Doing good at Factor e

Conversation at Factor e Farm - Ben, Jeremy, Guy, Marcin

   Ben, Jeremy, Guy,

   Others, please read Ben's attached article before reading this email.

   On the article - it brings up some critical issues of creating new civilization, and is the most boots-on-ground, practical guide of this kind that I've seen regarding 'people getting along.' It's definitely a start on a higher-level discussion on the whole topic.

   Nice comment on Lost Chief's contribution - well said.

   So on your article - it brings up some critical points on making a better society.

   I think what OSE proposes is the next step after your proposition. You say technocracy OR cooperation, I say BOTH! Build the tech base for optimal production, open source it, AND teach people (about tech and ecology, not the disintegrated education promoted today) so that we avoid hierarchy (affairs conducted by coercion, either subtle or gross) based on economic power.

   This is one of the central issues that Factor e Farm tries to address.

   Sure, people will differ in abilities. Everybody then works to bring each other up. This is IMPOSSIBLE today, even if you assume COMMUNITY. That's because unless ABUNDANCE is realized by efficient production, those who still have the highest ideals of community STILL REVERT TO HITLER-LIKE depravation of others as soon as their needs are threatened. If we neglect this fact - of how quickly humans crumble under pressure (read The Lord of the Flies for an example) - then we are doomed to the mediocrity and deprivation that is the foundation of today's world. Everyone glorifies peace, happiness, prosperity - but noone is committed to desist 100% from killing and stealing.

Also read "the mountain people" and "the forest people" by Collin Turnbull.

   This is the case for the ABUNDANCE and autonomy proposed in the OSE message. That is only a foundation. What we are about is not technology. I would never be doing what I am doing right now (infrastructure package), except that it doesn't exist and someone has to do it, and have sufficient accountability for the state of the world to make that part of my work until the work is done.

   I've heard recurring rebuttal from you guys about the program I propose. The foremost is that it's impossible to create the integrated humans with technical AND ecological skills. I agree with this, but the answer  goes into the future. I see an immersion training program, superior to today's college education, that creates integrated humans who could turn this world upside down within 15-20 years (new generation).

   Ben, you introduce 'complex calculus' of value measurement with your Velvet Monkey. As simple as it is, I think it is too complicated, and will always require some level of accounting - an unnecessary piece of overhead. OSE proposes accountability - not accounting. Once again, the answer is ABUNDANCE.

I DON'T think it is too complicated. Most jobs will only include 1-2 multipliers (ie waitress is neither dirty nor dangerous.) Processing molten metal will ALWAYS be at least slightly dangerous and pretty dirty unless done by a robot, then it is a non-job anyway. Again, proposed in that book by Muir. Some pieces of his proposed economic program are very fair and equalising. I suggest reading that along with 'The future of money' Lietaer.

Complete abundance may crash a market economy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity ). It will NOT however remove the need for a medium of exchange. Or provide for the motivation necessary than to do the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM necessary, as became the prevailing attitude under the Soviet system.

   Abundance is not a light-hearted hippy term. It's a rigorous condition of humans having mastered their technology base (read Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization) not humans in service to technology as today) - combined with STEWARDSHIP of their natural resources. The OSE program calls for land not being for sale, but for stewardship. The OSE abundance concept is also combined with sustainable resource use from local resources - thus addressing the human population issue. The abundance program also needs to be resilient - such that it adapts and leaves the place in a better condition than it was found (regenerative).

   We also need to look more deeply into the concept of 'dirty coefficient' and 'dangerous coefficient.' This is also addressed in the OSE program - by design. If something is dangerous, find a different way, don't do it, or use proper measures to avoid risk. On 'dirty coefficient' - design the dirt out of the place. You don't like washing dishes or taking out shit? Your choices are- wallow in dirt, get a dishwasher, find other ways to eat, don't shit, design more effective means to deal with issues by smarter design - as some practical or less practical options - but all together - appreciate the fact that these functions are needed and are beautiful, and most effective means have to be used to address these. I don't believe that anything must suck or be a compromise, just like I don't believe in working becuase of compensation (for alienation). No, work in itself must be beautiful - it's not a means to an end. I am living this right now.

The idea I think is to reduce the amount of compromise over time. Therefore, sucks less over time. The way to the future is to begin in the present. It is the launch pad. Conditions will never be 'perfect' because 'perfect' is an abstract.

   Does that say that I'm eager to wash dishes now like Jeremy is doing faithfully? No, because the infrastructure sucks and this task is still not easy or optimized. That's part of the path. I have heard others say that dealing with all these things and trying to build a new civilization is difficult:) This is not for everybody, and your recurring critique of the program is that we'll never find anybody and die lone and miserable.

   I propose that we focus on tools/techniques/designs that facilitate survival. That is my entire assumption. Build a tractor, haying equipment, combine, agroecology plantout, gene bank, energy system, water system, housing techniques - and, for example, design food provision into 15 minutes per person per day. Etc. Make eferything optimal. This is about the efficiciency of ruthless capitalism, with the twist of right livelihood built into the essence.

   Abundance requires diversification of one's skill, It means constant learning. Getting rid of the idea that you won't do something because you don't like it. This is feasible when the techniques of survival are optimized/mastered.

There will always be things you would prefer not to do, but do because they are necessary. However, given CHOICE, and I would imagine people scale dislike of certain tasks differently. It is therefore possible for individuals in a group to avoid their MOST DISLIKED duty.

   So the OSE package is about the above goals. I hope this clarifies my perspective on the issues.

   Once the techniques are developed, we can begin talking of building community - and with nonzero chance of success. What I mean by that is a replicable community, not just our own.

I don't think total technique development is a prerequisite for building community. Community however MAY be a prerequisite to total technique development (on a short enough time line). - Hide quoted text -

   Our product line is Global Village Builders. It is not even that pack of 40 tools of GVCS. Those are just the means. We are really after people who have the integrated skill set to use tools and build new communities. We want to create people with the skills and tools to create abundance from nothing - from any pacel of land.

   The essence of the reward structure should be common work towards further acquisition of not-for-sale stewardship land holdings that run other resilient communities. That means we want people who want to invest their life into their own lifestyle engineering and creation of new communicites. Capitalization assistance (propagation facilities, workshop facilities, training) are part of that reward structure.

   So how does fit with other things we discussed?

   Marcin