Thursday, 27 August 2026

Blueprint for Tomorrow : Holons – Revisited (part 1)

Blueprint for Tomorrow

Holons – Revisited (part 1)

Introduction

Anyone notice the heat wave this year (2026) in Europe? We are still failing to deal with global warming even though we have known about the problem for over a hundred years and the science has been clear on the matter since the 1980s. It could be argued, our current socioeconomic system is starting to fail in a number of other ways too. From inequality to incompetent politicians failing to solve problems.

Way back in 2011, we (EOS) proposed in the Design a potential solution; an organisational structure for a future sustainable, moneyless, socioeconomic system based around holons. This is something I had been working on since the 1990s.

Imagine a team that is free to choose how it works and what it works on, yet still works together with other teams. You are imagining holons at work. Holons are autonomous, task orientated, groups or entities that work together; like Lego bricks that can be put together to build something bigger. But, due to their autonomous nature, we didn’t specify in the Design much detail on how holons would work. The idea was that the holons would work that out themselves. However, since then I have been working on the idea of holons in another context. There has also been some interesting developments in this direction. Scientific research, for one, has started to show that this type of approach can offer a viable solution to complex problems. There have also been some interesting real world examples of implementation. From that, I have been rethinking the idea of holons for a sustainable society and how they would work. I have also had questions asking how would things work in a sustainable holonic moneyless society. So, I thought I’d look into holons in more detail and give more of a blueprint describing how they would work. For that, I am going to start with some background information covering some basic concepts in this article. I will start with an overview of the concepts behind the idea, such as what is a holon, the ideas of mission command and leader – leader, as well as a very quick look at the science and some real world examples. In future articles, I will go into more details about an envisioned holonic structure and functionality as well as some ideas for implementation.

If we actually want a sustainable society that balances our needs with those of the planet, then we really need to look at how we do things. Our current system is not sustainable and we need to change. Change to a system that is robust, adaptable, and human centric. Holons are the building blocks for such a society.

Background

Holons

Holons exist to achieve a given goal. They can be temporary, with a end point in time, or they can be more permanent, with no specified end point. To achieve its task, a holon might be divided into a number of sub holons, which in turn, could also be divided into sub holons. The holons itself could also be part of another holon. So we have the idea of holons within holons within holons to form a holonic system. Arthur Koestler coined the word “holon” in his book “Ghost in the Machine” [ghost] in 1967. The word is from the Greek and means “part-whole” and captures this idea of holons with in holons. This idea comes from observations of how nature is organised. The classic example given are cells which then form organs which then form organisms. But another example would be ants. An ant is a holon with a given task. It works together with other ants to form a colony, which is another holon. The colony is itself a holon within an ecosystem, which can be seen as the top most holon. No where in this system is there any central, authoritarian, control. Not even the queen ant gives orders. The idea can be extended to the human world and there are companies that organise in this distributed fashion. Without managers and hierarchies, nature organises effectively to handle complexity.

Mission command; goals and tasks

Mission command [mc] is a concept I have borrowed from the military. In mission command, a commanding officer doesn’t give orders. Instead, the commander would give the goal to be achieved and the commanders intent with the goal. Sub commanders then are free to achieve that goal within the given intent. I’m borrowing the concept of mission command as setting goals is extremely important within holonic systems. The goal defines what the holon is trying to achieve. And as we have a system of holons within holons, there is a cascade of goals as goals are passed down from one holon to its sub holons. One holon could have the goal to provide 100% renewable energy to a given area. The goal could then cascade down to one of its sub holons as 50% wind power and then the goal could cascade down to its sub holon as a goal to build a wind farm of 10 wind turbines. Every holon must have a goal that is compatible with the overall goal of the holonic system. So, our area goal would need to be compatible with the overall goal of “the highest standard of living for the longest time possible”. This is what keeps the whole system together; everything is working towards the same goal but in its own way. “In its own way” because each holon is autonomous. So the goal states what has to be achieved but not how to achieve it.

But to achieve a goal, each holon will have a task to do. The task is why that holon exists and achieving the task fulfils the intent of the above holon in creating the holon. If a task is too complex, it can be broken down into sub tasks. Each sub task then becomes a task for one or more other holons. Those holons will then have there own goals. So, there is self-symmetry in the system like a fractal.

This whole system requires trust. As each holon is autonomous, it achieves its task in whatever way is perceived to work best. That means that the holon above must trust that the sub holons will achieve their task and the sub holon must understand the intent and goals of the above holon so both holons have a common understanding. The sub holon must also have the capability to achieve the goal. This also allows for greater diversity. Different people, different cultures, could achieve a given task in a variety of different ways. So long as the task is achieved, the method is not of interest to the above holon. Each holon is free to act as it sees fit but there are some limits. It can act and take initiative but within the bounds of the overall goal and the intent of the above holon. In other words, it can do as it wishes so long as it stays on track.

In creating goals and tasks, each holon will have a understanding of what it is to achieve and that understanding will be common with other holons that work together to achieve the task of the above holon. So there is a shared understanding [team] which means that holons collaborate with each other to achieve the overall goal.

Information

For this all to work, there also needs information to be shared. Information sharing between holons helps each holon make the right decision. Information could be shared via meetings, emails, or common displays, for example. It also helps with the shared understanding between holons. A holon will need to know if its actions will negatively effect other holons, will its actions make other holons obsolete, lessons learnt might help other holons, and feedback can help a holon improve itself. Also, one holon may make an innovation that could be useful to another holon. Information is the glue that holds the system together, helping to prevent duplication, conflicts, and to avoid failures. To achieve information flow, there needs to be lines of communications between holons. Lines of communication could be a simple as having a representative of one holon sit in on meetings of another holon. Or it could be a common web page that provides the latest news for all to read like a modern newspaper. Or a knowledge base like Gitlab.

Distributed

As the system is composed of autonomous holons within holons, there is no central command. So the system is a distributed system. Such systems can exhibit emergent behaviour that are not explicit in the rules governing the system. An ant colony is such an example. It results from the interactions of numerous ants rather than centrally planned. It results for the cooperation within the system so that the sum of the parts are greater than the whole. Distributed systems also have other properties. They are scalable. New holons can be added without breaking the system. Like adding a new computer to the Internet. So, if we get the system working on a small scale we can scale the system to a much larger size. It is also robust. An ant dies but the colony survives. We lose cells in our bodies but we carry on. As different holons can work different ways new ways of working can develop. If they fail, the whole system doesn’t fail. If they succeed, the lessens learnt can be passed on to other holons. This difference and distributed nature means the system is flexible and adaptable. As things change, the system can adjust by experimenting, creating new holons, or removing old holons as needed.

Leader – Leader

The focus on building a holonic organisation is the tasks to be achieved and we organise around those tasks, not around people as we traditionally organise. However, the bottom level of our proposed holonic organisation are individuals. Each individual is an autonomous person with skills and expertise. They work on a given task to achieve a given goal and intent. “Leader – Leader” is a model that was put forward by David Marquet in his book “Turn the Ship Around” [ship] and the idea defines how individuals should behave within a distributed or holonic system. The focus is on achieving excellence, which means you can tolerate some degree of error as that would allow growth and learning.

For this to work, there must be, first, a common understanding of what is to be achieved, what Marquet calls “clarity”. Everyone understands the goal and what the intent is. Individuals are then given control of their task so they can act. Someone who is an expert in a given area doesn’t need to be told how to do things. They can make the decisions. They own their own projects. They then build the skills to achieve mastery. If a person has the skill to do a task and an understanding of the task, they can be trusted to achieve that task. They become their own leader.

Holacracy

The book “Holacracy” by Brian Robertson [hol] gives a more detailed structure to how a holonic system work. This provides more details than we originally proposed in the Design. In the book, holons are referred to as circles. Each circle has a task but within each circle there are roles, which define the jobs to be done but not who does what job. One person can have many roles in multiple holons. How each holon connects with other holons or forms a holonic system can change over time. Roles within each holon can also change. “Holacracy” has a built in system for handling these changes in the form of governance meetings. Governance meetings looks at the structure and any needs for change can be proposed and acted on. They define new roles, add or subtract holons, and define new policies as needed. There are also internal technical meetings to focus on tasks, which could also mean changes have to be proposed to the governance meeting in reaction to real world events. Technical meetings define actions and metrics. Strategy in a holacracy is more like rules of thumb and act as an overall guiding principle for making decisions. Another concept in Holacracy that I found interesting is the idea of “tension”. A tension is either a problem or an opportunity. In Holacracy, they are both handled the same way. Whether it is a problem or an opportunity, there is a difference between where we are today and where we want to be tomorrow. Another important aspect to Holacracy is the documentation. What holons exists and who has what role can easily be found in the documentation. There is also a constitution that outlines how the system works so everyone knows what to expect and how the system works.

Problems

No system is ever perfect, so, in this section, I want to look at some of the problems associated with holonic systems.

Tragedy of the commons

This is where a common resource gets over used such as overfishing in the North Sea. In a distributed system, it is possible that too many holons end up using a resource and that resource gets over used or destroyed. In our future holonic system we do have a resource management system called Energy Accounting. Through Energy Accounting, resources are tracked and monitored in real time and there are mechanisms that control the use of resources to prevent a tragedy happening. There are holons with the task of managing the resource allocation system.

Loss of direction

The system works if all the holons are working towards the same goal. Without a common understanding, holons can drift away from the overall goal. The system can then fall apart and fail. To prevent this, goals cascade down through the system but each holon has the task of assuring that its sub holons have goals that do align with the overall goal. Governance meetings can be used to address any drift.

Coordination problems

It is possible that two or more holons end up doing the same job or tasks are so complex that one holon has too many sub holons to work with. This is where information sharing comes in. Knowledge bases could be used to share experiences and what has already been done or learnt. Current news update informs holons what others are doing. But there also links between holons that allow information flow so that holons know what other holons are doing and what tasks they are working on. Also, we can take the ideas of governance meetings and tensions to identify the problem and restructure the holonic system as needed.

“Not what we normally do”

“Holonic organisation”, “task focused”, and “tensions” are not the way most people experience organisations. Today, most organisations are hierarchical and people have less autonomy than they would do in a holonic organisation. Some people also enjoy the thrill of being in control of others. This problem comes down to training so people understand how things work but there should also be monitoring so that the tension can be identified and corrected at a governance meetings.

“Do whatever we like”

Sometimes the idea of autonomy can be interpreted as “do whatever we like” as if there were no rules. People can end up abusing the freedom. If that was the case, then the system could fragment and chaos would reign. In a holonic system, that is not how things work. The idea of mission command and intent sets directions and bounds on the autonomy to keep the whole system together and working in the same direction. Actions and behaviours must align with the goals and the intent so we have clear boundaries to autonomy. Documentation, information flow, and governance meetings helps to keep the whole process transparent and to allow holons to self-correct if any deviation from the goal or intent is detected. On an individual level, the leader – leader model helps to guide behaviour. So we have freedom with limits and autonomy without the anarchy.

The Science Behind the Idea

Imagine a workplace with no managers? Could that work? How would that work? There is a strong body of scientific evidence from many decades of study across multiple domains that show that it is actually possible to have such a workplace. Not only possible but they show that such a workplace can outperform a traditional work place with managers. In fact, one can argue that the evidence overwhelmingly show distributed organisations can outperform traditional hierarchical approaches in complex environments. These studies are then backed up by real world examples. In this section, I will just touch, very briefly, on just a small sample of the research and then give a few real world examples.

Distributed systems and societies have been researched for many years. Their application domain is complex systems that are non-linear and difficult, if not impossible, to predict. Distributed multi-agent or holonic systems have been shown to work effectively and efficiently in such domains. In [HMAS], for example, holonic systems were found to emerge naturally in resource restricted domains. Their fractal nature allowed scalable organisation and autonomy combined with cooperation was found to be optimal for cooperation. Research into such systems has shown how such systems can mimic nature [swarm] and have evolutionary advantages as their dynamic nature allows them to adapt rapidly to changes [found]. Simple agents were shown to be able to solve complex problems using local rules, which demonstrates that distributed decision making in complex domains can work. As an example, ants follow two simple rules to find the shortest path to the colony. That can map on to our holons, which are focused on a local tasks but can achieve a global task like sustainability.

Trust and communications have also been shown to be vital for distributed systems to work. In [vt], distributed virtual teams were shown to out perform co-located teams. Trust and communication was an important part of the distributed teams success.

There is a body of research that shows the ideas can successfully be applied to human organisations such as shown in [smo], which reviewed 75 research papers on self managing organisations and looked at the emergence of human resource management in a distributed system without any hierarchy. Successful companies such as Morning Star, with 400 employees, Buurtzog, with 15,000 employees, and Haier, with 80,000 employees, were given as example of self managing organisations (the Teal Landscape Report actually gives over 300 such companies [teal]). However, although such systems can contribute to improved productivity within companies and a better working environment for people they can have problems if tensions are not resolved [prob], highlighting the importance of communication and conflict resolution structures.

As a specific example, I will look at SEMCO. The Brazilian company SEMCO [semco], with over 3,000 employees, shows one example of distributed systems working well. SEMCO uses participatory management and built an environment of trust which resulted in a company that self organised. Employees could choose their work hours, set their own schedule, and job titles. As a result, the company has a low turn over, the employees innovated, and the company saw an increase in profits.

Valve, with over 400 employees, is another company [Valve] that also exemplifies distributed ideas. It has a flat management structure with no formal managers formed in a holonic like organisation. Employees choose their own projects and have a high degree of autonomy. Decision making uses a consensus based system with peer feedback. The system, however does run into problems with conflict resolution which, it can be argued, results from poor goal setting. Despite some problems, Valve is still a highly effective company that encourages innovation and creativity.

My final example is the Joint Special Operations Task Force, which, in the early 2000s, was failing to keep up with Al Qaeda in Iraq. Information flowed up through the chain of command and orders flowed down, which was slow and inefficient. Information was “need to know” and sealed in in silos which hindered effective decision making. General McChrystal realised this was an organisational problem and converted the traditional, military, hierarchical command and control organisation into a decentralised, distributed, network of teams. What McChrystal calls a “team of teams” [team]. The result was an organisation that could handle the complexities of the war in Iraq far more effectively. McChrystal’s method emphasised a “shared consciousness” so everyone knew the goal and situation, communications and information sharing between teams, “empowered execution”, which gave autonomy to sub commanders, as well as a “eyes on, hands off” approach from senior commanders, who acted, as McChrystal puts it, more like gardeners, creating the right environment for the teams to operate in.

What these examples have in common is that they show distributed systems can and do work. Especially in complex and dynamic environments. Trust, information sharing, autonomy, a shared understanding, are important parts to achieving success. However, autonomy needs to be bound with clear goals and a common understanding of the tasks to be performed. For that, information needs to flow.

Reference

[ship] https://libris.kb.se/kts2stckhnhmh2v9?_q=Turn+the+Ship+Around

[hol] https://libris.kb.se/0krb4mwjx6nt4z6k

[team] https://libris.kb.se/fppt815pcnbcdrh1?_q=team+of+teams

[mc] https://www.armypubs.org/adp-6-0-mission-command-command-and-control-of-army-forces/

[HMAS] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389041716300821

[found]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225178457_Holonic_Multiagent_Systems_A_Foundation_for_the_Organisation_of_Multiagent_Systems

[swarm]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11721-007-0004-y

[vt] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206314559946

[prob] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41469-024-00172-2

[smo] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482226000343

[semco] https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/semco-57879811/57879811

[Valve] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354220269_Organization_without_Hierarchy_A_Case_Study_of_Valve_Corporation

[ghost] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine

[teal] https://thetealteam.com/teal-landscape-landing-page

Thursday, 7 May 2026

A Look at Venus Evolution - A Plan for Aranta

A view of the future

Introduction

The Venus Project / Thorium Network has done something interesting. They have released a design for a city called "Venus Evolution - A Plan for Aranta" (VE) by Simon Michaux (actually released in 2024 but I have only just come across it). Jacque Fresco (JF) had a city idea and had built models of such a city but there was never much in the way of an actual design or plan for how it would work. So this is quite an interesting step and hopefully it will lead to something being realised. I thought I would have a look at the document and compare it to the plans we have in EOS. I’ll start off with a look at how the city is actually governed.

Governance

The City, or each city in the long run, is self governing. So the structure is a network with each city as a node in the network. The City itself is governed through a type of consensus, with public engagement and a leadership. When there is a “gap” detected between the direction the leaders have decided and the current reality, a change is proposed and consensus is sort after:

“Public engagement of all members of society in assessing that change is the most effective system that can adapt to change in the most efficient way possible.”

The leaders are not specifically defined but the document does mention that staff will be given a mandate to develop such things as “suitable systems of high-density energy generation” or “new methodology to sustainably grow food” or “full value chain from commodities to manufacture to application”. This suggests that leaders emerge based on tasks and those tasks are based on needs / “gaps” (although I feel it is not really clear).

There is also a Council of Elders, which are experienced community members who serve for five years and help to resolve disputes.

This has a lot of similarities but some differences to the Design. In Design the system is also distributed but instead of networking it is holonic in structure. However, the idea of forming groups to work on tasks in VE fits in with the holonic structure and that follows much the same ideas presented in the Design. The idea of gaps also fits in with holonic structures. Although not stated in the Design, “gaps” are similar to the idea of “tensions” in Holocracy by Brian J. Robertson and, therefore, would fit in with a holonic structure. So, although cities would form networks, the internal structure of a city would fit with EOS’ Design.

Expert Teams

In the Design, society is divided into a technical side and a people side. The technical side is managed by teams of experts who have the authority to make decisions within their domain. Thus, in the Design, power is distributed in a holonic structure. We find something similar in VE with the staff having a mandate, although it is not stated if these “staff” are actually experts in the area they have a mandate in but I imagine hat would be the case.

There is an innovation hub in VE that generates new products. These products are then tested by the people. This suggests to me that new ideas are generated even if there isn’t a demand. In the Design, there is research and development and new ideas explored but new ideas are implemented according to demand from the people. So, people drive what is produced rather than producing then getting the people to decide if it works or not or they will have it or not.

Production

In keeping with the holonic design, communities have production capabilities so they can produce what they need in terms of food and power as well as managing waste. Communities can then work together to form larger holons to produce items that are needed by all the communities but are not economical (in energy or material terms) for just one holon to produce.

There is something similar in VE. VE has “manufacturing hubs”, which are a bit like the communities with production capability in the Design. There is then a material tracking system used through out the system so the system can adapt based on feedback from the tracking system. The Design has a system of expert management. Those expert management teams would monitor production and adjust as needed. The exact technique used is not really developed in the Design as it is up to the experts to decide how to control production rather than enforcing one method such as in VE.

The People

VE doesn’t seem to explicitly make a distinction between the people side and the technological side of a society as in the Design. However, there does appear to be some division in VE. For example, there is a social contract where individuals have a responsibility for their own actions and a respect for others. There is no hierarchical leadership but the council of elders helps to resolve conflicts. VE encourages openness, collaboration, and critical thinking as well as “growing communities”.

On the people side, the Design has a system of direct democracy for the people to decide on new laws etc. The exact form of the government of the people side is up to the people in each community. They could, for example, have elected leaders or a system where anyone can propose a new law and the community decides on if it is enacted. VE starts with a private company owning the City but sees the City evolving with the community of people living in the city. In the end, the people decide how the city is run through a process of collaboration. So, the system in VE would fit in with the design.

VE has a social contract but the Design only has the basic set of Human Rights with is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with the exception of “nation” as there are no nations within the Design). VE’s social contract could be seen as part of the people side. From the Design’s perspective, each community on the people side can have whatever social contract it wishes so long as it doesn’t violate the basic set of Human Rights thus VE’s social contract would fit in with the Design.

Resource Management

Resources such as food, water, transport and power are allocated to people within the City as needed. So there is no money used within the City, in keeping with the moneyless ideas of JF. The resources are managed in a circular fashion, outputs of one process feeds into the inputs of another.

"A cluster of industrial process plants in one site is proposed, where the output products of one plant are the input feedstocks to another plant. All industrial plants would operate in a symbiotic fashion, similar to how an organic farm would operate."

Materials are tracked (using blockchain) and AI is used to optimise the system. So, there is no hierarchical decision making. It is the data in the system that determines the decisions made (I assume that is done to optimise a goal). That means the system is computerised and, I suppose, could run without human involvement beyond receivers of goods and innovators of new products. The use of goods is monitored for helping in the control of the resource allocation.

In the Design, we have teams of experts who manage the resources. Of coarse, that means using AI and the need for monitoring material flows etc. Monitoring and control of materials and production in the Design is done using a system of energy accounting. People allocate energy to production, so the system in the Design is demand driven not centrally planned. The teams of experts that run the system act as problem solvers, supervisors, designers, and managers of the system so the system is not completely under computer control. There is some overlap with VE in that respect as the central innovation hub does fill some of the functions the teams of experts have in the Design.

One difference between the Design and VE it that in the Design, automation and AI is used to reduce and minimise work so people have, as we say “more time to be human”. But work seems to be important in VE. For example, if people want money to interact with the outside world, they have to work and get paid.

Outside the City

There will be a transition time between now and a fully moneyless society planet around. As such, each city or community would need to interact with the money world. In VE a person would have to work to get currency to be able to interact with the outside world. In the Design, that would not be the case as the Design aims to minimise work. In VE, there would be The Prometheus Institute (the innovation hub), which would generate ideas that are sold to produce income. In the Design, we aim to have a number of companies to provide income into the system. These companies would be dispensed with as the system grows. This does mean that people are needed to work in those companies but the money they use for dealing with the outside world isn’t dependent on the work they do.

Science

VE talks of taking a scientific approach to solving problems. However, VE also talks about the corruption of science due to the involvement of money. As one who has worked in research I can understand that problem. When you see research grants tieds to “how many companies would be set up” and “how many people will be employed as a result of the research”, then you realise the “research” is really product development. The corruption then leaves people not being able to trust the science. Is this what the science really says or is it what the money interests want? Breaking away from money would solve that problem but then VE adds in its own corruption;

“We will assemble a large number of unorthodox ideas into one place and support their development with appropriate resources.”

“ The objective is to assemble into one place as many existing unorthodox ideas that are related to the fundamental nature of what energy is and test them …”

VE comes over to me as a bit fixated on anything “unorthodox”, without really specifying what “unorthodox” is. Are we talking “crystal energy” and other such woo?

In the Design, it is the experts that make the decisions. In the case of research, that means the research scientist decide what is researched. That may mean researching something that is “unorthodox”, but that is not imposed from the start.

This idea of deciding before does conflict a bit with what VE says in other places. In the same paragraph in the Prometheus Institute section where it talks about “unorthodox” ideas is the part about staff having a mandate, which suggest the staff can decide what to research.

In Conclusion

There are similarities and overlaps between VE and the Design. Both are distributed and decentralised, for example, but VE isn’t quite holonic but it could fit into a holonic model.

There are, however, a few differences. The Design aims to reduce work but VE doesn’t appear to do that. However, I’m mainly concerned about the decision regarding “unorthodox” ideas as I feel that is forcing a solution on the system. It may well be the case that those ideas will be investigated and implemented but that should be up to the scientist to decide and not forced on the City from the start.

Sunday, 29 March 2026

Holons and Holacracy

Building a sustainable moneyless world

Holons : circles within circles

Introduction

The idea of building a sustainable moneyless future based on holons [koe] has been at the core of EOS’ ideology [design] for the last 20 years (as of writing). It’s odd then that I hadn’t come across “Holacracy” by Brian J. Robertson [hol] until last year and it took until the start of this year for me to read the book. There’s a lot in the book that overlaps with EOS and there is a lot more in the book beyond that. So, I thought I would do an article that both reviews the book and looks at how it fits in with EOS’ ideas for the future.

A quick overview of “Holacracy” by Brian J. Robertson

The book advertises it self as “The revolutionary management system that abolishes hierarchy”, which, I would say, is partly true. Holacracy is revolutionary but we still have hierarchy (at least for now). The system presented in the book is aimed at business management and is a holonic based decentralised and adaptive structure that focuses on governance and processes but not people (and the book emphasises that point multiple times). It is a system where power and authority is distributed to those people who do the work, as the book says “the person on the front line has the authority”. In contrast to the top down way most companies are run. The introduction explains holons and holacracy as circles within circles. In holacracy, a “circle” is a holon.

After introducing holacracy, the book then goes on to talk about governance. Governance is about dealing with the way the holacracy is organised. The book outlines how that works within holacracy and the meeting structure that it uses. The way meetings are structured allows everyone to contribute and help to clearly define roles, authority, and expectations. Note “roles”. In holacracy, roles come with authority and responsibilities. People are then assigned roles. Role information and who has what role is well documented so everyone knows who has what responsibilities and authority within a holon / circle.

Operations are what the company does. They are handled in tactical meetings. And like governance, like governance meetings, give everyone the opportunity to contribute. The book gives examples of how these meetings operate.

One thing I found interesting is the idea of “tension”. In holacracy, a “tension” is either an opportunity or a problem and they are both handled the same way. They are the “gap between how things are and how they could be”, as the book says. People see an opportunity or a problem and they can propose a course of action to resolve the problem or exploit the opportunity. And it is through this process of resolving tensions in the governance and tactical meetings that the organisation adapts and evolves. The dynamic nature of a holacracy is one of its strengths. Decision making is distributed and close to where the action is needed making for quick and well focused decisions. As the book says “[e]ach tension human beings sense is a sign-post telling us how the organization could evolve to better express its purpose”. All this is wrapped up in the constitution, a document that lays out how the holacracy works.

The last part of the book deals with installing a holacracy. As a holacracy is a revolutionary way to organise it can have a steep learning curve and there can be opposition for more conservative minds and from those who don’t want to distribute their power and authority. The book discusses these types of problems.

Here are a few quotes from the book :

“Holacracy moves from structuring the people to structuring the organization’s roles and functions”.

“Evolution is an algorithm; it is an all-purpose formula for innovation”.

“… the focus is always on quickly reaching a workable decision …”

“… an organization’s design is an emergent result of an evolutionary algorithm …”

“… govern the organization’s work and its roles not the people.”

Holacracy and EOS’ Approch

In EOS, a holon is based around a task. Multi-skilled teams are then formed to achieve the given task. The team organises itself and it own work. Anyone can form a holon if they see a task that needs to be done so long as that holon works towards the common goal. This is how the technical side of a technate is managed. Holons within holons within holons all focusing on building a sustainable moneyless society. Holons are also the foundation of building the people side of the technate. This type of holonic structure is very dynamic, holons are formed as and when they are needed and disbanded when the task has been accomplished. Like holacracy, EOS’s system of holons distributes authority, power, and responsibilities throughout the system so that people who know what they are doing make the decisions. However, EOS’s system does differ from holacracy in one major aspect. In holacracy we have more a formal structure with meetings, definitions of rolls, and responsibilities.

Conclusion

I think the more formal structure of holacracy does have its advantages. Structure gives clarity. One of the difficulties with holons is that it is not a familiar form of governance. Thus, people can have trouble understanding it and how it works. Having a more formal structure could help with that. Something that EOS should try?

References

[koe] http://www.panarchy.org/koestler/holon.1969.html

[design] https://eosprojects.com/Design.pdf

[hol] https://www.holacracy.org/

Wednesday, 15 October 2025

… When do we want it

… When do we want it

Building a Better Tomorrow

Introduction

This is the third in a series of three articles about building a future society. The first outlined our choices. The second article was about the type of society that I envision. And this last article is about how we could get there.

There are basically two main approaches to building a better future. We can either plan for the future and so we are ready for when the current system collapses or we can be pro-active and start building today.

Foundation

In the Foundation series, Asimov wrote about a post collapsed galactic civilisation. Before the collapse a mathematician by the name of Hari Seldon was able to predict the collapse using a method he called psychohistory. He also predicted that the coming dark age could be shortened if two foundation were established to preserve knowledge.

Today we face, I would argue, a situation of potential collapse as our current socioeconomic system is fundamentally unsustainable. But even so, there are forces at work that will try and preserve this current socioeconomic system. As a result, any attempt to move to an alternative substantial system will be thwarted, so the argument goes. Thus, all we can do today is set up “foundations” to preserve knowledge, prepare for a collapse, and then wait to the system collapses.

The “foundation” approach is basically the approach taken by Technocracy Inc. and The Venus Project (TVP). The idea goes, at least, back to Thorstein Veblen in his book “Engineers and the Price System”. In his book, Veblen proposed a Soviet of Technicians to take over the means of production in the US, but not by force, as he says :

“… and what will of necessity be the manner of organization which alone can hope to take over the industrial system, following the eventual abdication or dispossession of the Vested Interests and their absentee owners. And, by way of parenthesis, it is always the self-made though reluctant abdication of the Vested Interests and their absentee owners, rather than their forcible dispossession, that is to be looked for as a reasonably probable event in the calculable future. It should, in effect, cause no surprise to find that they will, in a sense, eliminate themselves, by letting go quite involuntarily after the industrial situation gets quite beyond their control.”

Jacques Fresco follows the same idea as he said :

“The transition to a resource-based economy will not happen through violence or revolution. It will happen when the old system collapses under its own weight, and those who are prepared can offer a viable alternative.”

He also pointed out the need for being prepared for the collapse on other occasions :

“The future is not something we wait for—it’s something we design. The question is: Will we be ready when the old system fails?”

and

“The only way to create real change is to make the old system irrelevant. Build the new world in the shell of the old, and when the collapse comes, people will naturally gravitate toward what works.”

“The Venus Project is not about predicting collapse—it’s about preparing for it. When the old system fails, we must be ready with a viable alternative.”

and then he also warned :

“The people who control the world today—bankers, politicians, corporate leaders—do not want change. They profit from scarcity, war, and debt. A resource-based economy would eliminate their power, so they will fight it with everything they have.”

The idea of collapse first and the need to be ready for it can also be seen in some of Technocracy Inc. publications such as :

“We are not waiting for the system to collapse—we are preparing the blueprints for what comes next. When the old system fails, those with a viable alternative will lead the way.”

“The first step is education. People must understand that another system is possible—one that is not based on money, politics, or scarcity.”

The problem I have with this approach is what kind of world will be left after a collapse and would that world be a good bases to build a future sustainable, moneyless, world from? I doubt it. Even if we were to prepare, a collapsed society will be a desperate place and we could see the rise of more irrational ideologies instead.

Evolution

Jacques Fresco makes an interesting point :

“We are not trying to overthrow the system—we are trying to make it irrelevant. The Venus Project is about building a new world in the shell of the old. When the old system collapses, we will be ready with an alternative.”

There is a tendency, I think, to dislike revolution among groups that propose a technocratic like socioeconomic system. You can see that in Technocracy Inc. as well :

“We don’t need revolution—we need engineering. The solution is not to overthrow the system, but to make it obsolete by designing a better one.”

I would also go down the “no revolution” route. I would also agree, we need to actually build an alternative and demonstrate that it can and actually does work. We also need to test the ideas out. The ideas for a better society, whether from me, from Technocracy Inc, or from TVP have never been tested. It would be seriously unwise to overthrow a government and install such an untested alternative. That could lead to an even worse disaster than trying to preserve our current unsustainable system.

The “MillennialProject” is a book written by Marshall T. Savage. It is not really about building an alternative, sustainable, moneyless, socioeconomic system. However, it does argue that our current system is unsustainable and the solution lies off world in colonising the galaxy. To achieve that, Savage proposes a number of steps. The early ones, like forming a Foundation and then sea colonies, relies on working within our current system and then moving in to space. A sort of evolution and it is this idea of evolving to a desired state that I would propose for moving towards a better socioeconomic system.

Basically the idea is similar to TVP and Technocracy Inc. educate, build, and prepare but instead of just waiting for a collapse start linking together, forming networks and gradually move society to an alternative without having to go through the pain of collapse. An example of this is EOS in Sweden. In the Design, they propose a process called stepping stones, where they work within the current system but towards a better system. For example, they have a project centred around a biodome and an urban garden where they are building a sustainable solution and testing it out. They are also forming a network with other EOS groups.

Umeå biodome

The argument against this approach goes back to the idea that those with a vested interest in the current system will stop any move to an alternative. As Jacques Fresco says about TVP :

“Any movement that threatens the status quo will be infiltrated, discredited, or destroyed. Look at what happened to the Occupy Movement—it was crushed because it challenged the financial elite. The Venus Project is a bigger threat, so they will ignore it, ridicule it, or try to co-opt it.”

And that maybe true and what will happen but I still think we should try to evolve society to a sustainable solution regardless. We still need to build something and test it out even if we are waiting for a collapse. We are still educating and preparing so even if the evolution fails we fall back to the waiting for collapse idea anyway. But if we try to evolve society to a sustainable socioeconomic system it might just work, especially if we can point to something and show that a moneyless system does actually work.

One more quote from Technocracy Inc. :

"The future will be built by those who prepare for it. The question is: Will you be part of the solution?".

Wednesday, 17 September 2025

What Do We Want …

Introduction

This is the second part in, what I plan to be, a series of three articles about the future. The first article looked at the choices we have about the future. It seems to me that we, as a species, have great potential to build a better world for all. A sustainable future that is also in balance with the planet. Yet, as it appears to me from my corner of the Universe, the groups and individuals that are successful in driving their idea of the future forward are also building what I would consider a dystopia. From techno-fascism to religious theocracy.

In this second article I thought I would outline my vision of the future. In some ways this could be considered a manifesto for the future.

A Future Society

The Goal : Highest standard of living for the longest time possible

The goal (which originates with Technocracy Inc.) outlines what I think a future society should aim to achieve, the rest that follows is about what I think the goal means when it comes to implementation.

Demarcation between the complex, technical aspects of society, on the one hand, and the social, people, side of society, on the other hand. The technical side effectively forms the life support systems that keeps society running such as mining, farming, production, distribution, and housing as well as health care, for example. The social, people, side deals with people to people interactions, ethics, morality, and spirituality, for example.
Expert management of the technical side of society. From the goal, I would argue, the highest standard of living can be achieved by the application of science and engineering to society. That means society will be hi-tech. A hi-tech, complicated, society has many different parts which takes many years to learn and understand before a person can make a competent decision in a given area. Therefore, this vision of a future society calls for teams of skilled domain experts to manage the areas that they have knowledge and expertise in (which makes this system a type of technocracy). This approach will allows us to build a substantial society that minimises work through robotics and automation and thereby increase individual freedoms. Giving people more time to be human. It also allows us to build a world based around what people can do, not what they look like, their gender, sexual orientation, or the clothes they ware. But even so, to benefit in this future society, you just need to be a sentient life form. It’s a society that works for all, regardless.
Direct democracy for the social side. Not all aspects of society have a correct technical solution. We propose that people would live in communities where they would use direct democracy to manage the social side of the community (people themselves are the best experts to manage people related issues). Following from the goal, individual freedoms are to be guaranteed. Freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to life, etc.
A moneyless socioeconomic system. This also follows from the goal. Sustainability is built right into the system from the start. We can’t maintain a high standard of living for the longest time possible in a society that is unsustainable like today society. Today’s socioeconomic system is a money based, for profit, system, that relies on infinite growth with finite resources. Instead, we would need an alternative resource allocation system. I propose a system of Energy Accounting as a means of managing the supply of goods within a society. In an Energy Accounting System we measure the production capacity of society in energy terms. The people can then choose the allocation of production capacity through the allocation of energy credits. The energy credits represents each individual’s share of the production capacity in energy terms. This also leads to a system that is extremely equal. Everyone has the same access as everyone else to the resources available.
A holonic socioeconomic structure. We propose a non-nation centric structure built around communities, network of communities, and projects. This would form a “building block like” structure where people would work locally within their own community on various projects. Projects could link up with other projects and communities with other communities in a network that would lead to a world around system. Using a holonic structure is a form of biomimetics, so we are emulating how nature works. It is also an example of applying engineering and science to society. This type of structure would allow for a great deal of diversity. Different groups of communities having their own culture and language as well as laws. Each community will deicide how much or how little it interacts with the technology side. So, we could find very primitive communities that want to be free from technology to all embracing transhumanists communities and anything in-between.
No private ownership. As all the means of production come under the management of experts, ownership makes no sense. Instead we would have a form of user rights. Some items such as personal items and housing would have exclusive user rights but most items people will have the right to use as they need such as ground vehicles.
Environment design. We aim to design environments not only to allow people to develop to their full potential but also to discourage aberrant behaviour. Just removing money and making a more equal society where we can meet people’s needs could reduce crime dramatically, for a start. But environment design also means building a world with a high standard of living for people but sill balancing our needs with those of the planet. So even nature, and all life, befits from this future society.

Examples

This approach to society hasn’t been tried before. The closest real society I could find is the Inca empire, which was a moneyless society, but otherwise is quite far from my vision. But science fiction does provide a few examples that have some characteristics of the type of society I envision.

United Federation of Planets of Star Trek

“The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.” - Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek TNG.

Gene Roddenberry was influenced by a number of ideologies such as secular humanism. But in the design of the United Federation of Planets, some similarities between the Technocracy movement in the US and the United Federation of Planets can be seen. Both are moneyless, hi-tech, societies, for example. The United Federation of Planets also has similarities to the vision I present here. There is a high emphasis on education and self improvement, for example, which would be needed in a hi-tech society that values science and engineering. The decision making process is based on expert opinion and positions of importance and power are achieved through individual expertise and the contribution that they make.

There are some differences, however. The United Federation of Planets still maintains a democratically elected government. Society isn’t divided between a technical side and a people side. It is also a hierarchical society rather than a holonic society. It is a post scarcity society but doesn’t appear to use a resource allocating system such as energy accounting, so in that regard, it differs from my vision.

How the economy works in the United Federation of Planets is never fully explored beyond being moneyless. One could surmise that there will be a great deal of computer control. However, I would imagine that such a society is going to require some kind of expert management to be able to keep it running.

Another aspect of the United Federation of Planets is it’s level of freedom, opportunity, and equality. Like in my vision, it only matters what you can do and the effort you put in in the United Federation of Planets. This can also be seen in the high level of diversity, where people from all kinds of backgrounds are accepted.

“… the prejudices people feel about each other disappear when they get to know each other.” Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek.

Moonbase Alpha

By JefferyWright

“And you are not political on Alpha?”

“No, we’re not!” - Zamara and John Koenig, Space 1999

In Space 1999, the moon is blasted out of orbit in a nuclear accident. The moon then drifts (with the aid of space warps) from one star system to another. Located on the moon is Moonbase Alpha, whose inhabitants now have to survive in a hostile environment.

The governing structure on the moonbase resembles, in some ways, my vision for the future. It is a technological society reliant on science and engineering and is ruled over by a base commander who has a number of technical experts, and a computer, to aid him. It is not quite a dictatorship as the commander and the various senior staff members arrive at their decisions through the application of science and engineering, making it a type of technocracy. Survival is the main focus of the moonbase’s inhabitants, which means resources are allocated as needed, so it can be seen as a moneyless society.

The governance also differs a bit from my vision. It is a bit more militaristic in it’s structure with a hierarchy and an overall commander in charge rather than a holonic structure, where power is distributed. There is no split between the people side and the technological side and there is no democratic element. There is diversity on Moonbase Alpha in terms of people but the culture is uniform.

Trantor

Trantor is a planet wide city and the capitol of Asimov’s Galactic Empire in the Foundation series of books. The planet is almost totally covered in domes, each with it’s own society underneath. In some ways Trantor is similar to a holonic structure. Each community under each dome is autonomous to a degree and has it’s own specialisation that contributes to the whole. Governance could be seen as a nested structure, similar to a holonic structure, that combines together to produce a planet around governance. In this way, Trantor is an example of the holonic structure that I envision for a future society. However, it doesn’t fit perfectly.

Trantor differs from my vision in that it doesn’t appear to have feedback loops, which would be needed for it to be a true holonic structure. The whole governance is still top down for the planet and the Empire as a whole with the emperor at the top. Rather than bottom up as it would be in a holonic structure.

However, Trantor is still a hi-tech society. It is at the centre of a Galactic, space fairing, Empire.

Summary

I envision a future society that has it’s roots in the application of science and engineering to society. A sustainable society that balances our needs with those of the planet. A decentralised society that is diverse and equal where people have more freedom. You can find out more about this vision of the future in The Design.

How can such a society be built? That will be the subject of the next article …

Sunday, 7 September 2025

The Future We Deserve

Introduction

We have the world we have today because of the actions and inactions of people in the past. Similarly, the future will be the future it will be because of the actions and inactions of people today.

The world we live in today isn't really the world that I, and others, envisioned 30 - 50 years ago. It seems to me that our imagines of the future was much brighter than it turned out to be. This article is one of three that aims to look at what we have, what we could have, and how we could still achieve a better future.

A Future So Dark

There are many actors in the past and active today that are or have been pro-active in building, what I would consider, a dystopia. From religious fanatics to techno-fascists [tf]. And they have had success. Take religious fanatic groups such as the Taliban [tali] in Afghanistan, who came to power for the second time in 2021. Since then there has been a worsening situation for many Afghans. Human rights abuses are up. Religionous fanatics are not just limited to Afghanistan. They are pro-active from Iran to West Africa and onwards, including Europe and the US [xright, xtrump], where the religious right has been pro-active in implementing their idea of the future [2025].

But it is not just religious groups that are proactive in creating a dystopia. Dark enlightenment [dark] has appeared to have influenced American politics [darkp] with its dystopian, anti-egalitarian, “Snow Crash” [snow], vision of the future. Dark enlightenment can be seen as a type of fascism. And it appears, at least to me, that neo-fascism [neof] is on the rise with right wing popular parties gaining, or partly gained, power [rise] in many democracies such as in Sweden, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Finland, and France to name but a few. The Republican party under Trump, in the US, could be seen as having some anti-democratic and neo-fascists ideological elements [trumpf, soul].

Neo-liberalism could be seen as another ideology that is creating a dystopia. It could be argued that neo-liberalism has resulted in unsustainable damage to the environment and decrease in individual freedoms, and an increase in authoritarianism, exploitation, and inequality as it put profit above all else and making billionaires richer [scidir, scipsy, work, profit].

Techno-fascism [musknazi] is something that a number of influential individuals and organisations seem to promote such as Musk and J. D. Vance in the US [boar, kyle]. Some of the actions of the Trump government could be seen in terms of techno-fascism and Musk’s support of right wing parties would fit as well [afd].

A Future So Bright

On the other side, there are visions for a brighter “Star Trek” like future that people have been working on. We can start with the Technocracy movement [techn] in the US. This reached its peak in 1933 with people like Howard Scott, Thorstein Veblen, and Harold Loeb in the US and Peter Palchinsky in Europe. Of all the early technocracy organisations from that time, the only one to survive into the 21^stcentury is technocracy Inc. Technocracy envisioned a moneyless society of extreme equality. There are a number of offshoots of technocracy that offer a similar vision of the the future. One of the most well known is The Venus Project (TVP) [tvp]. TVP was started by Jacque Fresco, who was a former member of Technocracy Inc. TVP promotes a future, technological, moneyless society and a resource based economy.

Another technocratic organisation that actively works toward building a better future is the Earth Organisation for Sustainability (EOS) [eos]. Based in Sweden, EOS promotes a moneyless, sustainable, socioeconomic system based on the application of science to society where our needs are balanced with the needs of the planet.

Another vision of the future is the Millennial Project proposed by Marshall T. Savage, which is, today, represented by the Living Universe Foundation. The vision of the future sees humans expanding into the Universe, colonising planets. [luf]

Going the Wrong Way

It maybe a bit of a subjective opinion (and, perhaps, even a false dichotomy), but allow me anyway; given the choice we have between the dark future or the bright future, we appear to be choosing the dark future. At least, those who want to build a dark future, as it seems to me, are more proactive and more successful in their aims than those who wish to promote a brighter future. Why? What went wrong with the bright future that was envisioned in the 70s? In his video, “Why doesn’t 2025 feel like “the future”” [why], struthless puts forward three possibilities:

Extremists with political power and wealth that doesn’t promote or act in ways to benefit people as whole.
Negative media bias.
Unfettered capitalism.

Techno-fascism, pointed out earlier, would fit into point 1. When struthless mentions point 1, he also points out that the people who want to build a brighter future are also the sort of people that doesn’t want political power. This, I think, is another reason why. Technocracy Inc., for example, didn’t want politicians to become members. Politics is about people’s opinions and there manipulation where as people who want a brighter future are often focused on technical, practical solutions not people’s opinions. I think there is also a sense that politics will water down or distort the ideas.

The second point is about media’s tendency to sell the negative but are not interested in presenting solutions or ideas as that makes money (perhaps they don’t have solutions?), which leads into the third point.

The current socioeconomic system is all about making profit at whatever cost. Not about developing the best society for all or building a better future (if we get anything better then that is as a side effect not as a goal). I would argue that we are unlikely to get the bright future that we want within the current socioeconomic systems. We have to think of another system. The current system is too focused on profit making and is fundamentally unsustainable given its need for infinite growth with finite resources.

I would add another reason; in my experience, there was an expectation that the future was going to be as it was envisioned in the 70s without having to do anything to create it. It was inevitable, so we didn’t act. But others did and they build the future they wanted. So, we ended up with supermarkets instead of colonies on Mars. In the end we got the future we deserved through our own inaction. But I don’t think it is too late to build a better future. But what future? In the next article I aim to layout a vision for a brighter, sustainable, future, for all.