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.

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/