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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 …

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^st century 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:

1. Extremists with political power and wealth that doesn’t promote or act in ways to benefit people as whole.

2. Negative media bias.

3. 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.

References

[tf] https://liberality.net/what-is-technofascism-part-one.html

[tali] https://www.nytimes.com/article/who-are-the-taliban.html

[xright] https://theconversation.com/the-christian-right-is-taking-over-america-according-to-talia-lavin-but-what-is-the-best-response-253232

[xtrump] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-energizes-conservative-christians-with-religious-policies-and-assaults-on-cultural-targets

[2025] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do

[musknazi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw

[snow] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

[neof] https://www.cadtm.org/The-Age-of-Neofascism-and-Its-Distinctive-Features

[trumpf] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/trump-fascism-what-to-do

[dark] https://time.com/7269166/dark-enlightenment-history-essay/

[rise] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66056375

[soul] https://peri.umass.edu/wp-content/uploads/joomla/images/publication/Palley-June-2021b.pdf

[tvp] https://www.thevenusproject.com/

[techn] https://technocracynow.com/about-technocracy

[eos] https://eosprojects.com/

[darkp] https://cascadeinstitute.org/dark-enlightenment/

[scidir] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154620300905

[scipsy] https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12438

[work] https://www.workers.org/2023/01/68835/

[profit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_over_People

[boar] https://theboar.org/2025/03/founders-funders-fuhrers-is-techno-fascism-on-the-rise/

[kyle] https://kylechayka.substack.com/p/the-history-of-techno-fascism

[afd] https://www.dw.com/en/german-election-why-elon-musk-is-promoting-the-far-right-afd/a-71186763

[luf] https://luf.org/

[why] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zZ3uWQyx5w

The Beginning ...

 

We have the potential to build something better ...

Introduction

 

President Trump

 

On the 5^th November 2024, the US electorate decided to vote Donald Trump to the highest office in the land. He is the first convicted felon to be elected president (imagine! If only Nixon had known!). He has been convicted in a US court of falsifying business records and of liable but did not serve a prison sentence. Instead, he ended up pardoning himself. He also pardoned several people involved in insurrection. Trump has also been accused of rape and is the first president to be impeached twice. He can be seen as anti-American and anti-West and pro-Russian [rus]. Since elected, he has used his presidential powers to make a number of controversial decisions such as ending DEI programmes, reevaluating foreign aid, and closing government databases. He has been supportive of Christian Nationalists [cn] (not that Christian Nationalists are Christian [cn2] nor are they nationalists as Christianity in the US is more like the worship of money [cm] and the Christian Nationalist don’t exactly support the US constitution). His pro-Russian position makes war more likly [war] as he proposes defeat for the West, NATO, and Ukraine in his "peace plan" for Ukraine. And he has the support of the majority of the American people [sup] to do all this.

Along with Trump comes a set of controversial figures. For example, Elon Must has connections with far right movements and performed a Nazi salute at a Trump rally. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence, is considered a threat to national security [DNI]. Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of State for Defense, supports far right ideologies and has been accused of sexual assault as well as being accused of using funds from a non-profit for himself [ph].

And there is more but I think that is enough to get the point; to many, Trump and his associates are not the best people for the US nor the West and they have come at the worst time for the US and the West.

The End if Nigh

“… it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;” - Winston Churchill.

To some people, to have had such a set of controversial figures elected to rule the US is understood as a failure of democracy [failed]. But has democracy failed? Democracy is the rule of the people. But the US doesn’t have a true democracy. Like many democratic countries, the people don’t rule but representatives of the people rule. And those representatives are elected every few years or so with the one that gets the most votes taking office. There is nothing in the definition of either democracy or representative democracy that says that the government so elected would be competent, moral, ethical, or even work for the best interests of the country. One could argue that when it comes to how society works, many politicians in democratic countries have little clue about things. So, I would argue that democracy has not failed in America. This is just part of how it works. If we actually want a competent government then we need people in charge that have expert domain knowledge of how the system works. And that would be a type of technocracy.

Another argument I have seen is that Trump represents the beginning of the end of the US [end] or even the West. Is it? People tend to be here and now thinkers. We tend to think what is happening now as being all important. In some ways it is but it is also part of a bigger picture and we need to see that too. I would say it is too early to tell if we are seeing the beginning of the end. Empires do fall but they can also stumble and get back up again.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Trump is not the problem but only the symptom of a deep rooted problem that has plagued the US for a long time. Only 79% of US citizens are literate [lit] with over half of Americans having a reading age worse than a 12 year old (the poor level of education in the US is evident to those of us who have interacted with many Americans on the Internet). Poverty [pov] is about 14% but social security is paid out to 27.8 million Americans to keep them out of poverty. The US also has many social problems [prob]. With internal problems such as those, one could be forgiven for thinking America is on the way out. But we will have to wait and see if this is really the end of America (personally, I'm expecting a mixed bag. Some good stuff and some bad stuff including damage done to the US and the West).

The Future is Bright

An easy life is not our friend.

It is not just the US where we find problems. We have problems the world around. Global warming (we all remember the fires in California?), resource problems, poverty, to name but a few. But could all this actually work to our advantage?

Jacque Fresco used to argue that the current system has to collapse before we can build something better but maybe we don’t have to go that far. When things are easy and we are comfortable, we tend not to want to act. Even when we see the danger before us. Global warming, for example, we have known about for over 100 years but so far haven't acted (one could argue that Trump’s government is even acting in the opposite direction to what is needed). But Trump’s government and the effects of global warming, just to name a couple of problems, are starting to make things a bit uncomfortable. That could be good. We have a potential here to move in a better direction as people might seek out alternatives to the current system. And EOS offers such a system [EOS]. The more people and the more resources we have the greater our potential becomes to build a sustainable, moneyless, "Star Trek" world. At the very least, we could start building a Foundation for the future to act as seeds for a brighter future. So, if we are seeing the end of the US and the collapse of the West, we could also, potentially, be seeing the start of a brighter future. Trump could be the catalyst that we need. The potential is there but we need to make it happen. We need to act. Will we? If we don't, we will only have ourselves to blame.

"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." - Those Who Remain by G. Michael Hopf,

 

References

[DNI] https://democrats.org/news/tulsi-gabbard-is-a-threat-to-americas-national-security/

[ph] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/pete-hegseth-5-controversial-facts-about-the-new-us-secretary-of-defense/articleshow/117542597.cms?from=mdr

[sup] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/02/09/trumps-approval-rating-at-53-in-new-poll-but-americans-are-less-sure-about-elon-musk/

[rus] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/12/trump-russia-putin-fbi

[cn] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/trumps-executive-order-anti-christian-bias

[cm] https://medium.com/backyard-theology/christianitys-love-of-money-ed6cd56a5e97

[cn2] https://www.johnwhitsett.com/blog/authentic-christianity-versus-christian-nationalism 

[war] https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2014086/donald-trump-making-world-war

[failed] https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/guest-commentary-america-failed-democracy/

[end] https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/11/10/trump-act-ii-spells-the-end-of-the-american-empire/

[lit] https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/post/literacy-statistics-2024-2025-where-we-are-now

[pov] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-283.html

[EOS] https://eosprojects.com/

[prob] https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/examples-of-social-issues-in-the-us/

The Expert in the Room Problem

 

Introduction

Peter Joseph did a podcast in December 2024 called “Revolution Now! Episode 53”. Somehow I managed to miss all the previous episodes but I caught this one and listened to the whole thing.

The first part was a good explanation of why we need to explore the idea of an alternative socioeconomic systems. For me, this is a bit of preaching to the choir as I’ve been looking into this sort of stuff since the 1990s. To me, the unsustainable nature of our current system is obvious but to anyone new to the subject, the first part of Peter Joseph’s podcast is worth listening to.

The part that interests me the most starts around the 49:22 mark, so I will concentrate a bit more on that.

Self organising and all that jazz

The thing that caught my attention most with Peter Joseph’s podcast is the overview that he gave of a possible future socioeconomic system. What was proposed has a lot of similarities that the system proposed by the Earth Organisation for Sustainability (EOS), which is based in Sweden, and is laid out in The Design. To start with Peter Joseph talks about self organising distributed, decentralised, systems. At 51:39 he states:

“Efficiency

Efficiency emerges through decentralised cooperative networks, with all knowledge shared, infused with direct democratic mechanisms to arrive at economic action.”

EOS also proposes a decentralised cooperative network. Not much is given in the podcast about the network topology however. The impression I got was it was a full connected network. EOS, however, does present more details about the network topology. In EOS’s Design the network is a holonic system. Holonic systems form part – whole constructs, similar to what we find in nature. These type of cooperative decentralised systems can work well if a number of criteria are met:

• Goals

• Communications

• Rules

The system has to have an overall goal. Peter Joseph doesn’t actually say anything as such about goals but goals can be inferred. EOS, however, explicitly states the goal as:

Highest standard of living for the longest time possible

That goal is borrowed from Technocracy Inc. and I would imagine that the goal of Peter Joseph’s network would be much the same (or at least compatible).

Communications is the next important attribute that self organising systems need to function. Peter Joseph talks about feedback loops and certainly feedback in such systems is vital for them to work. However, there is more to communications than just feedback. New ideas need injecting into the system as well, for example.

The last thing that self organising systems need is a set of rules to work with. At the very least they will have the laws of physics to work with but a network of human communities would need other rules in common. Such as a basic set of human rights.

These aspects of self organising systems weren’t explored (although I can infer them as “natural law standards” and “scientific analysis” is mentioned) in the podcast probably because the last section was really a short introduction to a complex subject. I hope, however, Peter Joseph will go into these in more details in later podcasts.

An example of how these three aspects enable self organisation can be seen in the following video. In the video the metronomes fail to synchronise at first. They have rules (the laws of physics) and they have a goal (to measure time) but there is no communication channel. However, when they are put up on to two cans, the vibration form each is able to influence the others. With communications established, the metronomes synchronise automatically.

An other interesting overlap is the presentation of food production as an example. That is something that EOS has also been looking at. EOS was part of a cooperative project to build a biodome in Sweden. 

 

The biodome built by EOS in Umeå, Sweden

 

The technical aspect

Now we come to the bit I have most problem with. Both Peter Joseph’s ideas and those presented by EOS aim for a hi-tech society. Both see the system being demand driven rather than centrally planned. Both look at efficiency using science driven analysis and AI. Both see the system as being open source. So far so good. But then we come to complexity. Peter Joseph makes the point at about 54:12 that as participation grows complexity grows. Yet, the system proposed by Peter Joseph relies on democratic mechanisms. I would argue that that is going to require management by technical experts if this is to work. Peter Joseph does make a quick reference to the need for management and how that can be worked out later. I would argue that this point is so fundamentally important that it needs to be worked in from the start.

If the system is to use scientific analysis then it will need people to understand that scientific analysis. If the system is to have technology, then it will need people who can understand that technology and can design and implement it. If the system is to have zero waist then it will need to be able to efficiently manage its resources and that will take knowledge and expertise.

The problem with knowledgeable experts is they tend to be in the minority but the majority, who have a poor understanding of the subject, tend to over estimate their abilities. Thus, you will most likely get wrong decisions being confidently made and correct decisions being overruled if you leave the decision making to the masses. This is known as the expert in the room problem. Imagine needing brain surgery and the brain operation being decided by the masses who have no idea about brain surgery. How confidant would you feel about going under the knife?

You can still have the people participating in what a society does and what is produced. But at the level of a customer. The people can demand what is to be produce but behind the scenes you will need a team of experts making the decisions to get the whole thing to work. This problem is addressed from the beginning in the Design preposed by EOS.

This system will also need regulation and control. Both Peter Joseph’s and EOS’s systems are moneyless systems but there still needs a control mechanism. As they say, you can’t control what you can’t measure and from what I see there is no measurement system in what Peter Joseph proposes. There is a mention of time banks, which is something that could work on a small scale but this system wont take into account the energy and material needs of the system. And as the system becomes more complex, I would expect a system using time banks to run into problems. EOS has a system energy accounting. All systems require energy to work and we can measure the energy we have available and what we need to produced items. If we allocate the energy to the people, this becomes a mechanism to allow people to decide what gets produced. It also allows us to monitor demand and production and to manage the system. The energy accounting system will also scale as the system becomes more complex.

Conclusion

Much of what Peter Joseph proposes is compatible with the Design proposed by EOS. However, there is a need of expert management behind the system. This need for expert management will become more important as the system becomes more complex. This is something that is central to The Design by EOS but appears to be an after thought in Peter Joseph’s proposal.