Donate to EOS

We aim to build a network of experimental sustainable communities to demonstrate that we do have a sustainable alternative to our current socioeconomic system. Want to help us build for a sustainable future? Please donate what you can:

Sunday, 9 December 2012

Authoritative and Authoritarian; what's the difference?

I have heard comments against the proposal we have for a sustainable socioeconomic system that it has an authoritarian characteristic. To me, that suggests that people either don’t understand our proposal or they don’t understand what the word “authoritarian” means or perhaps they have some other agenda? Either way, I thought I would go through this again and highlight our system as compared to an authoritarian system.

The socioeconomic system that we propose falls within the classification of authoritative but not authoritarian. Both systems rely on authorities and both systems have rules, so, to some degree I can understand why people might get confused, especially if they just take a quick look. So, how do the two systems differ?

In an authoritarian system you do what the authority tells you to do because they have the authority. You can’t question the authority. Authoritarian governments tend to have a centralised characteristic and uses force to enforce the decisions of the authority. Examples of authoritarian governments include Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.

In an authoritative system the authorities have their position because they have knowledge or expertise in a given area. In a complex system, no one person will have knowledge or expertise on every aspect of society but some people will know a lot about a certain part of society. This leads to a distributed system of government made up of multiple authorities (in direct contrast to an authoritarian form of government). So, people do what a given authority says not as a result of force or through fear but as a result of mutual respect; they acknowledge that that authority knows more about the subject than they do and the best course of action means following the authorities instructions.

In an authoritative system you can also question the authority and the authority listens to the people. If people can object in a rational way with supporting evidence the author could even change its advice. Also, due to the distributed nature of an authoritative system, you also have multiple authorities to go to; if you disagree (and in an authoritative system you can disagree and even disobey the authority but in doing so you follow the less optimal path) with any one of them, ask another.

Authoritative systems also have a characteristic of openness. They don’t just say “do this” but they also say why and support their decision with evidence. Other authorities can review the authority in an open peer to peer review process.  So, the system also has a self-checking nature.

Today we have no really good examples of an authoritative form of government but you can get some idea of how such a system could work and how it differs from an authoritarian system if you look at authoritative parenting. 

Wednesday, 4 July 2012

Bio-Dome meeting

I finally got to a bio-dome meeting. The Umeå bio-dome project aims to build a 10m diameter geodesic dome for growing crops in an aquaponics system. In addition to actually building a dome I'm also interested in this project as it could lay the foundations for an experimental sustainable community. community.

During the meeting we had a presentation from Alex on the project and we discussed funding and some of the technical issues for the dome.

Alex gets ready for to give the presentation

Monday, 2 July 2012

Second Life Sci-Fi Convention 5

I did a talk on Saturday on the Venus Project called "The Venus Project and Beyond". The talk cover the Venus Project (TVP) and then looked at how we can transition from today's money based socioeconomic system to a future moneyless system. I talked about the Venus Project architecture that covered the city design, going out into space and cities in the sea as well as looking at the transport systems and the idea of a computer controlled civilisation. The architecture part of TVP probably comes over as the main part of TVP as it makes such a visual impression. However, I think the Resource Based Economy forms the real core of TVP and I talked about that as well. I also include in that part the idea of intelligent management of resources.

For the second part of the talk I went over EOS's idea for a transition called Stepping Stones. The ideas involves phasing from today's socioeconomic system to tomorrows moneyless system through building a network of communities, step by step, rather than just jumping into a moneyless system. Stepping stones would also give us an opportunity to experiment and test out much of the ideas. I then presented what we have done so far, especially regarding the bio-dome project in Umeå and building the technate.

I had a small audience at the talk but they took a strong interest in the subject and we had a good talk afterwards on some of the technical details of TVP.

You can find out more about TVP here. TVP and EOS has a lot of overlaps with our ideas but we also have some differences. You can find out more about EOS's design for a future moneyless socioeconomic system here. Read more about Stepping Stones here. The bio-dome project has a blog here. And the technate has a homepage here.

Me at SLSFC 5. Other speakers included  
Richard Hatch (Battlestar Galactica) 
Garrett Wang (Star Trek: Voyager) 
Gabriel Koerner (Trekkies) 
Jonathan Frakes (Star Trek: The Next Generation) 
"Rod" Roddenberry (Trek Nation).
Me at the start of the talk. Behind my av you can see a RL
picture of Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows with the RL me.

The first few people started to arrive.
Me talking to the audience.
Most of the audience
Me with a friend of mine; Khannea Suntzu.

Thanks to the people at SLSFC5 and those who invited me.

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

in the goldfish bowl!

I had an odd experience on Thursday last. I got an invite to give a talk in the Glass House in Umeå. The "glass house" refers to a not very large oblong glass building in the town centre. The building has enough room for a few people but the "audience" sits outside the building. So, when I gave my talk it felt a bit like standing in a goldfish bowl where people looked in on me talking. I did a talk called "Imagine people, places and communities: a vision for the future" (the same talk I gave at the imagine festival) in conjunction with the Umeå bio-dome group that EOS has helped to fund. We had a few interesting people inside the glass house to talk to afterwards, including one guy for the occupy movement.

The mini geodesic dome

A little poster for my talk

The aquaponics system

Monday, 21 May 2012

Citizen Cards

Citizen Cards are ready to go. If you would like one email with passport size photo, your full name and area of expertise. The plastic card version will cosy 11.75 USD + p&p. The print your own paper version is free.

The card will also include a QR code that will link up to the new energy accounting site when it comes on line.

You can get a card even if you are not a member of EOS.

When I have a few I will order the cards.

(For an explanation see: The Design, page 147)

Example : 

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

When is energy not energy?

The word “energy” refers to the ability of a physical system to do something. It comes from the Greek words “en”, meaning “in or internal” and “ergon”, meaning “force or work.” As a concept, it has it origins in the scientific work carried out mainly in the 19th century but building on earlier work into the relationship between work, power and heat.

Thus, we can think of energy as the ability to do work. Whenever something happens, whenever something physical does something we have a relationship between the work and power; we have energy!

We can measure a physical system's ability to do work and we use the unit joules or sometimes watts for that measurement. From working with physical systems, we find that we have different forms of energy such as potential energy (form an objects position in space), kinetic energy (from an objects motion in space), pressure energy, internal energy (a type of kinetic energy of molecules) and types of “energy in motion” such as electrical energy and heat energy. [Wal]

What about other forms of energy?

Scientists have recently proposed another form of energy called “dark energy”; the energy need for the expansion of the universe. Not measured but theorised from the observations of the expansion of the Universe. Couldn’t we, therefore, have other forms of energy like chi or other kinds of “spiritual energy”?

Well, no!

Things like chi or “spiritual energy”, despite the use of the word “energy”, do not exemplify energy in the same sense as kinetic or potential energy as “spiritual energy” has nothing to do with the workings of physical machines but everything to do with people and their emotions. We cannot detect “spiritual energy” using scientific instruments, we cannot measure it in terms of joules or watts, we cannot find any relationship between “spiritual energy” and the workings of machines. We cannot convert “spiritual energy” to scientific forms of energy like kinetic energy. It does, however, appear when dealing with people.

The ancients proposed the concept of a vital force that animated matter. Something that surrounds us and passes through us. People claim to feel its presence and have the ability to direct or control it. The idea of vitalism declined in the West as science showed errors in the concept through experimentation (especially the synthesis of organic compounds [SafKin]). However, the idea did not die out completely (and still pops up in some areas of science such as psychology [Tho]) but retuned as “spiritual energy” (taking a more scientific name but having the same properties as a vital force). Not surprisingly, as “spiritual energy”presents a more intuitive, emotionally satisfying, understand of the world [InaHat, [kei]] than the scientific explanation. Thus, “spiritual energy” has more to do with a “vital force” than the scientific concept of energy.

The concept of a vital force has a long history and goes back to the far ancient past. Similar concepts appear in different human cultures the world around (such as chi). It reflects our intuitive understanding of the world around us. People tend to use anthropomorphisms to understand the world around us. We have emotions that motivate us to actions so we use a similar model to understand nature and assume that some kind of force motivates nature to action.

Energy in the Design

The concept of energy plays an important part in our design for an alternative socioeconomic system but only the scientific concept of energy as our design has its roots in science and engineering. We use the concept as a way to measure what a real physical system does and what state it has.

We cannot use “spiritual energy” in our design. As a concept it offers nothing to measure and has no relationship to how the physical world works. We can explain much of what the concept of a vital force covers through other concepts that we can demonstrate such emergent phenomena.

Does that mean it has no place at all in what we propose?

Well, no. The concept of “spiritual energy” does seem to play an important part in some people's lives. Therefore, it has an important role to play on the people side of our design and important part in building up communities and for people interactions, among those people who seem to need the concept. So long as the concept of “spiritual energy” remains on the people side, then it has a positive role to play in a future society.


[SafKin] E Kinne-Saffran and R.K.H Kinne. “Vitalism and the Synthesis of Urea.” visited 2012-02-28

[Tho] Roger K. Thomas, Ph.D. “Hazards of “Emergentism” in Psychology”. visited 2012-02-28

[Wal] Göran Wall. “Exergetics”. visited 2012-02-28

[Ste] Victor J. Stenger. “The Breath of God: Identifying Spiritual Energy”. visited 2012-02-28

[InaHat] Kayoko Inagaki and Giyoo Hatano. “Vitalistic Causality in young Children's naïve Biology”. visited 2012-02-28

[kei] Frank C. Keil. “Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality. visited 2012-02-28

Monday, 27 February 2012

A quick overview of energy accounting

 Recently In received an invention to write a quick overview of our proposal for an alternative to our current socio-economic system from a group opposed to fiat money. I wrote this:

  1. We argue that our current socio-economic system has a fundamental unsustainable nature (liner production, infinite exponential growth with finite resources). Thus, we cannot fix the problem without addressing the core problem (therefore, we argue, that just changing the current system wont work).

  1. We aim to maintain a high standard of living in a sustainable way. To do that we propose a system of expert management of the resources we need in society. We can see a socioeconomic system as a type of resource allocation system; from raw materials to production to goods and then back to raw material (in a sustainable system).

  1. We argue that our resource allocation system forms an example of a physical system, thus requires energy to run. We can determine the amount of energy we need to produce an item. We can also account for materials we use in terms of energy (using the exergy concept). Thus, we have a common accountancy unit to measure production in therms of energy.

  1. We propose an alternative, sustainable, socioeconomic system based on the allocation of resources through the use of energy accounting. We measure production in terms of energy and allocate equal amounts of the production capacity to people who then decide how the production capacity gets used and what items it produces.

The above presents a quick over view but you can get more details here: The Design

Monday, 13 February 2012


Thomas Eakins' Arcadia
Arcadia; the pastoral utopia where people lived a simpler life in harmony with each other and nature.  No war or violence of any kind; just happy healthy people living the good life. The idea of Arcadia has ancient origins. We can find references to a kind of Arcadia in the writings of the ancient Greeks (Aristophanes) and Romans (Tacitus) and we can see the concept even in the biblical reference to Eden. We can still see the idea of Acadia today in the writings of Tönnies, Durkheim and Marx.  [Edge] In the UK, we have the idea of “Merry England”, a type of Arcadia which forms the foundation of the Shire in Lord of the Rings.

We look around the world today and we can find evidence of real peaceful people. Primitive people who live without violence, without war and in harmony with the forest around them; giving weight to the idea that we, as a species, lived more peaceful and harmonious in the past than today. We see our cities and our civilisation as opposite to the Acadia ideal we lost in the past; cities full of crime and abuse and our nations going to war at, in what appears, an ever increasing rate. No wonder that people harken back to the good old days.

Real Peaceful People

Yet the evidence we have appears to suggest the opposite; that people experienced more violence in the past than today. Evidence from archaeology, anthropology, sociology, psychology and even ethnography all point towards a more violent past. We can even question the idea of “real” peaceful primitive people.

“Classical Period (c. 1920-c. 1960)
This periodization is taken directly from the writings of George Stocking, who refers to this 40-year span of time as the Classical Period (1976, 1989:210). It is, of course, the period in American anthropology dominated by Franz Boas and his students. Anti-evolutionism reached its peak and cultural relativism flourished. It was also the period in which "the myth of the peaceful savage" emerged, to use the subtitle of archaeologist Lawrence Keeley's book (1996). The myth is described by Keeley as the erroneous belief that primitive warfare—a term used by Keeley—is desultory, ineffective, "unprofessional," and unserious (1996:11). The myth includes three aspects: the notion of prehistoric peace or the "pacified past" (prehistoric peoples did not have warfare) (1996:17-24), the belief that hunter-gatherers or band-level societies did not engage in warfare (disputed by Ember [1978] and Dentan [1988]),
and the assumption that when war occurred among tribal level societies it was ritualistic, game-like in nature—with the first wounding the battle would stop (Chappie and Coon 1942:616,628-635; Chappie and Coon, however, do not consider these assertions to be a myth). Perhaps the most succinct statement of the third aspect of the myth appears in the next period (Naroll 1966:17):

surprise is not a universally applied military tactic. Some primitive tribes simply line up at extreme missile range work up from hurling insults to hurling rocks at each other; this tournament-like war usually ends when the first enemy is killed. This kind of combat is a prearranged tryst, like duels under the European code duello,

I know of no tribe that fits this description.” [Otte2]

Much of the evidence for “real” peaceful people comes from ethnographic studies conducted before 1980. During the late 1970s and into the 1980s they came in to question with regard to their reliability and validity. [Goet, Hamm]

“Although problems of reliability and validity have been explored thoroughly by experimenters and others quantities researchers, their treatment by ethnographers has been sporadic.” [Goet]

Although ethnographers have many problems with their work, two of the most import has to do with time for learning the culture and their own cultural bias.  Ethnographers make conclusions biased on a few years study. Such a few years often falls far short of the time a person really needs to learn a new language and culture.  Yet they make general conclusions based on a small window into a culture. We can take Colin Turnbull’s work on the Mbuti pygmies and the Ik peoples in Africa. He studied the Mbuti for three years and then the Ik people and concluded the Mbuti exemplify real peaceful people and the Ik the opposite. Yet, other studies show that the Mbuti do have a history of violence and warfare and the violence of the Ik people resulted from a period of starvation, once their food supply recover they reverted to a more peaceful way of life. [Edge] As another example, Elizabeth Marshall’s work on the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, where she described them as a “harmless people”. Yet, other studies show they have a higher murder rate. [MarFry] Or we could look at another “real” peaceful people like the Semai people of Malaya who also carry out murders. [Edge, Fabb] 

Either the evidence shows “real” peaceful people as having some degree of violence or we have insufficient evidence to support the “real” peaceful conclusion. [Edge]

Bias in ethnographic studies can go either way. Either the ethnographer inappropriately interprets actions in terms of our own culture or they dismiss actions as they assume they result for their own cultural bias. For example, ethnographers can dismiss actions of violence in primitive people as resulting from Western influence and therefore not a result of the people themselves.

“This may sometimes occur because anthropologists believe that the cruel, harmful, or ineffective practices they see in a folk society are the result of social disorganisation brought about by colonialism” [Edge]

Of cause, if you rationalise away violence in a primitive people only a “real” peaceful people remain!

“… with the re-analysis of hunter-gatherer and horticultural population dynamics, it has become apparent that many pre-state societies do not fit their peaceful “harmless” stereotype. … It is evident that one reason for the underestimation of the level of violence and homicide in pre-state societies relates to past theoretical expectations about the harmonious nature of hunter-gatherer societies” [MarFra]

Violent People, Peaceful People

At this point we should look at what we mean with the terms “violent people” and “peaceful people”. We could easily see a people as violent [Eckh]; if we see murders or warfare then we class the people as violent.  However, we have more difficulty with the term “peaceful people”. People do not spend all day, every day, 365 days a year, year in, year out engaged in violence.

… there is great variability among recently observed hunter-gatherers in terms of the frequency of war (Otterbein 1991), homicide, and capital punishment (Otterbein 1988a).” [Otte]

Even the most violent people spend most of their time at peace and we humans have various methods of resolving conflicts without the resort to violence. So, if we observe a group of people not engaging in violence we cannot conclude that they exemplify a “real” peaceful people.  But even engaging in regular warfare does not make a people violent. For example, if the warfare has a defensive nature.  In the end, what differs a peaceful people from a violent people comes down to degrees. “Peaceful” people use violence to a lesser degree than “violent” people and more defensive violence than offensive violence.

“”The question has been raised whether the traditional view of early society as one of constant warfare is really justified by the facts. There is, in fact, no doubt that to speak of a state of war as normal is in general a gross exaggeration,”  Hobhouse, Wheeler and Ginsberg (1915) conclude in their extensive survey of some 650 primitive peoples. Similarly, Quincy Wright (1942) stated “No general golden age of peace existed at any stage of human history nor did any general iron age war. Neither the Rousseauian nor the Hobbesian concept of natural man is adequate”” [MarFra]

“War like people are capable of peacefulness, while peaceable people are capable of waging war under the appropriate circumstances … Many people who value peace positively still have relatively high rates of intergroup violence, e.g., Gebusi of New Guinean (Knauft 1987) and San (“Bushmen”) of Africa (e.g., Thomas 1994).” [EibSal]

Evidence for a More Violence Past

The evidence for a more violent pass comes from a multiple of sources.  Archaeology, for example, gives plenty of examples for violence with fortifications, weapons, bodies and evidence of mass murders and genocide. [MarFra] Unlike modern warfare where we try and minimise the killing of non-combatants, ancient warfare did not appear to have such restrictions as we find evidence of whole villages wiped out; men, women and children.

“Archaeologically, there are four basic sources on prehistoric violence: skeletal trauma, defensive architecture and settlement patterns, weaponry and related artefacts and iconographic representations” [MarFra].

“Warfare played an important role in the structure of historic Northwest Coast [of America] society and recent archaeological research demonstrates that warfare has a long history in the region.  The first evidence for conflict on the Northwest Coast occurs by 3000 BC …” [MarFra].

Cave paints can show us glimpse of ancient warfare.

“Rock art in Arnhem Land, Northern Australia, shows the development of armed combat over a 6000-year period (10,000 to 4000 years ago).” [Otte]

Other evidence comes from our closet genetic relative; the chimpanzee. Only two of the great apes engage in organise warfare; us and the chimpanzees. Jane Goodall noted that young male chimpanzees often display great keenness when it comes to joining in with an attack on a neighbouring group. [EibSal] Evidence suggests that warfare goes back before humans even evolved [McNe].

“We don’t know when human warfare --- defined as socially sanctioned, organized, lethal intergroup conflict (Mead 1968) --- originated. The earliest evidence of warfare among hominids comes from the analysis of the fossil remains of six homo antecessor --- an extinct hominid species that lived between 1.32 million and 800,000 years ago …” [Pitm]

“Humans and chimpanzees are the only members of the great ape family that engage in warfare (Goodall 1986, 503-14, 519-21; Wrangham 2006; Boesch and Boesch-Achermann 2000, 129-57). … This implies that warfare among humans and chimpanzees originated in their common ancestor that lived between approximately 13 and 7 million years ago, and has been named as Pan prior (Wrangham  2001) and Chororaphithecus abyssinicus (Suwa et al. 2007).” [Pitm]


Man is neither, by nature, peaceful nor warlike. Some conditions lead to war, some do not.”[Otte]

Human begins have the potential for violence and for war and we have the potential for peace too. We actually spend more time at peace than war. The frequency of violence can change from people to people or from time to time within the same people as does the nature of the violence. 

However, the idea of a golden age in the past where people lived in harmony with one another does not stand; Arcadia exemplifies a myth. We have, in general moved form a more violent past to a more peaceful present. Understanding the myth of Arcadia and our progression to less violence today becomes important if we want a more peaceful future. If we believe in Arcadia and want to go backwards to a simpler past, taking inspiration form “real” peaceful people we run the risk of deluding ourselves and creating the opposite of what we aim for.  

Instead of following the myth and getting lost in the delusion of a golden age, we should look more at those factors that increase peace; look at the evidence even if it doesn’t fit with how we want to see the World. Why have we becomes more peaceful? What leads to more peace at certain times and war at other times?


 [Eckh] William Eckhardt. “Primitive Militarism”. Journal of Peace Research. Vol 12. No 1. Pp 55-62. 1975.

[Otte2] Keith F. Otterbein. “A History of  Research on Warfare in Anthropology”. American Anthropology. 10 [4]. Pp 794 – 805. 2000.

[Fabb] David Fabbro. “Peaceful Societies: An Introduction”. Journal of Peace Research. No. 1 Vol. VX. 1978.

[Goet] Margaret D. LeCompte and Judith Preissle Goetz. “Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research”. Review of Educational Research. Vol 52. No. 1. Pp 31-60. Spring 1982. 

[Hamm] Martyn Hammersley. “Ethnography: problems and prospects”. Ethnography and Education. Vol 1, No. 1. Pp 3-14. March 2006.

[Pitm] George R. Pitman. “The Evolution of Human Warfare”. Philosophy of the Social Sceinces. 41(3). Pp 352-379. 2011.

[Otte] Keith F. Otterbein. “The Origins of War”. Critical Review. 11, no 2. Pp 251 – 277. Spring 1997.

[Edge] Robert B. Edgerton. “Sick Societies : Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony”. The Free Press. 1992

[McNe] William H. McNeill. “Violence and Submission in the Past”. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 2007.

[EibSal] Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Frank Kemp Salter. “Indoctranability Ideology and Warfare.” Berghahn Books. 1998.

[MarFra] Ed. Debra L. Martin and David W. Frayer. “Troubled Times : Violence and Warfare in the Past”. War and Society Vol 3. Gordon and Breach Publishers. 1997.

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

The Design and Totalitarianism

I got a comment back a few days ago regarding the Design that described it as totalitarian. I find that a bit odd as I can’t see how anyone can read the Design and come to that conclusion. 

First, in a totalitarian system the state has no limits and intervenes in both public and private lives of people. Here, I see, the first difference between totalitarianism and the Design. In the Design we make a distinction between the “people side” and the “technology side” of society. We then concentrate on the technological side and minimise what we have to say on the people side. We do talk about communities as the building blocks of society. We do talk about having a minimum of shared values such as a basic set of human rights, tolerance for different communities and the right to move between communities. We do talk about the government of such communicates based on direct democracy and for communities to link up with like minded communities regardless of geography (no nations). Beyond that, we don’t have anything else to say. We don’t interfere with people’s private lives. We don’t tell people how they should live their lives. We encourage and allow differences between communities and people can have different sets of morals so long as each community accepts the right of others to have their differences and remains within the basic human rights.  To me, that put the Design at almost the opposite end of the spectrum to totalitarianism.

Second, totalitarian systems tend to have a central, strong, leader. In the system proposed in the Design we have no one central leader. Instead we have a system of distributing and localising of power. Most people have the option to get involved in decision making where they live, in their own communities. Their competence and skill does limit their decision making options to technical areas they know about but combined with direct democracy for all the non-technical aspects of a society the Design probably comes closer to an ideal democracy then the current representative democracies we have today!

Thus, with its distribution of power, localisation of decision making and separation and non-interference with people’s private lives, to me, makes the Design far from totalitarianism. So, I wonder, how people can read the design and conclude otherwise?