When is energy not energy?

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

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

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

What about other forms of energy?

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

Well, no!

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

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

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

Energy in the Design

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

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

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

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

References

[SafKin] E Kinne-Saffran and R.K.H Kinne. “Vitalism and the Synthesis of Urea.” http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ProduktNr=223979&Ausgabe=225203&ArtikelNr=13463&filename=13463.pdf visited 2012-02-28

[Tho] Roger K. Thomas, Ph.D. “Hazards of “Emergentism” in Psychology”. http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000011/00/HOE.htm visited 2012-02-28

[Wal] Göran Wall. “Exergetics”. http://www.exergy.se/ftp/exergetics.pdf visited 2012-02-28

[Ste] Victor J. Stenger. “The Breath of God: Identifying Spiritual Energy”. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Breath.pdf visited 2012-02-28

[InaHat] Kayoko Inagaki and Giyoo Hatano. “Vitalistic Causality in young Children's naïve Biology”. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661304001639. visited 2012-02-28

[kei] Frank C. Keil. “Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136466130300158X. visited 2012-02-28

A quick overview of energy accounting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arcadia

Thomas Eakins' Arcadia

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

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

Real Peaceful People

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

“Classical Period (c. 1920-c. 1960)

This periodization is taken directly from the writings of George Stocking, who refers to this 40-year span of time as the Classical Period (1976, 1989:210). It is, of course, the period in American anthropology dominated by Franz Boas and his students. Anti-evolutionism reached its peak and cultural relativism flourished. It was also the period in which "the myth of the peaceful savage" emerged, to use the subtitle of archaeologist Lawrence Keeley's book (1996). The myth is described by Keeley as the erroneous belief that primitive warfare—a term used by Keeley—is desultory, ineffective, "unprofessional," and unserious (1996:11). The myth includes three aspects: the notion of prehistoric peace or the "pacified past" (prehistoric peoples did not have warfare) (1996:17-24), the belief that hunter-gatherers or band-level societies did not engage in warfare (disputed by Ember [1978] and Dentan [1988]),

and the assumption that when war occurred among tribal level societies it was ritualistic, game-like in nature—with the first wounding the battle would stop (Chappie and Coon 1942:616,628-635; Chappie and Coon, however, do not consider these assertions to be a myth). Perhaps the most succinct statement of the third aspect of the myth appears in the next period (Naroll 1966:17):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violent People, Peaceful People

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence for a More Violence Past

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

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

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

Cave paints can show us glimpse of ancient warfare.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Design and Totalitarianism

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

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

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

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

From Nature to a Moneyless Sustainable Society

Taking nature as a source of inspiration as as an example of a sustainability, we could build a society that spreads power among the people. Building up in layers of teams that interact like life on this planet in what we refer to as a holarchy.

Nature and its complex interactions

Nature presents a spectacular array of different types of interacting organisms. For the micro level of germs to the largest mammals on the planet. These inactions sometimes work for the benefit of all those involved and sometimes not. The symbiosis of clown fish and the sea anemone as well as the oxe pecker and the zebra or even the bacteria we have in our stomachs all form examples of positive interactions where both life forms benefit from the other. However, pray / predator and parasites and well as virus or bacteria caused disease form examples of interaction where one side looses out to the other.

Interactions don't just work at the animal lever but at other levels in the natural world; from molecules and atoms to the way star systems and galaxies interact with each other producing all kinds of ordered, stable, structures. We could see a sort of hierarchy of interactions in nature; from atoms interacting with each other to form molecules and molecules with other molecules to form parts of cells and then the cells themselves. We could then look at cells interacting to produce organs in the body which in turn form a body. People then interact with other people to form families, clubs, clans and tribes which then form nations and societies.

All these interactions, useful or harmful, produce a state of dynamic equilibrium. A sustainable state that has existed, for life on Earth, for over 4 Gyears.

Parts and wholes

From such an observation of nature, Arthur Koestler coined the term “holon” to describe the part - whole structure of nature where entireties work, in their own right, autonomously yet join together with others to form a whole; bridging the gap between the atomistic and holistic view of nature.

Holons in nature exists when we find parts that form an integrated part of a whole yet they work without the direct control of the whole; so the parts exists as more than appendages and the whole more than an aggregation of parts. The parts work autonomously, according to a set of rules and contributing to and overall goal of the whole. They work together to produce the behaviour of the whole. The parts also have a self-regulating nature, thus contribute to the stability and sustainability of the whole.

The cells in our body form just one example of a holon; they exists in thier own right yet have organelles forming them as well as forming part of organs. The cells follows rules; the laws of chemistry. Cells work autonomously needing no direction form a central source. Cells contribute to the overall objective of keeping the whole alive and functioning.

Other examples of holons include the words you read now. A word that forms part of a sentence, yet has letters composing it. Entities within entities; parts within wholes which form parts themselves.

When we see such interactions in nature we refer to the whole set of holons as a holarchy. It differs from a hierarchy as it has no centralised point of command at the top. The parts could also exists separate from the main holarchy. The holarchy as a depth composed of the number of layers. It also has a span composed of the number of holons on each layer.

As the holons follows rules and interact with other holons they tend to self-organise, working toward the same goals. They can change and adapt to changes in the world around them, evolving as they do so. The interactions between holons on the same layer form communications channels that aid in self-regulation for the parts as well as the whole.

In nature, lower levels in the holarchy tend to manage simpler, mechanical function such as everyday living for a cell. Higher levels tend to handle more complex tasks and have less predictable behaviour patters (such as humans). Theses higher level functions, such as life or intelligence, tend to emerge from the lower level functions.

From Nature to Society: A Holonic Approach to a Moneyless World

We can emulate the way nature works, forming holons and laying the foundations of a moneyless world forming a holarchy. For our future society we can start with individuals on the lower level of a holarchy.

Individuals differ from one another. They have different skills, knowledge and abilities as well as interests which can change over time. The difference in people can work as a strength in a team or group. For a society to function, we need work done. A team composed of individuals with different abilities could focus on a problem appropriate to their combined expertise.

As most people will have some kind of skill, knowledge and ability, especially after a number of years of study and training, most people would have a place in the holarchy where they can make decisions and contribute to the whole.

Groups working together would form the next layer of holarchy above the individual. Teams would work on a local level. Working on the functions and sustainability of a sustainable community but they could also work with teams in other communities building the next layer up for a holarchy, a zone. Each community would then become a sustainable building block for a world around sustainable society.

Zones, formed from teams, would work together on tasks that effect a number of local communities. Zones could link up to form larger teams, called areas, that work on larger tasks that cover the size of a nation. We can then build upon the areas to have sectors that work on larger parts of the planet such as a continent. Sectors could join up to work on global tasks. Thus, we move in steps from the local to the global producing a moneyless society where nearly everyone can contribute to the decision making that effects them through contributing their own unique set of skills, knowledge and abilities.

Such a holonic society would need channels of communication and a sense of openness so that it can self regulate. It would also need a goal that each layer in the holarchy would work towards autonomously. Each holon need not work to the overall goal directly but would need compatible goals. A cell, for example, does not have the goal of keeping the whole alive but does work toward maintaining itself which results in helping to keep the whole live.

Summary

From emulating the layer interactions of nature we could build up a holonic, sustainable, moneyless, society that gives people the power on a local level. Form the local level it works towards a achieve an overall global goal.

Seeing Like a State - EOS and TVP

I had an interesting article show to me regarding the problems with TVP and Zeitgeist ideology. I think it summed up a basic problem that I’m aware of with any ideology; what looks good on paper does not always translate well into reality.

The article also pointed out some of the problems that I have seen with TVP and I hope that we in EOS do not make the same mistakes. I’ll quote from the article:

“The most important element is what Scott refers to as “high modernist ideology,” which he defines thusly:
“[High modernism] is best conceived as a strong, one might even say muscle-bound, version of the self-confidence about scientific and technical progress, the expansion of production, the growing satisfaction of human needs, the mastery of nature (including human nature), and, above all, the rational design of social order commensurate with the scientific understanding of natural laws.  It originated, of course, in the West, as a by-product of unprecedented progress in science and technology.”

This definition describes the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project perfectly.”

It also highlights a major difference between EOS and TVP. EOS, like TVP, also aims to place science at the core of our ideology and build rational social order. However, we differ from the above in that we make a distinction between people and technology. People, of course, form part of any society but EOS does not aim to reorganise society on rational grounds all the way. Instead we make a distinction between the “people” side of society and the “technological” side. We then have little to say on the people side, preferring instead to allow people to organise themselves (within certain bounds) and then we concentrate on the technological side, where we have expert management of the means of production.
 
“Scott’s analysis, however, does not bode well for high modernist projects.  The thesis of Seeing Like a State is that high modernist ideology ignores the complexity, expansiveness, and functional chaos of systems and social structures that develop organically”

The separation between “people” and “technology” and allowing people to organise themselves takes into account the organic nature but we also take into consideration the organic nature of social structures in another way; holons.

The concept of holons comes from observation of how nature works and allows groups to form and disband as needed. It also allows the system to grow in a very organic way rather than having a centralised authority impose the system from above. It also allows us to have a great deal of variety within the system so …

“What does this all have to do with the Zeitgeist Movement?  Just this: Zeitgeist wants the entire human race to adopt a high modernist ideology regarding the production and distribution of resources.”

EOS does not expect the whole human race to adopt the same ideology. We concentrate on the management of resources without money but communities within the system can run as they wish so long as they allow others to do the same. We can have from very religious communities to atheist to primitives to transhumanist. We see strength within the diversity. It also allows us to preserve history, languages and cultures. Power becomes distributed and localised with people controlling their own fate. We don’t need everyone to change to fit into our vision of the future.

The distributed holonic approach also allows us a different way to implement the system.

“If the Zeitgeisters ever got their way, this would be the inevitable result.  The change they envision for society is so massive, so sweeping and so total that the only way it could ever be implemented would be by force—probably by the force of a large authoritarian government or perhaps multi-national coalition.”

Instead of imposing the system from top down, the holonic approach allows us to build up communities and add to them so the system grows in a very organic and natural way.   I think this highlights another difference, which the article didn’t bring out; we aim to test things. So we build module by module and as we do so we test so we build on working foundations.

Oddly for an ideology that says it has its roots in the application of science to society, TVP does appear to lack any testing; no experimental communities or test cities. Yet testing and experimentation forms the core of science.

Testing and experimentation forms the only realistic way of knowing if what EOS or TVP or any other ideology proposes actually works. If we just implement TVP without any verification we have the potential to cause more suffering than we find in the world already.

Lost in Delusion

We’re in trouble! Yeap, we know that (not that many people actually care) but we have entered a time where we could, in the worst case, see most of the spices on the planet disappear, including ourselves.

We have global warming which threatens to raise sea level and cause the extinction of many life forms on the planet. We have environmental destruction as we clear away forest after forest and pollute the rest of the planet with toxic waste. We have problems with our resources where we could start to run low on things we need to keep us going such a metals and oil.  We have problems with our financial system with the failure to fix the last recession (the “fixes” implement will problem make the next recession even worse). We have population pressures as well just to top it off.

Yet with all these serious problems and serious threats to our planet and even to our very existence what do we see as popular solutions? Spend more money! Everyone should live the life style of the people in the Amazon cos they live a happy and healthy life style! Everyone live in a little garden where they spend their lives tending the plants with no technology! Or have a “love” economy where we just all have to share our “love”. Or even; the rainbow dolphin will save us as the age of Aquarius starts (or something like that)!

I find this odd. It suggests to me not only a failure to see the problem but also a failure for basic survival instincts to click in as people get lost in delusion with no idea of reality!

We have a serious physical world problem that we have created. A physical problem that has to do with the real physical environment; with real physical resources. We have created it as a by-product of current socioeconomic system; the one that has brought us so many good things also bring with it the seed of our own destruction! We will not fix this through throwing money at (i.e. do the same thing that cause the problem), no by relying on an idealised view of humans (we should all love each other!) nor by hoping for some kind of deus ex machina.

We made these problem and we need to solve them. We can do that through understanding the problem and through building up an alternative but we have to do that through understanding nature and not through dilutions.

We can understand nature through observations, testing and the application of logic and then implementing things that we can show work. We propose such approach in EOS. We propose a system based on how the real world works; an emulation of nature that works with nature and not against nature. A system that we aim to test so we build on what we can demonstrate will work. A sustainable system that doesn’t use money.