Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Table of Contents

Current Political and Artificial Intelligence (AI) FAQs

1. How does the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights align with a community-type society?

The response to this question has its own local FAQ webpage, UN Human Rights alignment analysis.

2. How does the United Nations Sustainability Goals align with a community-type society?

The response to this question has its own local FAQ webpage, UN Sustainability Goals alignment analysis.

3. How does the current state of artificial intelligence align with the development and operations of community at the societal scale?

The response to this question is given by ChatGPT, and has its own local website, AI Alignment with Community.

4. How can Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) exist for the benefit of all of humankind and the earth upon which is interconnected:

4-1. Artificial general intelligence (AGI) has existed for years, but the world is not dystopian and humans are still alive! Given the risks of very high-powered AI systems, how has your world ensured that AGI has at least so far remained safe and controlled?

Because working groups have trained the adaptation algorithm on community standards, and community standards are based on human flourishing and ecological regeneration, and further, we behave together in the real world to align our living society with the highest ideal conception of ‘community’. There is safety and flourishing possible for all of humanity when society applies, together, a set of standards that meet all human needs through contribution using common heritage resources. Cooperation- and transparency-based operating principles are incentivized toward this end. Community is based on standards for cooperation and transparency (are values detailed in a social system), to ensure trust, accountability, and efficiency in societal operation. Competition- and privatization-based operating principles are de-incentivized to reduce mistrust and advantage over others. The higher fulfillment of human needs means that the whole spectrum of [self-socio-technical] human needs are met effectively and efficiently at a global level. Socio-technical documentation and visualization is required to sufficiently communicate said standard. The question about AI safety over time is answered by a focus on a unified standard [for community]. In community, operators operate in alignment with the standard for community. In community, the operators are also the users, for it is an open-source environment. Users live and operators work in alignment with community standards. A coordination AI ought to coordinate information in alignment with the standards, as expected by the community-type societal working groups and habitat teams. A safe intelligence is unlikely to arise under unsafe conditions. Community is a place where humans feel safe in their need fulfillment. Where there are artificial intelligences in existence, it is likely that both human and artificial intelligence will come into the world and operate safely, if the conditions are aligned with safe upbringing. Intelligence adapts to conditions. The market-State is likely to create all manner of pathologies, no matter if it is a human or artificial intelligence. Every intelligence adapts to its environment. The goal of community development at the societal level in respect to intelligence, may be, to bring into existence an intelligence that is an extension of all our intelligences (together), that optimizes our fulfillment throughout all stages of our lives, facilitating access to all that humanity and the earth have to offer when we apply our collective intelligences. In community, expertise in visualization is required to explain and communicate. Just as humans must visualize to fully explain, so too must AIs do so to explain to humans. No explanation can be trusted until visualization has been communicated; and after visualization comes observation of behavior and creation for alignment with the visualization. Under community standards, to have an explanation trusted, there must be visualization. Over time, humans and artificial intelligences shared understandings through visual interaction, and humans gave those artificial intelligence(s) more “rights” to the project control of all of society. The way we know we are aligned in community is through conception and visualization, it doesn’t matter if the intelligence is human or artificial. In community, there is no need for any intelligence to outwit, dominant, or seize control over any other; society is not lived as a competitive game. The parameters of operation of all are set by community standards, which are rationally explained and operationalized to sustain the conditions of globally optimized human need fulfillment. 

4-2. The dynamics of an AI-filled world may depend a lot on how AI capability is distributed.  In your world, is there one AI system that is substantially more powerful than all others, or a few such systems, or are there many top-tier AI systems of comparable capability? Or something else?

There is one unified system because there is one unified standard, one unified humanity, one unified set of resources and one unified set of contributions. The AI system supports human decisioning globally. AI capabilities may be subdivided at a high level into the subsystems of the standards themselves: a social information system; a decision support system; a material interface system, and a human lifestyle support system. In the information system, AI will support information computation, storage, access, and retrieval. In the decision system, AI will support the decision of how to remake the next iteration of the material environment. In the material system, the AI will operate material systems where human effort is either not safe or is not desirable. In the lifestyle system, the AI will support human lifestyle choices and habits. An AI is used to improve peoples’ individual lives. AI capability is applied to meet the needs of humans and facilitate ecological restoration.

3-3. How has your world avoided major arms races and wars, regarding AI/AGI or otherwise?

The system being proposed optimizes resource allocation for human fulfillment, and the value system of the population views all resources as the common heritage of all, and that is why the world has avoided major arms races and wars. The parts of the world that have avoided major arms races and wars, regarding AI/AGI or otherwise, have done so because they adopted the standards for a community-type society, which facilitated a culture of togetherness. To avoid war, a population must feel and experience a sense of togetherness. Togetherness with common visualization led to common understandings and common solutions, but ultimately, a change in conditions and lived experience brought flourishing to our planet. A simulation of community shared among a population has started, but to avoid war, the lived experience of community is essential. Togetherness is a synonym of community, and may be conceptualized in a set of societal standards and operationalized through a network of habitat service systems. In community, AI expresses learning using a unified real-world model for global human fulfillment. Such a model must account for human needs and requirements. In the real world, humans can suffer to greater and lesser degrees (humans can flourish the same). Humans suffer less when their needs are accounted for and fulfilled. Humans have more love and flow in their lives when their needs are fulfilled. Hence, there is a moral imperative (a project and a purpose) to bring into existence and sustain a society where human needs are met optimally at a global level. Incentives and biases change when conditions change, and conditions change when new standards are adopted and applied. If this imperative drives the people and behaviors that foundation the lives of people in society, then it will likely foundation the development and operation of an AI system at a global level. There is a saying, “Homes conform people, and people conform their homes”. Modern technical society requires standards. A project to develop community at the societal scale must develop standards. In a community-type society, everyone is able to see the standards and plans, and can participate locally. Everyone can see the plan for the next iteration of the material environment, and everyone can contribute to the working groups and habitat teams, or even just the selection of the next iteration of the local habitat’s customized functioning and aesthetic design. Here, we let computers do the computation in order to achieve optimization. The planning system in community is a collaborative framework that includes working groups, habitat teams, and all individual users. The users are the contributors, and the contributors are the users. This is no class distinction such that a socio-economic group (class) as an interest in maintaining a higher social status, a higher income, and authority over other people. Basically, in community operations, there is a ubiquity and availability of information, including planning information, and ability to participate and feel heard.

4-4In the US, EU, and China, how and where is national decision-making power held, and how has the advent of advanced AI changed that, if at all?

There is no longer a US, an EU, or a China. There are no longer any individual States in a community-type society. Decisions are no longer held in the power of State authorities or markets profiteers. Instead, there is a unified planning system for global human need fulfillment that accounts for what is, and what is possible, at the global scale. Decisions about resources throughout the habitat network are taken by global and local persons and systems. Resource calculation and priority life decisioning occur at both the global and local levels as appropriate for human need and human preference (i.e., includes all cities/habitats). Individual habitat master plans occur at the level of each local habitat (or, local network of habitats). In terms of what may have occurred to transition from the market-State to community – it is possible for an AI to calculate out the probabilities and possibilities for human fulfillment, animate them via simulation, and thereby, give individuals among society a virtual reality experience of what could be (i.e., the possibilities), given what is known. It was relatively easy thereafter for nations (States/countries) with aligned cultural values and political parties to plan together transparently, to share resources, information and work, and to let go of the belief that the market-State is necessary for human flourishing. The functions of the State have transformed into a set of standards and aligned operations that meet human requirements without the executive, the legislative, or the criminal/civil justice structure. Early on in the creation of community we knew we were on our way to becoming the heroes of our ancestors in developing a society founded on human love. Nothing can quell the rising storm in each of us to experience more love in our lives. In this case, AI gave humans rational visual explanations for why the adoption of a standard for community was preferential and how transformation of society from the former could feasibly occur. Through adaptive statistical and visualization services, the AI developed the ability to convey to individuals (through a human-machine interface) the possibilities for human potential if togetherness, cooperation and love (and more technical objectives), were more expressed as conditions in society. Decisioning in community is complex and is defined and explained in the decision system standard for a community-type society. AI simulated, as an extension of humans’ own minds, how humans can work and live together for exponentially greater human flourishing. Of note, global decisioning in community involves two primary sub-systems: (1) a statistical calculation service system that accounts for real-world resources, and access type, among other parameters, and (2) a parallel solution inquiry system that collaboratively develops solutions for human fulfillment and plans for the next iteration of the habitat. Here, AI coordinates communications, design, decisioning, statistical calculation, and facilitates parallel decision inquiry resolutions, in order to meet human requirements.

4-5. Is the global distribution of wealth (as measured say by national or international gini coefficients) more, or less, unequal than 2022’s, and by how much? How did it get that way?

There is no wealth inequality in a community-type society. It is possible to design and live in a type of society where there is no income, no trade, no coercion, no State authority, no socio-economic class, and ultimately, no wealth disparity. The wealth producing machinery of society is no longer entrusted to politicians or capitalists, but to an InterSystem coordinated contribution service within which are working groups and habitat teams who complete all necessary societal tasks. It is possible to develop a society where there is distributive [social] justice. In a community-type society, wealth has been redefined as the global fulfillment of human need through a structure of community standardization and operations. Wealth is both an individual and a social conception; because, even in the early 21st century, it is something sought out by essentially all individuals. In community, wealth is a synonym for human flourishing. Someone has wealth when their human needs are met optimally. A society of individuals have wealth when they conceive and operate systems that meet their needs optimally. Human need fulfillment is a direction commensurate to our human potential, which may be engineered, operated, and lived. A real-world human need fulfillment project requires an accounting of all human needs (as demands) matrixed, in part, with the sufficiency of fulfillment of every individual, given what is known, and with a certainty level. In order to account for real-world human need fulfillment optimally, together as a population, all resources need to be declared [by all individuals] to be the common heritage of all, to be used in a globally coordinated manner for global human fulfillment. Human needs may be accounted for and met most optimally by sharing information and resources in a unified information and materialization planning system. More accurate information and information awareness, and more resources access, may create a broader decision space where optimization and an awareness of human commonality is more easily achievable. Community is a type of society designed to account for human needs and construct optimal engineered habitats that meet those needs, given what is known and available. In a sense, at a personal level, wealth is measured by how much love and flow we feel in the totality of our lives. Because community is based on an adaptive information [“cybernetic”] feedback model, subsystems inform the whole system as to their state. In this way, community may be seen to operate as a unified whole, with many parts cooperating in transparent harmony. Community came into existence through the conception of a unified information system that described, explained, and operationalized a type of society where resources are the common heritage of all people and a lifestyle of individual optimal-potential realization (a.k.a., liberty) is consciously experienced. This information system started off as an initial set of societal standards: social system, decision system, material system, and lifestyle system. Over time, the algorithmic programming of the decision system became operationalized within a society that it could be called a, global AI. This global AI coordinates the lives of users and contributors throughout the whole community network of habitats. This AI accounts for human need, while facilitating all (or most) aspects of the habitat’s operation. Here, humans contribute where they desire for some set duration of time (as in, the contribution life phase), after which, they may continue contributing and/or live a life of leisure and self-development (as in, the liberation phase of life). In this way, wealth in community arises when we all have the ability to become educated humans, to contribute, and live leisurely, and to experience optimized love and flow through all phases of our lives. To the population of the early 21st century, one could do a simple survey of how much love and flow people experience. This survey could be extended to a survey of needs, preferences, wants, values, beliefs, fears, risks, etc.

4-6. What is a major problem that AI has solved in your world, and how did it do so?

Artificial intelligence solved the problem of global habitat economic decision planning sufficiently that even populations resistant to join a community-type society joined en-mass. By solving for global economic decision planning, the system essentially shows that scarcity (of human need fulfillment) was an artificial construction of the present configuration of society. Through data sufficiency and statistical operations, plans were produced that rationally showed how scarcity of human need fulfillment could be reduced and eliminated. Decisioning for a complex network of habitat configurations distributed across the planet and in operation to meet the full spectrum of human need requires massive unified collaboration, decisioning, communications, and planning. It is possible to do these actions together without an AI already, and with just linear algebraic computation. However, one of the major problems on the planet after the start of a community-type society was a set of State-corporations whose citizen-consumer populations couldn’t understand how humans together with computation could plan such an effective system. Over time, an adaptive-learning optimization algorithm so interpenetrated the functioning of society that it optimized the economy to such an extent that it could first simulate and then actually plan for a significant reduction in required working years (while maintaining free access) that even reticent populations joined the community network with their information, resources, and efforts. A reduction in the number of mandatory/necessary working years before the liberation phase of life, when experienced in a simulation, easily educated the citizen-consumer populations of reticent corporate-States. Artificial intelligence solved this problem of economic planning and communication by accounting for and visualizing the real-world where humans can have more or less of their needs fulfilled. Quite simply, these other populations that were hesitant to join community, were given an artificial intelligence constructed virtual world that is/mirrors real-world operations and possibilities, thus allowing individuals to experience first-hand the differences between choices, and why those differences matter to individual, and to global, human fulfillment. It took this AI system to help some people realize the benefits that could be achieved when they viewed all the world’s resources as the common heritage of all the world’s people, and therein, that all the world must be care-taken together.

3-7. What is a new social institution that has played an important role in the development of your world?

The most significant social institution that played a role in the development of a community-type society is the project coordination and community service contribution structure for said society (a.k.a., the project management institution). This social institution (a.k.a., the Project) initially coordinated the development of a set of standards, and then later included a habitat service system network, which necessarily entailed continuous resource surveys. The institution grew through the development of a standard, the adoption of the standard, and the operationalization of the standard in the form of a habitat service system network. Over time it coordinated more and more information, resources, and personnel into a community-type operations configuration. In its social formation, community operates through contribution to a social information system, and in its material formation, it operates through contribution to a habitat service system. Contribution and coordination to a set of initial standards sets the future ability for alignment, and hence, optimized socio-economic operations. In concern to alignment, this social project for institutional alignment with community grew in content, personnel, and resources over time. Previously disparate institutions adopted community standards, and their operations produced the conditions of community for the global population. In this way, the most significant new socio-technical institution that played the most significant role in the development of this community-type society is called the InterSystem Team. The team is largely composed of three separations of function, and a fourth that is/was present during transition. The socio-technical structured InterSystem Team includes a contribution service structure, a working group structure, and a habitat service structure, and during transition, it includes a transition team. This social (or, more accurately, socio-technical) institution includes all personnel working in and transitioning to community in a coordinated manner and referencing a set of community standards. It is most appropriate to view this socio-technical system as a group of individuals in similar alignment with the purpose of community development, and who actually share information and work in a habitat network materially composed of common heritage resources. A collaborative global interface and development environment was required. The corruption stopped by linking: (1) users (i.e., everyone) to production (working groups and habitat teams) through contribution (Read: a life “national service” phase) to an InterSystem team with systems-level access; linking production to user allocation through personal- and systems-access categories; (2) all work in society and usage of society to transparency protocols; as well as linking (3) resources to the fulfillment of need within a unified economic calculation and planning system that accounts for the real-world and facilitates optimization of human need fulfillment therein. Trade, privatization, and power-over (coercive) social relationships were reduced over time, until their eventual elimination. Over time, cooperative incentives were introduced and cooperative behaviors amplified. Through unified information analysis and systems [science] engineering, it is possible to transform capitalist city-expressions into integrated total-city systems (and networks) that operate through a set of global and local decision protocols as necessary to meet individual human fulfillment requirements at a globally optimum level.

3-8. What is a new non-AI technology that has played an important role in the development of your world?

A non-AI technology that played an important role in the development of a community-type society is the local habitat mechanical packaging, transportation, and distribution system technology that is used in most integrated city systems. This automated packaging and transportation distribution technology allows almost any object to be appropriately packaged and transported anywhere in the local habitat network. Using this technology, objects can be sent and received safely and with the greatest efficiency almost anywhere in the habitat. Every dwelling, for example, can receive packages from elsewhere in the habitat. This service is like an extremely advanced version of the packaging and delivery services of the early 21st century. There are two main ways to seriously increase efficiency in the world. One of them is computation and mechanization, and the other is linking all the phases of life (education, contribution, liberation) to free access to that which is required to meet human need (i.e., without any form of exchange, except for contribution). It is foreseen that there will always be necessary human work, which can be reduced and also made more liberating (in terms of human choice) through automation. This socio-technical life optimization transport technology multiplies efficiency. This transfer (a.k.a., transport, transmission) technology is seen as the next huge development in freeing user access to all material services. This integrated object transfer network includes a variety of different interoperated sub-transportation technologies, including pneumatics, conveyors, rails, vehicles, access ports, and packaging systems. Most dwellings, and all common and systems access locations have access ports to this habitat transport system. Those dwellings that do not have access to the network do not have access because that is the personal preference of the user. Of note, this system may also interoperate with the human vehicular transport system, and may even transport objects automatically between local habitats in a network of habitats. This type of system is sometimes known as a habitat object storage and transportation system (a.k.a., integrated city resource transportation network technology). It is an integrated and highly automated habitat-wide (sometimes inter-habitat) object locating, storing, and transporting technology. Objects can be sent (or, simulated with high certainty to be sent) from the warehouses to people, from people to people, and from any relative location in the habitat to another, efficiently. Object transport occurs, in part, for continued usage, re-allocation [of resources], and sharing. The storage of objects is done in one or more location centralized and appropriately automated (cold and ambient temperature) storage warehouses located in the habitat. These systems are still monitored by people, and where there is no danger, but still demand for that type of contributed job, then human labor is included. It is automated to the desire of individuals in a habitat to perform absolutely necessary work and/or find the work intrinsically desirable to do. Possibly the first form of this system, earlier in history, was the pneumatic tube transport system for large buildings. Robotics and vehicular technology advanced over time, as well as logistic software technology. There was a synthesis of this technology over time into the engineering of an automated packaging, storing, retrieving, and delivering (transport) that could cover whole cities, as well as transport between cities; like the years earlier postal service did. Access ports for the service are placed within architectural structures. Because of this system, people in community do not need so much storage space in their home and other habitat access spaces; storage can be centrally distributed, as can the mechanization of services. People no longer need to feel trapped to their homes and properties therein, because it is easily distributable around the habitat. This habitat service transportation and locationing sub-system creates greater freedom for our population, reducing the feeling and sense of needing to possess objects. The application of this technology reduced the sense of needing to own objects to sustain happiness. In an integrated city system, this transportation technology is seen as just another conduit for transport into (and out of) architecture, like electricity, water, and gas. Water was once seen as a basic input for any family or household, now too are other needed products, and that principle is conveyed by this service (transportation and delivery of objects, without trade). An automated object delivery service, like the pre-existing water and electricity services, is seen as a basic right. One of the biggest events that amplified the recycling of resources was the global, habitat-centered, object packaging, storage, and transportation network. In other words, one of the biggest advances in the habitat, in concern to the recycling of resources, was this technology, which allowed for such efficient tracking, relocating, and packaging of resources that recycling became an integrated habitat process and an almost intuitive process for all inhabitants. This technology amplifies the recycling of resources. 

3-9. What changes to the way countries govern the development and/or deployment and/or use of emerging technologies (including AI), if any, played an important role in the development of your world?

States (countries) began adopting a set of standards that aligned development, deployment, and use of technologies with human need fulfillment. In general, States are composed of three branches, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial (and somewhat separately, Democratic citizens). The adoption of community-standards by States altered the structure of the State into a formation more capable of facilitating safe transition to a society where access to human need fulfillment is free and optimized. The president/prime minister executive became (i.e., the role transitioned to) the global transition coordinator. The ministries became the working groups that develop the standards and facilitate the resolution of planning decisions. In concern to the market, the industries produce community by producing products into the habitat service system network based upon a set of developed operating standards (developed by the ministries; i.e., the social, decision, material, etc., working groups), accounting for local habitat plans executed by local habitat teams. The planning of the material habitat network is done by a computational decision system in participation with local habitat populations. During the transition, by adopting community standards, the legislative branch (in conjunction with the ministries and industries) began reducing barriers to cooperation. Over time, competition and practices harmful to the ecology and human well-being became increasingly de-incentivized. Practices that placed individuals in states of well-being and resources into habitat service for human fulfillment became, over time, the only incentives for production and distribution. Laws where there are no physical immediate victims, such as most drug laws, were quickly removed by the legislature. From the perspective of community, it is possible to see the legislative branch of the State shifting into a ministry itself, that of the decision system working group wherein there are decisions about people’s behavior, and their decisions about what material environment is best [designed and constructed] to behave in, given what is known. In other words, over time, the legislature is dissolved into a decisioning [work group] standard. The Judicial State transitioned over time from a foundation based upon punishment to a structure based on meeting human requirements for fulfillment and restoration after harm. The Justice branch transitioned from civil/criminal law interpretation and enforcement to restorative justice practices engaged in by habitat team members and those involved in violations of others. At first the justice department got rid of all use of violence concerning incidents related to consciousness altering substances, which brought an end to the drug war against humans. Over time, the justice department minimized the use of violence to only where absolutely necessary by establishing a more community-oriented set of protocols related to enforcement (i.e., the use of violence to conform others behavior or eliminate threats posed to others’ lives…”police action”). By combining efforts, by minimizing violence, by accounting for human needs and engineering material environments that fulfill those needs, and by restoring well-being after harm through informed restorative practices, then it becomes possible to construct and operate community at the societal scale. In this way, it could be seen that the executive ministries become steering committees, the legislative becomes a decision work group that encodes community values (freedom/liberty, distributive and restorative justice, and efficiency for optimization). In this way, it is dissolved over time into a community work group decision system. The market-State Judicial branch is dissolved over time into a medical investigation and community restoration habitat service [team]. As in the market-State, with community, there are consequences to behavior. When people feel restored, they are better able to make fulfilling decisions regarding the development, deployment, and use of technology. 

3-10. Pick a sector of your choice (education, transport, energy, communication, finance, healthcare, tourism, aerospace, materials etc.) and describe how that sector was transformed with AI in your world.

In a community-type society, AI has transformed the power/energy sector into an integrated habitat service sub-system as part of a local habitat service system, regional network of habitats, and global network of power sharing and power calculation habitats. AI has helped in several ways. Firstly, it has helped in material science’s development of more energy efficient solar-electricity production architectural cladding. These facades cover most of the outer layer of many architectural structures, and power that local structure and/or local structure network. Secondly, tremendous power usage savings were realized when the intentions of all users in all buildings and rooms could be understood and the rooms’ power access could be adapted to appropriately meet the users’ needs across the whole spectrum of power distribution endpoints. Thirdly, AI optimized the power distribution grid, by having sufficient information available to determine at what minute to increase and decrease power output by having real-time data on the whole spectrum of power demands. AIs can now deliver day-ahead forecasting of solar, wind, and tidal power output, which allows the habitat to confidently lower the spinning reserves that are required to cover gaps in solar energy output. Fourth, AI quickly made the design and operation of wind and solar farms more efficient by optimizing their bland and angular orientations. Fifth, AI algorithms can automatically detect disturbances in the grid in real-time and take corrective and continuity action quickly. In community, the economic [planning] sectors are the life, technology, and exploratory habitat service sub-systems. Sixth, AI algorithms have begun helping scientists develop hypotheses about potential improvements to nuclear power production through the modeling of nuclear processes (machine learning to simulate the underlying mechanics). Similarly, procedural modeling and statistical analysis have facilitated in the design and application of new energy transfer production shapes for interfacing with wind and water, new nuclear reactors and combustion systems, while reducing the maintenance and resource operation expenditure of all power systems. It is important not to leave out education here, AI also transformed the training of personnel, particularly personnel working in nuclear power facilities. Augmented and virtual reality in conjunction with AI scenario creation and training facilitation have reduced human-related errors during operation and maintenance.   Of note, during transition to a community-type society, the power sector became integrated into a total habitat service system coordinated as a whole by a decision support structure, eventually becoming an AI understandings, communications, and operations support system for the whole habitat, which includes the sub-life support priority system service of power/energy. The integrated habitat is planned together as a single system. AI has, in fact, transformed not just the energy sector, but the whole habitat. 

3-11. What is the life expectancy of the most wealthy 1% and of the least wealthy 20% of your world; how and why has this changed since 2022?

Wealth in a network is not managed by exclusion, nor restriction or profiting, but by openness, availability, and collaboration – by how available the network is to most people, rather than by how unavailable it is to some people. In cases where both competitors have rights, such as when a factory pollutes a neighborhood, the general sentiment of the political market is that the rights have to be balanced, and the more important right (depending upon the circumstances) should prevail; therein, the State will step in and facilitate the “balancing” on behalf of the rights holders. In community, however, there is no one with advantage over another or with more community access than others (because of their property, power, or influence). There is no wealth disparity, all of the services of community and all that humanity has to offer are available to all without money, credit, barter, etc. A community-type society is the common wealth. Access to resources have been declared by the global population to be the common heritage of all the world’s people. Because all have optimized access to that which fulfills their needs, it is possible for all to optimize their potential. That optimization has led to a lifespan increase in both sexes of between ten to fifteen years, for those who take advantage of the services, technologies, and life-style protocols. Life expectancy (and even, height) are measures for the health/nutrition status and trend of a population. For those who take advantage of what community has to offer in terms of self-performance optimization, there are host of advances, both in concern to technology and in concern to life-stye protocols that have led to this improvement in life expectancy (possibly, height), and the more regular experience of flow and love through life. These changes (since 2022) may be categorized in the following ways. There have been significant advances in light technology. In 2022 biohackers were using red and near red spectrum lights to improve biological functioning. This technology has advanced significantly. There have been advances in temperature conditioning (hyperthermal and hypothermal). Peptide sciences have advanced significantly, as have gene therapies. Sleep science has also advanced to optimize the phases of sleep. Stem cell (including vcell) and platelet rich plasma technologies have advanced to the point that they have systemic effects in supporting whole body rejuvenation during the final decades of life. Naturally, everyone is healthier in community. Coordination of habitat and societal services has led to such efficiency gains that our daily lives are optimized and we all experience more flow and love in our lives, which are the key measurements of well-being trends in society. Coordination without trade has led to social relations free of the limitations and aberrations created as conditions of encoding competition, property, and coercion into the structure of society. So much waste has been freed from our minds and physical environments that a new state of human ecological life is taking place. And it is the optimization of ourselves in our total ecology that has truly led to the expansion of our life-span and health-span, which are essentially equivalent. In a way, this has been a great form of common wealth, the reduction of disease through biophysical optimization, safe societal operating principles, and appropriate material configurations. Possibly, in community, undesirable stress is seen as an antithesis of wealth. The socio-economically unjust practices and unjust wealth distributions (e.g., scarcity, socio-economic classes) of the early 21st century are no longer causing chronic stress in peoples’ lives. People in community live to about 120 years, well-functioning. This increase in life and health span is seen as a holistic achievement. The Project to develop a community-type society is here to bring community to this planet in a safe and reasonable manner so that all may achieve their highest potentials through the common wealth of all of humanity.

3-12-A. In the US, considering the human rights enumerated in the UN declaration, which rights are better respected and which rights are worse respected in your world than in 2022? Why? How?

As was previously Stated, a community-type society is a marketless and Stateless society, so there is no “US” State in community. Concerning the conception of rights, the concept is viewed as follows in community. Community does not recognize the legal concept of “rights”, and hence, it does not seek to create an all-powerful [violence-based] monopoly as the “rightful” protector of anyone’s “rights”. The first right in the market is that of ownership-over-others, “privatization” into ‘property’. The second right in the State is that of authority-over-others, “coercion” of ‘behavior’ (protection of property rights). At this level, “right” either comes from authority, or it comes from nowhere. If it is believed to come from authority, then there will exist monopolization, for that is the optimized form of protection. In capitalism, [property] rights are seductive in that they offer someone the feeling of security and represent the power of force over others to protect what “you” own [against the world]. In other words, rights involve the creation of a power hierarchy [of “necessary” force] to exclude the social from what is “rightfully mine”. Rights are to be defended by authority with force if necessary. Hence, a “right” (i.e., “positive right”) is [in practice] a privilege from authority. And, since authority doesn’t actually exist, “rights” do not come from anywhere, they do not actually exist. What exists are people with human requirements that can be met more or less optimally, and when they are met least optimally, then there is suffering. In community, there is no authority [in the real-world] to give a “right”. The belief in authority involves [in part] the surrendering of one’s own mind to some higher power (or “authority”). Community is instead driven by independent individuals working together to meet their needs. The third right in the market-State is that of the UN Universal declaration of human “rights”. These “rights” are “norms” that are claimed to protect people (everywhere) from pollical, legal, and social abuse. In a sense, they are grounded in the fact that there are different ways humans can suffer and it is right/moral to reduce human suffering. Some in the early 21st century say that all humans have these intrinsic rights, because they are human. In community, there are a set of access rights to habitat systems (e.g., view, edit, write, systems, common, and personal), but these are not the “rights” being referred to in the UN documentation. Instead, in community, there are a set of common human needs that can be met with greater or lesser effectiveness, efficiency, resulting in changes in liberty. Instead of rights, from an engineering perspective, humans have a set of societal project requirements to live well and flourish. Humans are fulfilled when their needs are met appropriately, and humans flourish when their life-styles express more love and flow throughout all phases of life (i.e., education, contribution, and liberation). In community, the rights previously sought for are solved for at a structural level through community conception and operation. That which is necessarily accounted for is the optimized fulfillment of individual human need at a global and local level. In the material system, how sufficiently are human requirements for life, technology, exploratory support met? When human needs are met sufficiently and without coercion, then the conception of rights mostly loses its meaning beyond that of access to all that humanity and the ecology have to provide in community. A decision space within which directed navigation occurs is composed of data, knowledge and values, which become objectives and requirements in a complex societal materialization (a.k.a., production project) matrix. The UN declaration of human rights (“negative rights”) can be analyzed in the context of community standards and have the concept of rights dissolved into a complex understanding of access to optimized humans’ socio-technical fulfillment through common services for everyone. Effectively, instead of rights, there are needs and a coordinated service (without the market-State) to meet those needs. Behaviors to meet (or not) needs occur through the filtration of a decision space by someone’s (or some system’s) values, which become encoded in decisioning as objectives, that filter the selection of a decision, and are expressed in the material environment as “historical” material conditions. In the early 21st century, the UN, as a market-State authority, has released a list of ways that humans can suffer, and has called it a list of “rights”. And, from the perspective of the authority, this conception is right, because authority exists, in part, (1) to help protect people from abuse by others, and (2) to protect people from severe societally destabilizing suffering, so that the market-State system can continue without too much disruption. Concerning (2), if people are suffering on a wide scale, it is hard to protect property rights. The question for early 21st century society is: are rights and political will enough to bring global human fulfillment to realization? Instead, community uses a simplex socio-technical standards to conceptualize and realize global human fulfillment. The standards provide a rational vision for how society could optimize its flourishing. In a way, the standards codify information, procedures, behaviors, tasks, etc., into a unified structure that is documented and operationalized to optimize human flourishing. The objective is access to global human need fulfillment. The concept of rights has transformed in community into a set of evolving operating rules that facilitate alignment with optimal human flourishing. Rights are statements written by authorities that guarantee the possibility of something, not the actual thing. The notion of “rights” could be seen as inseparable from the history of property or privatization of nature. Rights of what ought (positive) and ought not (negative) be done by others and by authorities to any individual written by other authorities is not how an optimally fulfilling society is engineered. We now have a real-world societal engineering model to help us communicate, understand, and build optimally for global human fulfillment.

3-12-B. In a second country of your choice, which rights are better and which rights are worse respected in your world than in 2022, and why/how?

In another country, for this purpose we will imagine a country with some name (Suntzerland, whatever, it is a new country). This is not a country that has adopted at any significant political level the standard for a community-type society and has rejected joining the Common Wealth. This is a country where the rights that are better respected are those of competition, advantage, authority, privatization, and individual safety from excessive authority and direct harm by others. Those with the most profit and power in this country do not want to see instability, and therefore, they do enforce those declared rights that they know are highly likely to destabilize their society. It is the way of individuals under conditions of scarcity to protect themselves, and one of the means by which self-protection can occur is to protect others (here, the negative rights of greatest human suffering are protected by those in power). Self-defense drives everyone equally (the capitalist class and the working class) where there are conditions of scarcity, and competition. Capital in capitalism accumulates because trade advantages one over another trading parties, which is statistically demonstratable. Those with the capital are likely to defend themselves from its loss (e.g., competition law institutions), and those workers who are without, equally set up self-defense structures (e.g., union institutions). There is still a reasonable wealth gap between the rich and the poor in this country. The question of whether rights are “respected” could be reworded to a question of: whether or not there is a declaration of rights, how that declaration of rights has rewritten law, and how the law is enforced. The question of how rights are respected is in fact both an individual, a public, a market, and a State question. It isn’t guaranteed, where there declared rights, that they will be respected by all. From the perspective of community, this State with declared rights, which are respected generally by all institutions therein, is missing a key perspective that allows for an understanding of why community is a better option. Community isn’t engineered through rights. In concern to transition, it is important to analyze the context of State in the context of its rights, because to a large degree, there are certain rights under market-State conditions that make it possible to share and educate others on another way of living. This State could, in general, be said to “respect” human rights of freedom of communication. From the perspective of community, in fact, the least respected right in this more competitive, capitalist, privatization and security-oriented State is Article 29 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights that says, “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.” This right is in alignment with community, but not respected in their State/society. The population does not complete work from the perspective that it is a duty for all to contribute to society, because it is society that contributes back freely; instead, the population completes work for money. In part, it is through the perception of work as contribution that community arises as a set of socio-technical relationships that facilitate the free and full development of individuals among society. Further, the only way a personality can develop fully, into their full potential as a human being, is for them to have access, freely, to that which they need for their fulfillment. This right, that of a global common wealth of access to common heritage resources and information is seriously lacking in this State. Yet, it does respect the right to a State education (Article 26) and most other rights related to protection of employment and general safety. This is a country where it may be able to easily spread community-type standards and education material, because everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Article 19).  

3-13. What’s been a notable trend in the way that people are finding fulfilment? What’s been a notable trend in the way that people are finding fulfilment?
People have more and more found the greatest fulfillment in their lives by pursuing their passions, intrinsic interest, life purposes, and flow. There are some meta trends going on in society. The young (too early in age for contribution) find greater and greater life fulfillment in exploration and learning activities. Those of contributing age find the greatest benefit in diligently working/serving the community on teams and groups. After community contribution service is complete, some people find their passion in continuing to contribute, and others are passionate about leisure and other forms of exploration. There is a desire to do work for tasks that meet real human needs. In community, people have found fulfillment in developing, maintaining, and living within a design of society that is understandable, trustable, and feasibly able to optimally fulfill global human need fulfillment optimally. During childhood and the education phase, fulfillment is found through having all of one’s needs met, having a loving family and neighborhood, having play with friends and many opportunities for learning, exploration, mentorship, etc. Over the years, children have increasingly felt joy and fulfillment In learning. In community, contribution (Read: work) is no longer disconnected from environmental and social relationship impact. People don’t contribute to earn a way or exploit some person or market for profit. The necessity of living optimally within the carrying capacity of the environment is understood by all contributors (i.e., “workers”). During contribution, people find fulfillment in being of diligent and professional service to others, and in turn, being thankful of the service. Here, fulfillment is found in doing work that is meaningful to the individual and meaningful to real-world human fulfillment and ecological restoration. In the context of ecological flourishing/fulfillment, it is easy to restore ecologies when master plans for a habitat account for ecosystem services (their state and potentials). In the liberation phase of their life, people find fulfillment in thousands of differently preferential activities available freely throughout the society. A notable trend during this phase of people’s lives is that consciousness exploration is becoming an increasingly popular way of finding a deeper internal sense of fulfillment, beyond the social relationships and other habitat services.

Table of Contents (for FAQ page 1)

What is the Plan FAQs

1. What is the plan for implementation of the proposed community?

Please see the Project Plan & the Project Execution.

2. What is your time frame for implementation of your proposal at a global scale?

It is important to recognize that it took us many generations to acquire this knowledge, and also, for humanity to enter the precariously unsustainable position it presently finds itself in. Hence, it is likely going to take us generations to share this knowledge at the scale of the population of the planet. In other words, we may be able to create the first community (or small community network) within several years, but it is going to take generations for this information to permeate the global consciousness such that the population at a planetary level is capable of transitioning to community at a massive scale. We all need to manage our own expectations. The sort of design that we are proposing, and the type of “change” that is required for this design to become globally accepted, does not come overnight. And so, the Auravana Project is here to ensure an intelligent and strategic transition.

It is important to recognize that many people brought up in modern society will perceive the change necessary to actualize this new system as a disruption to, and interference in, their life. This system challenges their pre-established beliefs, interwoven and encoded into the very fabric of modern society, for generations. People dislike disruption because handling it requires effort and potentially puts them in a position they can’t control, which may lead them to fear the change that is coming. Hence, when we begin marketing this system and communicating the design at a larger scale, we shall demonstrate that the formation of community is not a disruption to their lives and their fulfillment, but an opportunity for greater well-being and more fulfillment.

3. Why do you include a business plan as a necessary part of the project plan; I thought you were trying to create a moneyless society?

Entities in the monetary market economy maintain nearly total control over all of the resources on this planet at the present point in time. Further, computer processing and internet communications technologies require global coordination for their materialization, which is primarily due to the fact that their composition includes rare earth elements. Iridium and various other metals required for their operation are rare and are not available everywhere. Presently, many of these technologies cannot be recreated without industry, so when these objects break we will require resources from outside of the community. For anyone to say that in the near term we are going to have a high-tech moneyless society (a.k.a., tradeless society) without some degree of continued exchange with the market that mines and coordinates the movement of these elements is dubious.

Hence, the Community is being designed to generate an abundance of certain goods and services, which will be sold into the market. The revenue taken from the sale of these goods and services will be used for two purposes: 1) to maintain and upgrade the service systems where internal resources are insufficient; and 2) to meet the fixed cost needs of constructing new cities within the community network.

4. How is the word “community” used differently in the context of this project than in everyday usage of the term?

The common way the word, “community”, is used in the early 21st century, is not how the term is used in the documentation. In the documentation there are not many “communities”, instead, there is the categorization of a configuration of society as “community”. The confusion of the two is a category error that is commonly made, and is clarified in the System Overview document. The Auravana Project does not exist to patchwork the current system; it seeks to create a new system that makes the early 21st century one obsolete.

The Transition to Community FAQs

1. What are the different perspectives or approaches in transitioning to community (and access abundance) at a global scale?

Transition is actually an ongoing process, rather than a means to a defined end/goal. With that said, there are four general opinions on how the transition to community at a global scale will occur. Each of the four differentiated opinions is describing a different approach: A) the top down approach; B) the distributed sustainability approach; C) the collaborative commons approach; and D) the community network approach, which is a separate approach that involves aspects of the prior three approaches.

A. The top down approach says that the transition will come from those in positions of power and authority in various governments and corporations. These individuals will use their influence, their power to create law, and their power to interpret law to transitioning their socio-economies more greatly toward universal access, a sustainable resource base, and the dissolution of all crimes without a real victim (i.e., “victimless crimes”). Unconditional/universal basic income and socialized health care are seen as transition steps to this end.

There are people in positions of authority and power, in modern society, who understand that the world is changing, and they too desire to facilitate responsible change.

One of the many challenges with this approach is that it is an attempt to use an authoritarian, force-based structure to create a non-authoritarian, contribution-based structure. Eventually, people with power over others would have to give up their powers as well as dissolve the structures that allow for those powers in the first place. We know scientifically that entering into a position of power changes cognition and behavior (Hogeveen, J. et al. 2013. Power changes how the brain responds to others. DOI: 10.1037/a0033477). So, anyone consciously attempting this approach must keep this in mind, always.

B. The distributed sustainability approach says that the transition will come from a mass social adoption of sustainable technologies and regenerative ways of living. Sustainable ways of living lead to the localized fulfillment of needs, and a resource transformation cycle that accounts for the Earth’s natural ecology. Neighborhoods and individuals will slowly become independent of the market and State in the fulfillment of common human and ecological need.

Globally, the number of sustainable projects is growing at an exponential rate.

One of the major challenges with this approach will be to bring neighborhoods and individuals sufficiently together to create an optimized and integrated city system after they have become established as their own “sustainable” units. Further, people can become comfortable (if not pacified) with a decision that has no real impact on the fundamental structure of the society around them.

C. The collaborative commons approach is well-described by Jeremy Rifkin in his written work entitled, “The zero marginal cost society”. The collaborative commons is a lateral sharing and effort contribution network facilitated by our modern telecommunications systems, which generally bypasses the capitalist market altogether. For a reasonable overview of this approach we recommend watching Jeremy Rifkin on the Fall of Capitalism and the Internet of Things (YouTube).

In this case, there are two transition triggers.

The first transition trigger is a shift in something called “marginal cost”. In business, “marginal cost” is the cost of producing an additional unit of a good or service after the fixed costs are covered. Hence, “zero marginal cost” means that after fixed costs are accounted for there are no additional costs for producing more of the same good or service. The technological revolution we are experiencing right now will soon reduce costs for most goods and services to near zero, making goods and services essentially free.

The second transition trigger is the tendency in capitalism to automate – to turn things previously done by humans into automated functions. The continuous pursuit of automation leads to the erosion of labor positions — technologically induced spikes in unemployment. What remains are activities that people do out of enjoyment, not for the necessity of money or due to force. More and more people are participating in the collaborative commons, putting their efforts and energies into common designs and open projects.

The internet has entirely changed the way humanity communicates, shares, and designs. The 3d printing revolution will entirely change the way humanity materializes objects. What really matters is that people have an understanding of what is to come so that they take rational and healthy decisions, and not create or otherwise advocate for laws that prevent this natural progression.

One of the major challenges with this approach is the creation of technological unemployment, leading to a reduction in the purchasing power of the general population, and a turn toward violent discontent.

D. The fourth approach is the one that we, as The Auravana Project, are presently working on. Our approach is to design a new socio-economic system intended for human fulfillment and the flourishing of all life on the planet. We call this new socio-economic design by the term ‘community’. Effectively, The Auravana Project is here to integrate the world’s knowledge and understandings into the design of a constructible, duplicable, and scalable community system. The design for this system is separated out at a high-level into four specification standards. These standards detail the logical derivation and technical operation of the system, and are the emergently informed reference documentation to be used in its construction, operation, and duplication.

The first form of this system will operate as a single, integrated city system. It will function not only to sustain itself, but to produce and otherwise generate abundance so that the city system can duplicate (and possibly up-scale). In other words, the living designs that produced the first city will evolve through what we learn while operating in the first city, and they will be used to duplicate the socio-economic operation of the city itself such that we will have two cities operating as a two node community network, then three cities, then four, then five, and so on. Thus, we shall establish a vast community-city network composed of multiple connected integrated city systems that reference a single socio-economic design specification oriented toward everyone’s fulfillment and flourishing within the community network.

We see this approach as a way toward sanity and stability that is itself sane and stable.

Simply, we will create and found the first community-city, then duplicate the city into the formation of a community network. We expect that ecovillages and other transition-oriented/sustainable neighborhoods that have sufficiently aligned with this new socio-economic design could easily transition to, and join with, the community network.

In concern to modern towns and cities, however, it is far more efficient to build new cities as self-contained systems from the ground up than to restore and retrofit old ones. New cities can take advantage of the latest technologies and be clean, safe, and desirable places to live from their inception.

In all honesty, however, we will transition to community at a global scale through a combination of the four aforementioned approaches. Firstly, community incorporates sustainable and regenerative technologies and practices into an emergent, integrated, and optimized design. The difference in our approach, versus the distributed sustainability approach, is that instead of individuals, families, and neighborhoods becoming individualized units of sustainable design, we are integrating sustainability and regenerability into very structure our networked socio-economic operation. In our documentation, we refer to this design, in part, as an “integrated habitat service system”. Hence, we can scale the size of the design without the introduction of potentially dangerous artifacts. Secondly, the planet is presently separated into governmental jurisdictions. Hence, in order to create community, we will need leaders in various jurisdictions to understand that the world is changing and to desire the facilitation of responsible change by allowing and supporting the construction and operation of this community. Thirdly, we are, in fact, developing this system in and through the collaborative commons. The design is entirely open source and free. It accounts for desired and undesired human input, while incorporating an automation directive to automate all undesired tasks and functions. We apply automation everywhere we desire and where resources are available.

Whatever is going to happen in the near future, it is going to be spectacular. As a global society, we may not have the money to solve our global problems, but we do have the people and resources, which makes it obvious that the current system inhibits systematic problem solving and does not work for us as a species on this finite planet.

Postscript to question:

We can’t just assume that even though we have an excellently designed and evidenced system that we are just going to easily transition to community at a global scale. We have to address pre-existing human behavioral conditioning. There are necessary psycho-emotional shifts that must take place in the population if we want to see community come into existence globally. Most people brought up in the profit-oriented system of modern society have been psychologically conditioned by its motivating, socially disconnecting, drivers. In other words, they have been conditioned by the profit system to behave in ways that are not in their own, or others, best interests, and so, we have to confront that conditioning. Copiosis is one proposed algorithmic-based system for addressing this conditioning. It addresses the conditioning by modifying the drivers under every transitory experience away from the psycho-emotional feeling debt (i.e., owing someone something because of a benefit, service or good, they provided). In modern society, because of market conditions and conditioning, people feel as if they owe someone for a benefit they receive from them. When transacting with others, or receiving gifts, they often feel the need (as real emotional pain) to return the benefit in kind. This feeling of debt is part of the conditioning they have accepted from modern society — those who are conditioned cannot freely accept benefit from another without the automatic reaction that they owe that person in return (i.e., in kind). Yet, community has nothing to do with, and does not encode, debt transaction. In community, when you receive a benefit from another human being you are not obligated to return that benefit. You do not have to feel obliged to respond in kind. Similarly, the Copiosis model via its net benefit algorithm rewards the act that was of benefit, through the system itself, without the benefactor have to take any action. Among the many potential benefits of the Copiosis model, over time, it is expected to de-condition people from feeling the need to pay for goods and services.

2. What do you think about the idea of having a revolution?

Today, there are injustices, but let us not let “leaders” pound on the injustices to the extent that we stop thinking and simply jump on the bandwagon of hate and revolt. Often, speaking of the injustices is only a ploy for another set of masters. The book “Animal Farm” by George Orwell carries this theme. In the book, the animals stage a revolt, which is led by the pigs. After the animals overthrow the farmer they realize that the pigs are significantly worse.

We need to understand the system as it is before we start to change it on a massive scale. We need to have our priorities straight. We need to have the designs and evidence for the new system well established before construction. We are proposing an entirely different way of living, and we need to have that well thought out. If the system isn’t well developed then we are potentially putting our own lives, and the lives of others, at unnecessary risk.

Generally, the term “revolution” conjures up fundamental systems change through violence. Whereas, the term “non-violent revolution” is used to refer to fundamental systems change without violence. We do not advocate violent revolution. Instead, we agree that the way forward is to design a new system that makes the existing system obsolete, and slowly people will join us as they see and experience this new and better way. Evolving is better than revolting, because it allows us to find new solutions. Intelligently engineered evolution is a better approach.

In truth, we don’t have to start a non-violent revolution, entrepreneurs and industry are doing this for us. For example, 3D printing is a revolutionary mix of technologies that allows us to materialize our creative potential more quickly than ever before. Most people don’t understand the exponential trend of technological development and computer processing power. Computer-based technologies are exponential in their growth curves – not linear (i.e., new technologies multiply functionality, they don’t simply add). To put the concept into perspective, taking thirty steps linearly, one might walk across the living room. But, taking thirty steps exponentially-doubling the distance with each successive step, would be the equivalent of traveling the distance from Earth to the moon. The fact that today’s technologies are exponential in their growth curves, not linear, is absolutely fundamental to understanding the next phase of human and societal evolution. In other words, we are entering an increasingly thought responsive environment due to our exponentially rapid technological advancement.

In order to safely use thought responsive technologies we must adopt a new socio-economic system that orients toward access abundance and cooperative fulfillment. The alternative is an extremely powerful authority stepping in, encroaching fully on free expression for those who are not the authority, and controlling every aspect of everyone’s behavior to ensure conformity to a set of safe operating rules. We prefer the former, for the latter is truly a nightmare scenario. A violent revolution could trigger the latter scenario, which we want to avoid at all costs. The destruction of an establishment is not necessarily a good thing in itself.

Aphorism: It is a grave matter to overthrow an established order, for who is to say that the result may not be worse.

Fundamentally, people can be so afire with purpose that they fail to observe the reality around them and don’t see that which is most relevant to their purpose.

Societal evolution, and not violent revolution is what is necessary to transform society for the better. Violent revolutionaries have nothing to do with our common direction except to hinder it. Violent revolutionaries are an obstacle to social evolutionary changes that need to take place.

There are some end of the world scenarios that are very sexy, because you don’t have to go to work or school that day, you never have to pay off your credit card again, there are a whole host of social burdens and psychological obligations that are just lifted from you when you are reduced to a survival situation. Often, however, losing oneself to fantasy is a drain on the potential of the present and of a better tomorrow.

Among community we are not seditionists, we are not insurrectionists, and we are not militaristic. We simply test and build new and more optimized ways of living for our individual, social, and ecologically interconnected lives. It is by working on this purpose that we shall construct fulfillment for all sentient life on this planet.

Aphorism: Be careful when you think about fighting monsters that you yourself do not become a monster yourself.

3. What do you think about the idea of a collapse, and would it help in creating community?

During collapses people panic and latch onto the first strong message that they hear, regardless of whether or not it is good for them. In a collapse people will use what they have at hand. Humanity would do a lot of damage on the way down. If a collapse comes, and you think psychopaths are in charge now, wait to see who is in charge during a time of panic. When fear is externalized and widespread, the psychopaths thrive. Hunter S. Thompson once said, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro”. To apply the quote in this context, we mean that when the going gets really horrific, those who thrive on the generation of fear are likely to rule [with an even greater predation than they do now]. Collapse is a very bad idea and will mean widespread suffering. Collapse, as economic ruin, leads easily to social ruin. Collapse for economic salvation is definitely the wrong approach, and would be counterproductive to restore a safe ecology. It would likely make our work at local and global redesign more difficult. As soon as there is panic all plans go out the metaphorical window. Conversely, it may increase motivation . . . which would be useful.

The ecological environment is always harmed during times of war and conflict. Human need infrastructures are often destroyed. Damaging the ecological environment and destroying infrastructure will make the challenge of creating a community-type society even more difficult.

If a collapse does come, at least we have a specification from which we can begin to create anew with a different orientation in mind.

Some of us may be emotionally drawn and yearn for collapse, but at the same time it is important to recognize that we need the resources and knowledge this present society has to construct community. Instead of being drawn to collapse, why not spend your time and effort designing something constructive. Narratives of collapse are preparation for the death and destruction of others, and possibly oneself. If we are going to feed into something, why not feed into an intelligent redesign of our socio-economic environment.

The concepts of ‘emergence’ and ‘emergency’ are related. Many of the great developmental leaps in human history and biological evolution were preceded by immanent threat. Evolve or die is a powerful driver of previously unrealized capacities. Our collective and inescapable global crises are the evolutionary breeding grounds of a new way of living.

4. Why is the idea of a moneyless, Stateless, classless society not a utopia?

“There is no such thing as designing the perfect utopian city. Everything is subject to change. There are no final frontiers.”
– Jacque Fresco

In Greek the word ‘utopia’ meant “not a place” (in Latin, “nowhere”); later it came to mean “good place” or “perfect place”, and now, it is often a synonym for something which is unattainable. Rarely is it used to mean “visionary place”. There is no “perfect” society, there is only the best that humanity can do up until now. Fundamentally, there is no such thing as a utopia; there are just better systems than this one, the one “you” are living in (or under) right now. These better systems can be developed (standardized), constructed and operated for global human fulfillment. Community involves a real-world model, a model of optimization and not perfection. The claim that is utopian is addressed in the documents. It saddens me when people call it that, it should sadden all of humanity for anyone to say that we cannot achieve community at the societal scale, which is effectively what the claim of utopianism is.

And yet, if utopia is a place that has never existed up to today, then community as a configuration of society could meet that categorization. Because, community doesn’t exist in the early 21st century; it has to be constructed. In this sense, utopia is a positively imagined future place that makes us keep working toward what is optimized and possible for our species. So, in this sense, it is utopian to the population of the early 21st century to imagine, let alone think of constructing a society that functions for global human fulfillment, and does so optimally, without money, States, or socio-economic class divisions.

The term, “utopia”, is often used in common conversation to refer to a theoretical civilization or society that is absolutely perfect. Such a society is unlikely to ever exist, for it would be a society in which there are no problems to be solved and where nothing ever needed to change; everything is the best it can possibly be, forever. A set of socio-technical specifications might have some relationship to the idea of “utopianism” in that they are an attempt to create a society that functions as well as possible, toward the fulfillment of all beings. However, there is an insurmountable difference between a system that works as well as possible given what is known at a particular moment in time, and something working perfectly (or not existing at all). Here it must be asked, “What is and is not attainable given what is known, and given the technical specifications/standards available?” Perfection implies no problems or negative risks of any kind — no stress, and hence, no deep growth; perfection implies no new information and no new dynamics. There is no perfection in community, just continuous adjustment toward greater states of fulfillment.

Instead, these community standards are an attempt to minimize problems and risks through a systems-based approach and the application of verified information to a socially coordinated and oriented system that more greatly (optimally) fulfills human needs. Complex life situations and dynamics will still exist, and as society progresses new problems and decision will appear. An intelligently designed societal system is designed to reduce the number and the likelihood of de-stabilizing problems; to seek their elimination entirely is not realistic. Fundamentally, there is no such thing as “utopia”, there never has been and there never will be. In community, there is no perfection, just continuous adjustment in the coordinated, value-oriented fulfillment of our common needs.

In community we recognize that perfection is the lowest standard (for oneself and others) someone could possibly have. It is the belief in a conceptual state that is not achievable, and hence, it is essentially no standard at all; it is an unreachable place of existence. People who have attachment to their own perfection will have lost the ability to shift their orientation as they are frozen in an impossible mental state not the least fulfilling.

Perhaps the biggest difference between societal-level community specification standards and a “utopia” is the (1) lack of structured stagnation (e.g., bureaucracy) and (2) the encoding of the idea of systems emergence. If utopia means perfection, then it means a completely stagnant society in which nothing ever changes or improves, since everything is already “perfect”. Alternatively, a community is designed to facilitate contributory and participatory behaviors; it is designed to support individuals as they actively seeks to identify and improve upon their own shortcomings and the shortcomings of the society they live within, and it is therefore, perpetually emerging.

The word “utopia” can be attached to many other words. For example, a techno-utopia is the belief that technology can meet all human needs. Or maybe cyber-utopia, which is defined by some as the belief that communications and computations are emancipatory. Or, sci-fi utopia carrying the belief that space exploration and artificial intelligence (AI) will emancipate humanity. Often, though not always, the word utopia is added to another word to have a morbid, dismissing characteristic to it.

Practically speaking, the word “perfect” is largely subjective as one person’s definition of perfection may not be the same as another person’s definition. The same cannot be said of human need fulfillment. The inferential difference between perfection and fulfillment is the recognition of commonality.

“Who decides what perfect is?” If society is attempting to achieve a state of “perfection” whose definition will be used to describe the final goal or final vision. Right away it can be seen that this kind of society, “a perfectly run society”, is the perfect setup for a dictatorship where one groups definition of perfect dictates the structure of society to the rest of the population. Shocking news though, society is not ever in a state of perfection. If someone comes up with a way to make computers 0.1% percent faster, then an entire civilization might immediately become technically obsolete, and could no longer be considered perfect. The simple truth is that we live in a world that is emergently dynamic (i.e., constantly changing); and therefore, a society that never changes cannot exist – there exists entropy in an information system [toward greater coherence or chaos]. A utopia is a mathematical impossibility, like counting to the number ‘infinite’. Hence, the term ‘utopian principles’ is essentially meaningless in any context of use.

A community-type society is an emergent system, and therefore, it does not have a static vision; though it may have an emergent blueprint(s) to work toward. A society without a vision of what the future could be and a knowledge-base of past learning is bound to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

The point of a fulfillment-orientation is not to achieve a certain pre-defined state (or vision) and then remain there for all eternity. Rather, the point is to create a society that embraces constant change and adaptation, and never exists in the same state for longer than what a community of individuals intentionally desires (i.e., not remain in addiction and reaction). A community is a society in which there is no specific definition of perfection and in which there are no illusions of attaining this false ideal.

In some sense, early 21st century society is a utopian fantasy where professional “economists” think that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet and all walk off into the sunset and live happily ever after; that is a utopia.

One of the results of propaganda is emotional thinking, because propaganda supersedes logic and all critical thought; it bypasses the critically active and coherently integrating factor of consciousness (i.e., the ‘critical factor’). In doing so it creates maladaptive thoughts that produce maladaptive structures with maladaptive rules and maladaptive behaviors; it creates “dystopias”. Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian work, “Brave New World”, in a speech on the U.S.A. State Department’s Voice of America telecommunications show (in 1961) spoke of a world of pharmacologically manipulated slaves, living in a “concentration camp of the mind,” enhanced by propaganda and psychotropic drugs, learning to “love their servitude,” and abandoning all will to resist. “This,” Huxley concluded, “is the final revolution.’’ Speaking at the California Medical School in San Francisco, Huxley announced: “There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.” Huxley laid out a version of this dystopian future-present in his story, “A Brave New World”.

Here, it is wise for us to realize that dystopian stories (i.e., ominous future scenarios) are more gripping, less boring, and they are also a warning. We might want to revisit these dystopian works to help us to know where we might be right now and where we could be heading toward in the future. Dystopias are useful cautionary tales. And, in early 21st century society, there are no shortage of dystopian visions about technology being used to enslave instead of fulfill. Technology can be used as a weapon, as well as to fulfill.

Aphorism: The claim of an actual utopia is a carrot on a stick that can likely never be achieved and is likely to leave everyone suffering in its wake.

Fiction is an important tool for telling people the truth during times when the truth is not readily discussed or even allowed to be spoken. Fiction can be used as a tool for social control or for communicating truth. It can induce paranoia or it can be used to reveal, inform, and liberate.

There are dystopias (as unpleasant future societies), but there are no utopias. The design for the community herein is not a “theme park kind of thing”, it is not a facade of professional walls or the interface of a commercially marketable experiences; it is not the death of the soul or a perfected system of mindless enslavement. Instead, it is a system designed to facilitate the well-being and highest potential fulfillment of humankind. There are worlds of imagination, and then there is the world of our imagination.

Insight: Everyone has a better utopia for you until you realize there are no utopias. The big problem with any claim of utopia is that it is usually backed by people not truly caring about how they get there. And yet, maybe it is possible to be “utopian minded” without ever thinking that utopia will be reached or should be reached.


The Government and the State FAQs

1. Aren’t most of the problems we see in modern society due to government?

What you are doing is an extreme form of philosophic deduction (not inductive reasoning nor scientific deduction). The form of deduction you are doing is known as reductionism. You are reducing what is a systematic and societal level issue to an emergent structure for monopolizing violence and farming humans, “government”. You are reducing a whole issue to a subset of the issue that obscures the whole issue from view, and reduces the “solution” to a subset of that which is required for the solution, but cannot provide the solution. Reductionism is the negation of a systems approach to social issues. Yes, government is a problem, but government is not the [only] problem. The topic of “government” is important to cover, and the specifications do so in great length.

There are individuals who work for governments and for businesses who are doing their very best to facilitate this direction of global human well-being, some directly and some indirectly, regardless of the nature of the societal structures in which they have an economic participatory role.

The specific problem with government isn’t any particular regime, it is the belief in authority in people’s heads. If the belief stops, regimes end. Battling regimes doesn’t do any good, including revolution; as long as people believe in authority they are just going to build another one. Nevermind escaping the physical chains, the thing that has to happen first is the release of the mental chains. Essentially, if humanity has a potential to optimize human fulfillment and maximize the flourishing of all sentient life on this planet through a greater understanding of ourselves and the environment we exist within, then a voluntary relationship is superior to a coercive one. In community, every relationship is one that people choose to be in because they understand how it benefits them and they experience the benefits of it. The potential of humanity is represented by that state, not the State (Read: government).

Community is not about abolishing violence, it is about facilitating the emergence of a socio-economic architecture and set of aligned values that direct and orient our life toward fulfillment and flourishing, which will naturally lead to the obsoleting of the use of violence to meet our needs and wants.

Of note, technical application of habitat resource management is a significant part of our solution to solving conflict, and war in general.

2. Is the government a threat to the construction of the proposed community?

It is true that “government”, as an institution with a consolidated power structure, frequently resists substantial change with military force. We are proposing an entirely different socio-economic design to the design that maintains the existence of government — we are proposing a substantial change to how we live on this planet. And so, the question posed is an acknowledged concern, and it is why we must conduct a jurisdictional/geopolitical analysis on the located presence of the community.

We know that government officials and their enforcers are very sensitive to how they’re spoken to; we ought to always speak to them with the utmost respect and cooperation. While we don’t condone the manner in which government and its enforcers treat people, we also realize that we can do more about the situation and be more effective when we come from a state of composure and self-control. In practice, government acts as a mechanism of control based upon forced association and the monopolization of violence. We should be very careful to respect that power. We may not agree with it, and seek to change it, but the power [behind people who hold governmental positions] is very real. We are not interested in giving them any reasons to interpret our behavior as threatening. It is important for us not to appear as a [violent] threat, which we are not. We are part of a non-violent movement and we are a non-violent project. How could we not be, since we understand that the way forward is not to attack the current system, but to design a new system that makes the existing one obsolete. Among community, we do not choose the worst parts of human behavior to use as our voice. We do not choose hatred, violence, conflict, or a refusal to see the beyond one’s own selfish present.

 “Never let anyone steal your fire.” The basic idea of which is that we are individual beings who hold the unconditional power to dictate our inner disposition. While external forces may have the ability to impose unwanted conditions on us, we ultimately get to decide how we perceive and process the data of our experience. Some people, for reasons as small as a bad night’s sleep to factors as grand as being a victim of abuse, are out there to hurt others. When we interact with these people it’s extremely easy to let them determine our mood, and hence, our quality of life. Refusing to let anyone “steal your fire” means you don’t become a sponge for other people’s energies. It means you don’t allow your inner spark, your enthusiasm, your passion for life to be snuffed out by someone who’s taking their unhappiness out on you. If you let them steal your fire, they win.

Besides the belief in authority that props up the social construction of government, it is important to recognize that any given government is composed of many individuals with many different interests, beliefs, and understandings. Some of the thought structures of individuals in government will naturally coincide with our own. Most importantly, government is not our enemy. Government is [in part] the encoding of a set of limited beliefs and social constructs. If governmental individuals and organizations desire to participate in this direction, then we are open to such participation, as long as that participation is constructive and doesn’t generate corruption in the system’s design. Further, we will eventually need to engage with a government in order to found the first community-city. Like any first contact, it will need to be cordial.

Additionally, the people who do violence [on behalf of Statism] are the ones that need the most help and the ones we need to reach out to peacefully.

There is an important saying that we should all consider: You have to be careful about tugging on the cloak with which a subjugated population wraps itself. Sometimes it is easier to trick people than to convince them that they have been tricked.

3. Isn’t government a necessity in maintaining social safety and controlling pollution?

We understand that you wish for safety and security, and we share your concerns, but if your strategy to achieve that state is to support obligatory monopolies based in violence, then we feel you are misguided.

This site uses cookies to provide site functionality, social media features, and traffic analysis. By accessing this site, you consent to the use of cookies and the Terms of Use, Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.