OSE Principles of Nonviolence

From Open Source Ecology
Jump to: navigation, search


We start with generally accepted principles of nonviolence, and then go into the details of what each point means. For this, we start with existing definitions of nonviolence, and places the OSE framework within them. And we have to pay attention to context-specific concerns when evaluating something. Thus, we may encounter trouble with other belief systems, but here our goal is transparency.

  • Does not reduce biodiversity, but instead enhances it
  • Does not contribute to warfare, but instead to peace.
  • Does not pollute the environment. But what is pollution? It's largely about concentrations.
  • Does not deforest the land. But is it ok to deforest here, and afforest there?
  • Does not damage the soil food web.
  • Does not kill, main, disempower, or otherwise reduce people, but instead promotes their self-determination
  • Does not degrade land and make it unsuitable for human or nonhuman species?
  • Does not degrade the Gini Coefficient
  • Uses local and abundant, as opposted to scarce or strategic resources
  • Promotes good as opposed to bad relations between people
  • Does not do things at the expense of others, or of nature
  • Is transparent as opposed to secret, so that others can learn


This analysis must be rigorous, and will focus on translating OSE Specifications to practical terms.

This must be guidelines that are context specific, and require sound judgment, not fixed conclusions. Thus, human responsibility is still needed.

The trick is getting the application right. It is easy to define abstract principles - but in real life, there will be variables out of one's control that may require compromise. Choices have to be made with careful deliberation, as opposed to rigid rules.

However, the unique thing for OSE is that we are starting from scratch - so we can write all the rules that we need to make prosperity real - without taking on compromises. Not compromising can happen only when we have regenerative mastery over resource use - for providing a modern standard of living and a quality of life that allows for self-determination. Thus, this is demanding on the participants. But the expectations need to be clear, and a lot of learning has to happen. If it is possible to integrate our lives into nature, and attain a high standard of living that allows self-determination - there is no reason why any compromise has to be made - by design. And every time, we learn from the former Dunbar Village Campus. If the first one doesn't get it right, we learn and go from there.

The challenge for nonviolence to be real are:

  1. Given that some technologies may be polluting or damaging to the environment, how to we pivot, make subsitutes, or regenerate the damage done?
  2. How do we embody lifecycle design into products, and make that a requirement in up-front design? This means using recylcable, reusable materials - and having such materials creation/reuse infrastructure in place.
  3. How do we transition from dangerous or unhalthy labor to a more life-giving form consistent with lifelong learning?

Thus, technological responsbility means that we make profound choices on technology, main guideline being local, renewable resources, and lifecycle design. With favorable labor considerations - where grueling or repetitive or unsafe work is replaced by more life-giving, educational counterparts. In this model, the OSE Extreme Manufacturing is relevant as a social model of production.

The deepest accomplishment that we still need are several basic processes of converting natural resources into the lifestuff of modern civilization. Can we produce solar concrete from local rock while improving biodiversity? Can we produce solar grade silicon without pollution using renewable energy? Can we make bioplastic from plants? Can we make fuel from plants or water? Can we roll steel from scrap without damaging the environment, on the scale of a Dunbar Village Campus? These are some questions that we intend to answer.

The bottom line: we need transformation in how we do things, and it is up to us to do it. Technology does not stand it the way - everything is possible - it's just training people up to respect the possibilities.