out of our lives as a daily treat—but of course we’re still nowhere near starvation. Even so, it may be time to have a clan conference where we go over the basics of family planning. I’m missing that piece of double fudge chocolate cake and don’t want to have to follow it up next year by giving up a spoonful of jam every day.

What I’m trying to point out here is that capping the Quinn clan food supply does not produce instant famine. It doesn’t produce famine at all, and it’s instant effect is negligible. We have plenty of time to begin talking about family planning. We’re not—simply NOT—plunged into a food crisis.

There are just no grounds for thinking that a failure to increase food production would result in global mass starvation. But people who are deeply invested in the food race will continue to make this claim, just the way that people who were deeply invested in the arms race were forever claiming that the commies would surely overrun the world if we relaxed our militancy for even one minute.

We’re in the midst of a food race that is as deadly to us and to the world around us as the arms race was. In some ways it’s even more deadly, because, after all, we and the Soviets never actually unleashed all the weapons we created. The catastrophe didn’t come to pass.

And as far as I know, not a single species became extinct as a result of the arms race. It’s quite different with the food race. It’s estimated that upwards of two hundred species a day are being forced into extinction by the inexorable expansion of our population.

Right now—and I want to leave you with this clear picture—our food race is converting our planet’s biomass into HUMAN mass. This is what happens when we clear a piece of land of wildlife and replant it with human crops. This land was supporting a biomass comprising hundreds of thousands of species and tens of millions of individuals. Now all the productivity of that land is being turned into human mass, literally into human flesh. Every day all over the world diversity is disappearing as more and more of our planet’s biomass is being turned into human mass. This is what the food race is about. This is EXACTLY what the food race is about: Every year turning more of our planet’s biomass into human mass.

The arms race could only be ended in two ways. It could be ended by a catastrophe, a nuclear holocaust. Or the participants could walk away from it.

Luckily, that’s what happened: The Soviets called it quits—and there was no catastrophe.

The race between food and population is the same. It can be ended by catastrophe, when simply too much of our planet’s biomass is tied up in humans, and fundamental ecological systems collapse. And if we refuse to abandon the race, it will end that way—probably not in my lifetime, but very probably in the lifetime of many of you. But the race doesn’t have to end that way. It can end the way the arms race ended, by people simply walking away from it. We can say, “We understand now that there can be no final triumph of food over population. This is because every single win made on the side of food is answered by a win on the side of population. It has to be that way, it always HAS been that way, and we can see that it’s never going to STOP being that way.”

The strange thing is that many people HATE hearing all this—yet I’m clearly pointing out a path of possibility and hope. I’m not a doom merchant, my compass is set firmly on success. Our population explosion is a problem we CAN get a handle on, provided we all start reaching for it with that third hand.

Address by Daniel Quinn, Kent State University, Earth Day, 1998

Daniel Quinn’s WebSite

Synergic Equality

Timothy Wilken, MD

All members of a synergic heterarchy are equal. By equal, I mean equal in responsibility and authority. They share equal responsibility for the actions chosen by the group. They share equal authority in the process of choosing those actions. When individuals work together in synergic relationship to a accomplish a common goal. They are considered as a single system.

When individuals work together in synergic relationship, new abilities, skills, talents, etc., emerge as a part of that relationship, that are not there when the individuals work separately. The individuals working in synergic group are more efficient, more productive, more creative, and more intelligent, than they are when working separately. The result of their synergy is that they create “more” together than they could create apart.

When individuals work together in synergic relationship, they equally contribute to the synergic emergents, and will share equally in the Co-Operators’ surplus.

What happens in a synergic group when finding a win is impossible?

Synergic science realizes and accepts there will be times and situations where loss is unavoidable. When this occurs synergic mechanism dictates that the group accept reality and focus on minimizing the loss, and then share the loss equally. In synergy, we are one. In synergy are equal. In synergy we strive to win together. But if we are forced to lose, then we will lose together – this means we will share equally in the loss.

1) In synergy, I am ONE with my associates.

2) In synergy, I am MORE with my associates than by myself.

3) In synergy, I am EQUAL to all my associates.

4) In synergy when we WIN, I will win MORE with my associates than by myself and I will share equally in the GAINS.

5) In synergy, when we LOSE, I will lose LESS with my associates than by myself and I will share equally in the LOSSES.

6) In synergy, we will win together or lose together, but we are TOGETHER.

A Synergic Version of Robert’s Rules of Order

Robert’s Rules of Order

(RR) were originated in to facilitate the decision-making process for groups of humans. They were used to ensure that discussion was clear, and that the rights of both the majority and the minority were protected. What follows is an abbreviated version of RR modified to serve synergic consensus and the synergic veto. The original RR were to help meetings run more smoothly and keep discussion on track. The rules, however, were not meant to disrupt or hold-up a meeting, and could be suspended if a member was using them for those purposes. There was provision within RR to suspend the rules, and often at the committee level a consensus decision-making process was employed.

Chairperson/Speaker:

Each meeting is facilitated or guided by a speaker or chairperson. S/he is responsible for ensuring that the meeting runs smoothly and fairly. Since synergic consensus is the goal, the chairperson may participate in the discussion as a full equal. The chairperson is not the final arbitrator of all decisions: the assembly ultimately has the authority and the responsibility to decide how the meeting should run.

Main Motion:

The basis for discussion is a formal motion. The motion is put forward of being ‘moved’ by a deciding member of the assembly to focus discussion. Motions are one of two types: 1) To discuss a problem facing the group. Or 2) To propose group action to solve a problem. Each new motion must be stated clearly and briefly. The Chairperson, then calls for any vetoes to the motion being brought to the floor. A veto can only be used to prevent loss. If no vetoes are heard, the motion is put ‘on the floor’ for discussion, discussion must focus on the substance of the motion. All other discussion is out of order and not allowed. A main motion may not be introduced if there is any other motion on the floor. The mover must state the motion before speaking and motions could be written out and handed to the chair so that everyone is clear on what is being discussed.

Order:

Once a motion is introduced, the chairperson will maintain a speaker’s list to allow for discussion in an orderly manner. To ensure that all members of the assembly have an equal opportunity to speak, the chairperson will allow speakers on the list who have not yet spoken before those who already have spoken.

Amendments:

At any time, a person who has the floor can introduce an amendment to the main motion being debated. An amendment is a motion that alters, adds to, subtracts from, or completely changes the main motion. Once an amendment has been moved, discussion must be on the substance of the amendment. For an amendment to be adopted, the question must be called. The chairperson will then ask for vetoes. If there are none the amendment is adopted. Once an amendment has either been adopted, vetoed, or withdrawn, discussion reverts back to the main motion, taking into account whether or not the amendment passed. Complex or lengthy amendments could be written out for the chairperson to be able to read back to the assembly.

Point of Order:

If a member feels that the rules of order are being broken, s/he can immediately raise a ‘point of order’, and state what rule has been broken or not enforced by the chair. A point of order can interrupt a speaker. It cannot be used as an opportunity to get around the speakers’ list – it can only be used to ask the chair to enforce the rules. The chair decides if the point is valid or not, and proceeds accordingly.

Point of Privilege:

A point of privilege can interrupt the speaker. A member who feels her/his right or privileges have been infringed on may bring up this point by stating their problem. Privilege refers to anything regarding the comfort of accessibility of the member (i.e. too much smoke, too much noise, fuzzy photocopies, etc.), or to the right of the member not to be insulted, misquoted, or deliberately misinterpreted. Again, the chair decides if the point is valid or not and proceeds accordingly.

Challenge the Chair:

If a member feels her/his point of order or privilege has been ruled on unfairly by the chair, s/he can challenge the chair/speaker. The chair then must modify her/his ruling until the challenger is satisfied. This challenge is a synergic veto. If the challenger feels they are losing, that loss must be repaired. If the challenger cannot be satisfied, the chair/speaker can pass the chair to another member of the group who can then have a try.

Point of Information:

A point of information is a QUESTION. A member may interrupt the speaker to ask her/his question, but the speaker who has the floor has the privilege to refuse the question. The chair will ask the speaker if s/he wishes to entertain a question at that time. A point of information is not an opportunity to bring forward information, jump the speakers’ list, harass another speaker, or generally disrupt the proceedings – IT CAN ONLY BE A QUESTION.

Table:

Debate may end in several ways. If a member feels that a decision on a motion needs to be postponed for some reason, then s/he can move to ‘table’ the motion. A member may not move to table a motion at the end of a speech, only at the time they are recognized by the chair. A specified time may be put on the tabling or the motion may be left indefinite. The only debate allowed is as to the length of tabling, or the time-line involved. A motion to table requires only the absence of a veto.

Calling the Question:

If a member feels that further discussion is unproductive, s/he may ‘call the question’, requesting the discussion be ended. If there is no objection-veto, the meeting proceeds to the main motion. If there is an objection-veto to ending the discussion, then chair must satisfy the objector-vetoer, or the discussion will continue. If the ‘call’ passes, a vote on the main motion is immediately taken, without any further debate. All votes are simply calls for veto. If there are no vetoes, the motion carries. The only basis for veto is loss. A veto may be challenged by any member calling CHALLENGE, the member vetoing must then explain how the motion would cause loss.

Rescind:

A motion to rescind another motion is in order if it refers to a motion passed at another meeting on another day. This cannot be applied to actions that cannot be reversed (i.e. things that have already been carried out). This requires explicit absence of veto.

Reconsider:

A motion to reconsider is applicable to a motion that was passed at the same meeting. It only requires the absence of veto. And, any motion can be challenged for explanation.

Suspension of the Rules:

A motion to suspend the rules of order (so that the assembly may do something not allowed in the rules) passes with absence of veto, it is not debatable, cannot be amended and cannot be reconsidered at the same meeting.

Adjourn:

This motion takes precedence over all others, except to ‘fix the time to adjourn’, to which it yields. It is not debatable, it cannot be amended, nor can a vote on it be reconsidered. A motion to adjourn cannot be made when another has the floor, nor after a question has been put and the assembly is engaged in voting.

Refer or Commit:

This motion is generally used to send a pending question to a committee so that the questions may be carefully investigated. This motion is debatable, but the debate can only extend to the desirability of committing the main motion, not to the substance of the main motion itself.

Committee of the Whole:

At some point the assembly may wish to informally consider a motion or a group of motions before having to deal with them in a ‘one at a time’, debate fashion. Votes may be taken in committee but are not binding on the assembly unless ratified when the group re-enters the regular session. Motions are required to move in and out of committee of the whole.

Minutes:

The numbering of motions always is by date, and then by when the motion arose in the meeting (YEAR/MONTH/DAY:NUMBER IN ORDER). So the fourteenth motion during the February 02, 2002 meeting would be numbered like: 02/02/02:14.

Synergic Consensus

Timothy Wilken, MD

Synergy means working together—operating together as in Co-Operation—laboring together as in Co-Laboration—acting together as in Co-Action. The goal of synergic union is to accomplish a larger or more difficult task than can be accomplished by individuals working separately.

However true synergy, which gives us humans the opportunity to accomplish more together than we can accomplish separately, also requires more from us. It requires synergic consensus. For any group of humans, synergic consensus can provide a much more powerful mechanism of decision making than even the best majority rule democracy carefully following Roberts Rules of Order.

All decisions within a truly synergic group are made within decision heterarchy. A decision heterarchy is made up of a group of humans with common purpose. The minimum number is 2 the maximum number is presently unknown. I believe the ideal size may be ~six or seven individuals. The group is organized horizontally with all individuals sharing equal authority and equal responsibility.

Most Western humans are familiar with the democratic committee system. It is very different from the decision heterarchy. While both are methods of organizing human individuals to make decisions for group action. Committees are filled with conflict and highly ineffective. In a committee no individual is held responsible for the actions taken by the group. And decision is made by majority ultimatum. A dissenting minority member is forced to support the action he voted against or leave the committee. Heterarchy within a synergic group, in contrast organizes individuals to have equal authority to decide on joint action with equal responsibility for the resultant that is produced by that joint action.

Synergic consensus occurs when a group of humans sitting in heterarchy negotiate to reach a decision in which they all win and in which no one loses. In a synergic heterarchy, all members sit on the same level as “equals”. No one has more authority than anyone else. Every one has equal responsibility and equal authority within the heterarchy. The assignment for the heterarchy is to find a plan of action so that all members win. It is the collective responsibility of the entire heterarchy to find this “best” solution. Anyone can propose a plan to accomplish the needs of the group. All problems related to accomplishing the needs would be discussed at length in the heterarchy.

The proposed plan of action for solving a problem is examined by all members of the heterarchy. Anyone can suggest a modification, or even an alternative action to solve the problem. All members of the heterarchy serve as information sources for each other. The heterarchy continues in discussion until a plan of action is found that will work for everyone. When all are in agreement and only then can the plan be implemented. The plan insures that all members of the synergic heterarchy win. All members are required to veto any plan where they or anyone else would lose. But all vetoes are immediately followed by renegotiation to modify the plan of action so that loss can be eliminated.

Most humans are surprised to learn of veto power. It seems very strange in the world of “directed” management. How can the boss allow employee’s to veto his orders and get anything done?

Members of an Organizational Tensegrity (Ortegrity) are not employees. They stand equal with the organizer. A major secret of life is that self-directed organization is much more efficient than other-directed organization. The secret is to transcend directing anyone. The Ortegrity creates the ideal environment for self-organization. In an environment of self-organization, human potential blossoms. Humans operate at a more powerful level. Those in an Ortegrity soon realize that their well being depends on the success of their organizations. They realize that if they wish to be well paid their organization must be successful. They have high interest in successful solutions to their tasks. They desire to be successful, and they want their organizations to be successful as well.

Now once the members of a heterarchy have decided on a plan of action. They then renegotiate among themselves to divide the plan of action into subtasks. Recall that all members sit on the same level as “equals”. No one has more authority than anyone else. Every one has equal responsibility and equal authority within the heterarchy. The assignment for the heterarchy is to find the best plan to accomplish the task so all members will win. It is the collective responsibility of the entire heterarchy to find this “best” solution. Anyone can propose a plan to accomplish the task. All problems related to accomplishing the task would be discussed at length in the heterarchy.

The proposed plan for accomplishing the task would be examined by all members of the heterarchy. Anyone could suggest a modification, or even a completely different alternative plan to accomplish the task-always seeking to maximize the win. All individuals would serve as information sources for each other. The heterarchy would continue in discussion until a plan could be found that worked well for everyone. The goal of the heterarchy is to find that course of action that maximizes the win for everyone, if that is not possible and the group must lose, then the goal becomes to find that action which minimizes loss for everyone. And when loss occurs it is shared equally by all.

Because all loss positions are vetoed, all relationships become win-win. The power of synergic consensus rests on finding the third alternative. A major fact about human performance mental or physical is that it is greatest when the individual is winning. Examine our Olympic athletes or our Nobel laureates. An environment that allows only win-win relationships will produce major increases in efficiency, productivity, and quality of work-life.

We humans are presently conditioned to expect our relationships to be win/lose. We view most situations from that either/or point of view. Either I win or I lose. It has to be one or the other. Synergy science reveals the third alternative. It may be harder to find, but there almost always exists a third way of doing things so no one loses. Or at worst you are assured that the loss has been minimized and equally shared. This distributes the loss so it has the least negative effect on the individual. This is the win-win way-this is synergy.

When all were in agreement and only then would the plan be implemented. The plan must insure that all members of the group win. Any member can veto a losing plan. Taking the time in decision making to discover the win-win way means that action will be many times more efficient.

Synergic consensus is unanimous consensus. Unanimous consensus is protected by the judicious use of the synergic veto. Synergic relationship requires that when any party within a group is losing, the action causing the loss must stop. But again all vetoes are immediately followed by renegotiation to modify the plan of action so that loss can be eliminated, and action can continue.

I am pleased to announce we are shifting from theory to application. This is the next phase of the synergic evolution. This morning I begin  the conversion of a small business organization located in the silicon valley to a synergic Ortegrity. Additionally, my associate synergic economist Wayne Perg is announcing the immediate availability of his services for the restructuring of business organizations.

CREATING SYNERGIC ENTERPRISES:

Profiting by Sharing and Cooperating

Wayne F. Perg, Ph.D., Co-Founder, New Market Solutions, LLC

This is a call to join together in creating a different world and profiting by sharing and cooperating. A program and tools are presented for creating synergic enterprises and a different economy – a new economy in which prosperity is shared by all and humanity lives in harmony with a living earth.

The first component of the program is already underway. It is the shift from our Industrial-Age worldview to a “new” worldview. Our economy, the structure of our businesses, and our forms of financing are all products of our worldview.

OUR INDUSTRIAL-AGE WORLDVIEW

Our present economy was created by a worldview that sees a machine-model universe of separate entities in which there is not enough for everyone and evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest. The inevitable outcome of this worldview has been a mindset of profiting by competing and taking from the weak and behaviors that produce experiences of separation, insufficient resources, and a struggle for survival. These experiences have then been used to justify the worldview that produced them!

This industrial-age worldview has manifested what it sees by creating behaviors that inhibit cooperation (e.g., dominator, rather than partnership relationships), creating negative synergy (1 + 1 = less than 2), and by diverting enormous amounts of resources into armaments. However, as we continue our shift to a “new” worldview we will produce a different mindset, different behaviors and different experiences that will manifest the vision of our “new” worldview.

This “new” worldview is actually very old, so I am calling it our new/old worldview.

OUR NEW/OLD WORLDVIEW

Our new/old worldview sees a living universe of interdependent entities, unified in their infinite diversity, with enough for everyone and evolution proceeding through negotiation and cooperation. It was, as Riane Eisler demonstrated in her seminal work, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, our predominant world view throughout human “pre-history,” that is, in an historical time frame, until quite recently.

The new science is one force behind the reemergence of this world view. Post-Newtonian science is demonstrating that our new/old worldview of a living universe is a much more accurate representation of nature (see EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution, by Elizabet Sahtouris) than was our Industrial-Age worldview of a machine-model universe.

Spirituality is another force driving reemergence (e.g., Conversations With God, Books 1, 2 and 3, by Neale Donald Walsch), as are positive visions of a new economy (e.g., Infinite Wealth: A New World of Collaboration and Abundance in the Knowledge Era, Barry C. Carter). And all three are coming together as the new science and visionaries of a new economy embrace spirituality – the life force that is the source of all.

This new/old worldview will manifest experiences of unity, enough for all and profiting by sharing and cooperating. It will occur as behaviors change and relationships shift from dominator relationships to partnership relationships. This will create increasing cooperation and positive synergy (1 + 1 = more than 2) and reduce the diversion of resources into armaments as fear recedes and love increases.

GAVIOTAS

For three decades the inhabitants of Gaviotas (Gaviotas: A Village to Reinvent the World, by Alan Weisman) have been demonstrating the power of our new/old worldview to manifest a different world. Gaviotas is a community in the barren, rain-leached eastern savannas of war-torn Columbia. The scientists, artisans, rural peasants, ex-urban street kids, and Guahibo Indians that live in the village have transformed the phrases sustainable development and appropriate technology from clichÈ to reality.

Hundreds of people live and work together harmoniously and productively with no government, no judiciary, no police force and no weapons in a country wracked by continuous internal warfare. They have created a living system, a multi-creatured organism, that has demonstrated its power to overcome enormous challenges and rapidly adapt to catastrophic change. And, in the process , they have manifested the only spot on earth where man is increasing, rather than destroying, tropical rain forests.

Gaviotas demonstrates the ability of diverse people to live and work together in the manner required by synergic enterprises. However, synergic enterprises will require different forms of organization and finance than those that were created by our Industrial-Age worldview.

NEW FORMS OF ORGANIZATION AND FINANCE

New forms of organization and finance are tools that are required for creating synergic enterprises. They are the second component of the program.

The organizational structure of businesses today is that of a hierarchy based on command-and-control. This structure creates negative synergy because: 1) the resultant dominator relationships inhibit cooperation; and, 2) the function of control is to limit, thus limiting both what people are allowed to contribute and the organization’s capacity for productive change.

The financing used by businesses today is rooted in control and conflict. Common stock (ownership interests) financing is linked to the hierarchical, command-and-control organizational structure that creates negative synergy because investors in common stock demand control of the business. Debt financing is rooted in conflict because it uses financing agreements that are premised on an adversarial relationship between lenders and borrowers and are enforced by an adversarial legal system that increases risk for both investors and creditors and can culminate in the lose-lose outcome of bankruptcy proceedings.

REAL-PREFERRED-RETURN UNITS

Real-Preferred-Return units (henceforth RPR units) are a new form of financing that can meet the entire financing needs of synergic enterprises. The foundation of RPR units is shared interests, clear agreements and cooperation. They were developed by New Market Solutions, LLC (henceforth NMS).

Investors in RPR units are protected by their preferred claim on real (adjusted for inflation) income and assets, continuous transparency, and a financing agreement that safeguards the interests of all parties. The financing agreement includes consequences for failure to meet agreed upon performance standards and a cooperative process for restructuring in the event of default.

RPR units can be structured with multiple levels of preference, creating a complete range of risk/return choices for investors. Therefore, they can replace both common stock (ownership interests) and debt as the financing instrument of choice for synergic enterprises. Because they are based on cooperation and partnership rather than control and adversity, their use increases returns and reduces risk for both investors and the enterprises receiving the financing.

NMS is a financial technology company that develops and patents new processes in finance. The purpose of the patents is to assist in attracting the resources necessary for implementation and ensure a fair return to the founders and investors, not monopoly profits.

ORTEGRITY AND HOLARCHY

Ortegrity is the organizational structure developed by synergic scientist Dr. Timothy Wilken (see www.synearth.net) specifically for synergic enterprises. Ortegrity applies to the organization of a synergic economy as well as the internal organization of synergic enterprises. As the number of synergic enterprises grows, it will be used to organize them into a new, synergic economy.

Holarchy, or embeddedness, is the structure of all living systems. All living systems are nested systems of interdependent holons, wholes embedded within wholes. Every component of a living system is an interdependent holon within the holon that is the living system. That holon is in turn a component holon of a larger living system, up to and including the universe itself.

The structure of Ortegrity is the structure of tensegrity. Tensegrity is a word created by Buckminster Fuller, the original synergic scientist, to describe the highly efficient structure that characterizes all living systems, systems that produce synergy on the order of 1 + 1 = between 10 and 1,000.

Tensegrity refers to the continuous tension (pull) and discontinuous push that characterize all synergic structures. The continuous tension in Ortegrity is created by the continuous negotiation of the self-interest of every holon at every level of the organization. The synergic veto protects the interest of every holon at every level. The discontinuous push is created by discontinuous action hierarchies. These action hierarchies are founded on agreement among their participants, they are not imposed from “above.”

The machine-model, command-and-control structure of businesses today creates continuous push and discontinuous pull (tension) – the opposite of tensegrity. Continuous push, created by the top-down hierarchy, pushes people apart. Communication is restricted and cooperation is reduced, creating negative synergy.

SYNERGIC ENTERPRISES

Synergic enterprises are living organizations that are self-governing in the manner of all living organisms. They are, in the words of Dee Hock, founder and CEO Emeritus of VISA, chaordic enterprises (chaordic: the behavior of any self-governing organism, organization or system which harmoniously blends characteristics of order and chaos; Birth of the Chaordic Age, Dee Hock).

They are united by a common purpose and they self-organize around shared commitments that are consistent with the unity of all life. These commitments include: 1) the complete transparency necessary for trust and cooperation; 2) continuous learning; 3) accepting and allowing 100% responsibility; and, 4) the health of every holon at every level, including the larger holons within which the enterprise exists as well as the enterprise itself and all of its component holons.

Leadership in synergic enterprises is based on informed choice rather than the power to command. It is exercised by those who possess the willingness and ability to serve. Because strategic choice requires vision, strategic leadership flows naturally to those who combine vision with their willingness and ability to serve.

The teams that make up a synergic enterprise can be divided into three categories: 1) production and transportation; 2) customer and supplier relations; and, 3) support. Support teams can again be divided into three categories: 1) information systems; 2) research, development and education; and, 3) strategic choices and finance.

All teams except for the foundation teams – production and transportation – are cross-functional; i.e., they include members from other functional areas. Customer and supplier relations teams include members from the production and transportation teams. Information system teams include members from the teams that they serve in addition to members from the other support teams. The same is true for the other support teams: research, development and education; and, strategic choices and finance.

It is the responsibility of the information systems teams to create and maintain the central nervous system of the enterprise: networked communications, information storage and information retrieval. It is our newly developed information technology that has made possible the creation of synergic enterprises and a synergic economy.

Ownership interests are divided equally among those who are current active participants (e.g., the workers, although active participants can include customers, community members, etc.) in the enterprise. They may be neither purchased nor sold, thus making them unsuitable as investment vehicles. All investments in the firm, both in-kind and monetary, are made in return for RPR units.

SYNERGIC VENTURES, LLC

Synergic Ventures, LLC (henceforth SVC) will be a larger synergic enterprise made up of the teams that facilitate the birth and growth of synergic enterprises and the enterprises themselves. Initially its primary task will be to support the teams in their work. Later, as it assists synergic enterprises in working together, it will become a component in the infrastructure of a synergic economy.

SVC and the initial teams are the third component of the program. The teams will assist workers in forming synergic enterprises and support their continuing operations. As support teams, they will include members with expertise in each of the three support functions: 1) information systems; 2) research, development and education; and, 3) strategic choices and finance.

Synergic enterprises may be formed either by creating new businesses or by converting existing businesses. Converting existing businesses is usually faster and easier because existing businesses have an established customer base that generates ongoing cash flow.

THE SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY

Small businesses being offered for sale are an important opportunity for teams to create synergic enterprises. In the year 2000, 1.57 million small businesses were offered for sale, but only about 250,000 (16 %) actually sold (INC magazine, Nov. 30, 2001).

The difficulties that owners of small businesses often experience in the sale of their businesses will give the teams significant leverage in negotiating seller financing for the purchase of the business by the new synergic enterprise, reducing or even eliminating the need for funds from outside investors. They will be assisted in this process by the ability of RPR financing to increase returns and reduce risks for both the seller/financer and the synergic enterprise.

That part of the purchase price that cannot be seller financed – the downpayment – will be raised from some combination of the workers and outside investors. The need for money from outside investors will depend on the willingness of the seller to finance the sale and the resources of the workers who will be forming the synergic enterprise. If the seller believes strongly in synergic enterprises, is close to the workers in the company and/or simply lacks viable alternative purchasers, little or no outside money will be required.

If outside investment is required, the synergic enterprise may raise funds either privately or through the use of a low-cost public offering. Most states have passed laws for ULOR (Uniform Limited Offering Registration) offerings that are exempt from SEC registration under rule 504. These simple, fill-in-the-blank registrations eliminate the costs of securities lawyers and audited financial statements that are required for large public offerings.

SVC will support the teams in valuing the business, structuring the deal, and raising funds for the downpayment. It will share information and best practices among the teams and their client synergic enterprises. In return for its services, it will receive fee income from the teams and enterprises that it serves and that in turn own it.

The teams will negotiate their compensation with the new synergic enterprises that they are forming. Compensation will typically be some combination of current fee income for services provided and a participation in the profits of the enterprise. These profit participations will create an ongoing income stream that will continue throughout the life of the enterprises created by the team.

As teams become successful, they may choose to train new teams. They will then share in the success of these new teams, adding to the income that they are earning from their own work.

NMS will negotiate profit participations in the synergic enterprises and Synergic Ventures in return for their use of RPR financing. Dr. Timothy Wilken will negotiate participations in return for the use of Ortegrity.

CONTACT

To find out more, participate, pursue potential investment opportunities, or investigate the conversion of your business to a synergic enterprise, contact:

Wayne F. Perg, Ph.D.
New Market Solutions, LLC
P.O. Box 131
Amado, AZ 85645

E-mail: wayneperg@earthlink.net
Phone/Fax: (520) 398-8296

Potential participants must be committed to complete openness, continuous learning, 100% responsibility, and the health of every holon at every level.

The New Renaissance

Daniel Quinn

Something extraordinary is going to happen in your lifetime. I’m talking about something much more extraordinary than has happened in MY lifetime, which has included the birth of television, the splitting of the atom, and visits to the moon. I mean something REALLY extraordinary.

During your lifetime, the people of our culture are going to figure out how to live sustainably on this planet–or they’re not. Either way, it’s certainly going to be extraordinary. If they figure out how to live sustainably here, then humanity will be able to see something it can’t see right now: a future that extends into the indefinite future. If they don’t figure this out, then I’m afraid the human race is going to take its place among the species that we’re driving into extinction here every day–as many as 200–every day.

As people like to say nowadays, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. The people who keep track of these things and make it their business to predict such things agree that the human population is going to increase by 50% by the middle of the century. It isn’t just the doom-sayers who say this. This is the conservative and generally agreed-upon estimate. Unfortunately, most of the people who make this estimate seem to have the idea that this is workable and okay.

Here’s why it isn’t.

It’s obvious that it costs a lot of money and energy to produce all the food we need to maintain our population at six billion. But there is an additional, hidden cost that has to be counted in life forms. Put plainly, in order to maintain the biomass that is tied up in the six billion of us, we have to gobble up 200 species a day–in addition to all the food we produce in the ordinary way. We need the biomass of those 200 species to maintain this biomass, the biomass that is in us. And when we’ve gobbled up those species, they’re gone–extinct. Vanished forever.

In other words, maintaining a population of six billion humans costs the world 200 species a day. If this were something that was going to stop next week or next month, that would be okay. But the unfortunate fact is that it’s not. It’s something that’s going to go on happening every day, day after day after day–and that’s what makes it unsustainable, by definition. That kind of cataclysmic destruction cannot be sustained.

Now, you probably think I’m trying to depress you here, but, believe me, that’s not my intention at all.

The extraordinary thing that is going to happen in your lifetime is not that the human race is going to become extinct. The extraordinary thing that’s going to happen in your lifetime is that a great second renaissance is going to occur. A great and astounding renaissance.

Nothing less than that is going to save us.

Read the full article…