Failed

Introduction

We hit another heat record this year. According to NASA, July was the hottest month on record. Heat record we recorded all around the planet. And the heat records continued on in to the second half of 2023. This all shouldn’t come as a surprise as we haven't really done anything about global climate change. We have done “something”, make it look like we have tried but I would argue that all that we have done is try to solve the problem using the same thinking that caused the problem in the first place, not really dealing with the problem itself. Effectively, we just green wash things. If we actually wanted to get to grips with the climate change problem and really deal with global warming then we would have to look at the root causes of the problem; the free market, capitalist based socioeconomic system we have. We would need to look at alternatives.

Where to go?

The current socioeconomic system we have has created a lot of benefits for people over time but in doing so it has also set us on a path of self destruction. We would like to maintain as many of the benefits as we can but avoid the more negative aspects of our current system.

EOS proposes a system that aims to maintain as high a standard of living for as long as possible. A high standard of living for everyone, not just a select few, and for as long as possible means sustainability is built in at the core of the system. The system starts with seeing society as highly complex. So complex it will take many years to study and understand just a part of it. This means that to manage a future society we would need teams of experts taking a scientific and engineering approach. So we start there, dividing society into a technical side and a people side with teams of experts managing the technical side. Scientists and engineers but also accountancy, medical personnel, cleaners, farmers and so on. Each with their own specialisation, each contributing to managing a society to achieve the overall goal.

The system proposed by EOS is also a moneyless system. One of the major problems with our current system is the drive for profit. Profit seeking behaviour pushes infinite growth with finite resources at the expense of the very planet we depend on. Removing money would remove this destructive behaviour. But we will still have resources that need to be allocated to talks. The way EOS proposes to do that is to use a system of energy accounting. We need energy to do anything and we have a certain amount of energy every year that we can allocate to doing things, like producing things. So, we allocate the energy we have available to people and let them allocate the energy to production of items they want. Those items available will be produced in a system managed by skilled experts so as the items are produced in a sustainable way. Thus, we can balance our needs with those of the planet.

In such a system we can automate as much work as we can, minimising the need for work and giving people more time to be human as people don’t need to work to make a living. We can minimise production by making items last longer. We can minimise the amount of items produced by planning and sharing resources (think about cars; what do cars do most of the time and how can we better utilise cars?). Minimising in such a way will allow us to still maintain a high standard of living but lessen our impact on the planet making the system sustainable. The system is also rooted in the application of science and is holonic in nature. So, it’s an open and free society that uses technology to benefit everyone but still maintains a balance with nature. “Balance” is a keyword.

Examples of a future sustainable society

We have not built such a moneyless system managed by skilled experts before so we can’t really point to an example of this type of system today. But fiction does provide us with some examples of societies that have some characteristics of the future World we would like to build. Here is a quick look at a couple; Space 1999 For those of us who were lucky enough to have our childhood in the 1970, we might remember a fascinating sci-fi series called

Space 1999.

Moonbase Alpha, Space 1999

Set on a moon that has been blown out of Earth’s orbit and set a drift in space. The inhabitants of moonbase Alpha have to survive in a hostile universe as the moon is transported from one star system to another via a network of space warps. 

The society on moonbase Alpha is very technical and run by technical experts. Dr. Hellen Russell, in charge of the medical section, Tony Anholt, in charge of security, David Kano, responsible for the computer systems, and Alan Carter, pilot to name but a few. They are all under the command of John Koening with Paul Morrow as second in command. The society is open and decisions are made are decisions where each expert can put forward their opinion. The society is hierarchical, rather than holonic as EOS’ system, but divided into technical domains, like the system proposed by EOS. The economy of moonbase Alpha is not really explained but doesn’t appear to be money based. Production is limited but meets the needs of the inhabitants. The base is also physically limited as everything on the moon outside the base is uninhabitable. Everything produced is maintained within the base which means everything must be recycled and with no waste.

Star Trek

Star Trek TNG

The Federation in Star Trek is another example of a technological organised society. The society is also moneyless. The exact workings of the economy is not fully explained but given the technological nature and the importance of science one can imagine it would be some form of energy accounting. If we look at the starship Enterprise, we again see a society that is organised around technical areas run by technical experts. Mr. Spock as science office, Montgomery “Scotty” Scott, responsible for engineering, Nyota Uhura, in charge of communications, and Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy as chief medical office, for example. All under the command of Captain James T. Kirk. The society is still hierarchical but discussions are still held and the opinion of the experts taken into account.

Do you want this kind of future?

If so, then we need to start building it. It won't happen by itself and given the failure we have seen regarding climate change, we need to be more proactive. We would need people who agree with and understand what is proposed. Scientists and engineers but also experts in other fields need to form groups and clubs to start building in the real world. Join up with like minded people. We would need funding, even if we want to build a moneyless society we are not there yet.

We need to start acting. Start doing. If we don’t, then we wont get this king of future. Fiction also provides us with plenty of examples of other types of societies. In the end the choice is ours. Build a better society or settle with what is coming.

EOS is one example of people working together to try and build a better future. Want to join us? Why not start your own group and form a network with us? Much of the ideas are explained in the Design but we are open to discussion if you want to learn more.

What Have We Done?

 

 

The World on Fire

Introduction

Apparently scientists are “shocked” or “scared” at the ever increasing rate of climate change. This year alone we have seen huge forest fires, like in California or in Siberia, flash floods, like those in Germany, China, or in Tennessee. We have even seen powerful tornadoes in the Czech Republic. But I don’t see any reason to be “shocked” by all this. Perhaps “scared” but not “shocked”. It is not as if this hasn’t been predicted. Scientists have been warning that this would happen for decades. Even if things are happening faster than expected that should have been given as a possibility. The climate is, after all, a non-linear, chaotic system and such systems can suddenly flip from one state to another state. Such a change is called a phase shift.

Despite all the warnings and all the evidence we haven't actually done anything to prevent the current changes have we? I’m sure we are all buying “environmentally friendly” stuff. We are all using some kind of “bio fuel” and our government has made all kinds of environmental agreements and introduced schemes like carbon tax. Yet, all that hasn’t really done much has it? It’s like throwing a bucket of water of the fires in California or Siberia; pissing in the ocean. And just to add to the problem, we have been busy with climate change denial and other activities to counter any advance we might make.

What’s the Problem?

Is the problem too little carbon tax or what stuff we buy? I would say no. And if that is so, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that we are not having much effect on preventing climate change. I would argue that the problem is to do with the way we do things in general; with our whole socioeconomic system.

Our socioeconomic system is a debt based money system that aims to grow exponentially with finite resources. This leads to an amazing advancement in human civilisation but it is also fundamentally unsustainable. We produce more and more stuff and in doing so produce more and more waste as goods are not made to last. We end up over exploiting the planets resources and creating the conditions for climate change as well as many other problems. So, if we really want to do something about climate change then we need to change our current socioeconomic system to something sustainable.

An Alternative?

There are probably many alternative socioeconomic systems to our current one. But I would propose one where we can maintain a high standard of living but one where we also balance our needs with those of the planet. We could do this given the huge waste we have in our current system. Think about cars, just as an example. Cars spend most of their time standing still in a car park or garage or just by the side of the road. Most of them are not actually doing something useful most of the time. Now imagine a system where cars are used for 80% of the time. We could do that if we shared cars. If I was to take my car to work in the morning I wouldn't just park it and leave it for the day until I need to drive home again. Instead, the car could be used by someone else to drive them to work or for other tasks. At the end of the the car would be ready and waiting to take me home again. So long as the car is there when I need it, does it matter if others also use it? If we had such a system we would need far less cars. If we had a system that minimised transport needs (by, for example, work from home) we could cut down the amount of cars even more. If we also made cars to last, we would not have to make so many new ones each year. If we did this for as many products as possible then we could drastically reduce our impact on the planet yet still maintain a high standard of living.

We can’t have such a system in our money based world, so I would propose a system without money. To do that we would still need some way to account for all the materials and energy we have in the system. We could do that by using exergy. Exergy is a measure of how useful the energy we have is (we can’t always use all the energy we have) but it can also be used to measure materials. If we use exergy we would have, what I would call, an energy accounting system. We could then allocate production capacity to people so they decide what gets produced or what services they can use. As the capacity to produce or consume a service will take energy and materials we can use exergy as a way to allocate these to the people.

But for such a system like that to work it will need experts to run it. The whole system is complex and is made of systems within systems. Just to understand how one part of it works can take many years of study or experience. So, we would need teams of experts from different disciplines to run the system, calculate out the exergy, allocate production capacity, and keep things running.

Such a system would also need to balance our needs with those of nature; it will be sustainable by design from the beginning. Again, we will need experts to design the system and the systems within the systems. Cars are just one example of that but cars are part of a transport system. If we think about how a transport system works and what it aims to do, we can start thinking about how to build such a system so it has minimum impact on nature. We wont have to worry about profit or cost, we just need to know if we have the energy and the resources to achieve the goal. But a transport system are part of cities as well, so we would have to think of transport within the context of cities and the other systems that make a city.

The system I propose is really about engineering society. It takes a scientific approach to what we do. Scientific because we need a good understanding of how nature works in order to balance our needs with those of the planet and still maintain a high standard of living. Science is demonstrably the best system for understanding the world. What I propose is engineering society as it is about applying science to society.

A Way Forward

The Bio Dome that EOS built

I say “I propose” but this is not just my proposal. There are a number of groups around the world working on similar ideas. One of the more well known groups is the Venus Project in the US but the proposal I have just introduced here is put forward by a group called EOS, which is based in Sweden. The full proposal can be found here. But a summery is also presented here and here.

If we want a sustainable future, a future that balances our needs with those of the planet, a sustainable future, then we need to act ourselves. It is not going to build it self. We also ready have people acting. EOS has not only worked on a proposal but has started to test some of the ideas out. From simple projects like building a bio dome, EOS is now working on building a test community. But more needs to be done. More people and more finances (irritatingly for an organisation that wants a moneyless world).

Zeitgeist III - Moving Forward

Last night EOS had a showing of "Zeitgeist III - Moving Forward", the latest film from Peter Joseph, at Umeå University. The event went really well and we had 42 people along, some stayed for a chat afterwards. I think I would class this as the best ZM film so far. It does a good overview of our socio-economic system and human nature.  Most of the film I would agree with with. Nice to see that in the human nature part the film pointed out that human behaviour results from a combination of environment and genes but it did place more emphasis on the environment. On the violence part; yes, children of violent parents tend to behave violently themselves but does such behaviour only result from the environment? Also, we have a body of evidence that shows that past societies had more violence than today's (see Steven Pinker's TED talk).

The film gave a good overview of The Venus Project design for a city, although I had hoped for more details. The animations in the film ranks among the best! Given the title, I though it a bit odd it didn't cover more about moving forward such as a transition plan but then we do have a number of groups, including EOS, working on moving away from our current socio-economic system to a moneyless one. Another odd thing in the film; given the emphasis on science applied to society and the central roll of testing in science and the fact that Jaqcue Fresco mentioned the need for testing in the film yet the film didn't say anything about testing out any alternative to our current system.

Overall, very well worth seeing!

 

The ZM III Showing, Umeå University, 15 January 2011.