Reposted from 2002 SynEARTH Archives. …
What Can Be Done?
As someone with no power except my voice, I am aware that our human society must change and change radically if we are to survive. It is from this perspective that I ask, what can be done?
I’ve not heard any serious opposition. So, do people want to live like this? I have to doubt it. There is no opposition, there is also little support.
Why is that? If people wanted to be logical, and they had continuing questions about these principles, or any others, those questions could be answered. Don’t trust me? Bring in others. Ask “why”? Are we interdependent? You can answer that, yes or no.
Are there problems with monetary measure, with markets? I’ve given answers to that, you can check them out. I say that markets are oversimplified, they don’t take sustainability into consideration, and often put the wrong people in charge. Monetary minting and accounting is a large energy drain by itself, compared to other systems. So I say, that society should not use money and markets, should make conscious decisions about energy efficiency, and sustainability, for all of society, not leave these things, of energy efficiency and sustainability, for individual judgement, as happens with money and markets. Is that a yes or no?
I say that we use things sustainably, and that means as an example, that to cut one 50 year old tree a year, you must have enough trees growing to replace it, a minimum of 50 trees of all ages, and more than that, because other factors besides people kill trees. I say that these sorts of calculations can be done, for every resource we use, and should be done. Yes or no?
And finally, people are interdependent as far as reproduction, too, and reproduction should not be left up to individuals or couples, since the whole group is affected. And human reproduction should be in balance with use of resources. Yes or no?
All of these things are objective, simple, yes or no matters.
And yet people seem to not want to answer them. Instead of dealing with them, they turn away, try to change the subject, or just go silent. They say, I can’t do anything. But in fact, if a bunch of us took these principles to someone with scientific status, and said, here, what is wrong with these, it would put a lot of pressure on that person, to also give yes or no answers.
That is something that could be done. And if that person said yes, these are right, it could become more widely debated. And perhaps this person would say “no”, and give reasons. Then we could think again, having learned something. But do people want an answer? I think not. People seem to just want to thrash around in circles, wring their hands about problems, and act as if that were something significant. But what it really looks like, is hypocrisy. We can get answers if we really want them. I don’t think people really want answers.
I want to elaborate on Stan’s joyous celebration of the power of flow on the Web and to add something to our group memebag. After seven-plus years of using the Web, I know where the juice is. It wasn’t really a mystery to begin with — it’s linking — but the power of linking is so taken for granted that it’s become invisible. (And precarious. The dominant browser vendor played an incredibly greedy game with the art of linking in 2001. Killing the golden goose, as if they invented the Web. Evil greedy dangerous company.)
In 1996, I called it holding hands in cyberspace and predicted a billion websites, instead of three, which is what the VCs and the press were predicting. (The Web is not a centralized medium, it’s a two-way medium, like email or the telephone. Excite and Infoseek are gone. Yahoo has lost its luster.
You can’t really be on the Web, and respect your readers, without being generous. So you might as well make the words that go with the links generous too. My teacher on this is a very wise man named Daniel Berlinger. I always get a cheerful word and link from Daniel. Is there anything wrong with this? No, in fact, it’s a lesson. Link with a negative vibe if you have to, but why not find something positive, and let the irritation be, and not necessarily share it? That’s something I can do better in 2002.
Thanks Dave Winer for sharing your wisdom, as Stan Krute’s says:
Dave knows Flow. The Power of Flow. The Beauty of Flow. The Goodness of Flow. The Win-Win-Win-Win-Win of Flow. You flow my way, I flow your way, ya give flow, ya get flow, others see this and join in on the fun, pretty soon, we’re all surfing a happy big flowin’ wave of our own communitarian making. And the surfboards just keep on agettin’ cooler’n’cooler’n’cooler ….
Anyways: Thanks, Dave! for the flow. It’s one of the things you do best. You flow selflessly all over the place. A Master of Plumbing. Plastic Man in Cybernia. We all bow, and flow right back atcha. Yowza!
ps – Flow is Love
Read More on Ortegrity and on Sociocracy Read a Synergic Version of Robert’s Rules of Order Read the Synergic Future Series: 1) Beyond Property 2) Redefining Wealth 3) Synergic Wealth 4) Synergic Wealth II: Deepening Our Understanding 5) Trustegrities — Protecting the Future and 6) Synergic Guardians — Protecting the Future.