Translate

Donate to EOS

We aim to build a network of experimental sustainable communities to demonstrate that we do have a sustainable alternative to our current socioeconomic system. Want to help us build for a sustainable future? Please donate what you can:
Thanks!

Friday, 16 December 2011

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.


Tuesday, 1 November 2011

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.

Friday, 26 August 2011

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.

Friday, 27 May 2011

Quick update

Here's just a quick update of what we have going on at the moment. EOS has expanded with new members and new activity on the forum We have also have some organisations interested in joining the technate. EOS now has some access to some land but we need to sort out a few legal things before we can start using it. Also, on the hydroponic from I have had some good growth. And lastly, we have in motion a plan to start training / education, perhaps next year.

Plants growing nicely in the lab window

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

New Hydroponic System


This is my new hydroponic system.  That I got a new pump last year second hand which has a bit more power than my last pump.  Also, I have a number of small buckets which it can connect and disconnect instead of one large bucket as last year.  This makes the system a bit more modular or have I can extend this next year.
Smaller buckets

The new pump

The timer used to start the pump twice a day

Thursday, 21 April 2011

A review of "Plan B" by Lester R. Brown



This book I feel starts off well.  He gives a good overview and presentation of the problems that we face, although he does seem to concentrate on the symptoms such as population pressure and water supply.  However he does seem to give some indication of understanding the core of the problem.  In the chapter on water supply he does point out exponential growth.   

Why are we in this problem?  If we live within the carrying capacity of the earth we would not have problems with water supply, we would not have population pressure.  These symptoms result from the fact that we have started pushing ourselves beyond the carrying capacity of the Earth because we live in a system that must constantly grow exponentially, precisely like the lily pond example in the book.

The book then goes on to look at a solution but a solution that aims to fix symptoms not core problem.  He goes on to talk about improving energy efficiency.  Fine, we need to do that but in a system that expands exponentially how long will it take even with the energy efficiency to end up back where we started?  This can go for many of the other measures proposed; necessary but not sufficient.  Whether we talk about designing cities for people or new manufacturing methods but unless we deal with exponential growth we achieve nothing in the end.

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

Understand the world in anthropomorphic terms


I am going to start with what might appear as dogmatic statements but I do have a reasoning behind these:

  1. People have a very wrong, intuitive, understanding of how the world works.
  2. Nature does not care.

People have a very wrong, intuitive, understanding of how the world works
Hunter gather; the type of society we have evolved to live in.


Gaia
Essentially, human beings have evolved as hunter gathers, living in small communities.  We have evolved a number of characteristic behaviours that help us lived in such groups.  We understand each other in emotional terms; “love”, “hate”, “hope” etc., the dictionary has many words that help us to describe the emotional state and motivations of other people.   We project ourselves outwards as we try to understand others (and then get surprised when people do things we would not do)

To a limited degree, this intuitive understanding of other people helps us understand the world around us.  We project our human understanding into the world around us and understand the world in anthropomorphic terms; “Jack Frost”, “Death”, “spirits”, “wights”, The Earth goddess Gaia etc., mythology has many examples of creatures that we create to explain the world around us.  Extending this idea further we end up with religion were we explain the world around us as “divine will”.  Yet, we have it wrong when trying to understand the world in such terms because …

Nature does not care

Animals inflict suffering on other animals; nature doesn't care! (photo: jeffrey sohn)


We tend to have this impression of nature as a “caring and loving mother” (because we do care), and use other anthropomorphic understandings of the world.  We see mother nature as nurturing us (an example of our anthropomorphic understanding of the world) .  Yet, if we were to go out and explore the world we can see that nature does not care.  Animals inflict suffering and harm on other animals, cats torment their prey, diseases inflict suffering.  Perhaps you have to live in a survival situation to understand how little nature cares; make a mistake and you can die. We have a recent example of how nature doesn't care in the nuclear accident in Japan.

Building a future world

This understanding of the world causes us many problems.  In a way, the problems we have today result from a lack of understanding of how nature works; as if we see ourselves as something special and exempt from laws of nature.  I also see this same problem reoccurring when people talk about solutions to our current problem.  

Essentially we have to deal with the real world.  We have physical resources, energy and physical needs.  We need to manage these within the limits that nature provides.  To do so, we have to understand nature not in anthropomorphic terms of “mother nature” but as a real physical system and work with nature. 
However, instead of working with nature, I see people proposing solutions based on our erroneous anthropomorphic understanding of the world.  So we get things like “we need a love economy” or a “gift economy”. 
Instead, EOS proposes a different way of dealing with this; treat people as people and nature as nature.  Let people deal with each other in our anthropomorphic terms which works so well when dealing with human relationships but when it comes to dealing with the physical world we use an approach based in how nature actually works not in our emotional anthropomorphic understanding of the world. 

So, on one side we have communities of people managing their own affairs on the other side we have people with the knowledge and skills and understanding of the natural world to manage the natural systems in this world.