In other words, if I understand you correctly, the more our human Collective structures and processes approximate an Organism in a unifying Ecology, the more we might approximate a planet where people love in harmony with each other and the ecosystem. Groups that deviate too strongly must be identified and dealt with by the equivalent of a healthy immune system: isolate, and if necessary, destroy. You are articulating, far better than I, my vision of a Living Systems Framework for governance.
Thank you, Max. I try to keep things extremely simple: "the more our human collective structures and processes resemble a living organism, the more likely it will mesh with human needs and ecosystems." The Living Systems Design approach has the benefit of being easily grasped by the uneducated, and it's core is a half dozen or so basic principles. The repeated and iterative application of the LSD approach to our Collective has the potential to create meaningful change at all levels from the local to the planetary. As a matter of fact, the original idea came from the question I asked myself when thinking about a science fiction novel: "a thousand years from now, what will our government look like?" I could not stomach the thought that it would resemble our current mess, or a Star Wars Imperium continuation of the mess.
I might come across at times as a wee-bit institutions-oriented in terms of how we protect and conserve our planetary ecosystem (e.g., I think in terms such as internalizing externalities), but I suspect we are close when it comes right down to it.
Thank you, kindly. I hope you will feel free to express areas of disagreement, as you might help me challenge, strengthen, or change my thinking. Finding weaknesses can help with the evolution of these ideas, for sure.
In any case, I appreciate your reading and commenting.
Well, when you put it that way it makes me a tad hesitant, because we may, scratch that, we do have some philosophical differences here. It's not about weaknesses in your ideas. But I'll think about it and circle back around to this after I finish some work.
In other words, if I understand you correctly, the more our human Collective structures and processes approximate an Organism in a unifying Ecology, the more we might approximate a planet where people love in harmony with each other and the ecosystem. Groups that deviate too strongly must be identified and dealt with by the equivalent of a healthy immune system: isolate, and if necessary, destroy. You are articulating, far better than I, my vision of a Living Systems Framework for governance.
Also, you won a follow today, and I am looking forward to reading a fellow traveler from whom I can learn.
Thank you, Max. I try to keep things extremely simple: "the more our human collective structures and processes resemble a living organism, the more likely it will mesh with human needs and ecosystems." The Living Systems Design approach has the benefit of being easily grasped by the uneducated, and it's core is a half dozen or so basic principles. The repeated and iterative application of the LSD approach to our Collective has the potential to create meaningful change at all levels from the local to the planetary. As a matter of fact, the original idea came from the question I asked myself when thinking about a science fiction novel: "a thousand years from now, what will our government look like?" I could not stomach the thought that it would resemble our current mess, or a Star Wars Imperium continuation of the mess.
I might come across at times as a wee-bit institutions-oriented in terms of how we protect and conserve our planetary ecosystem (e.g., I think in terms such as internalizing externalities), but I suspect we are close when it comes right down to it.
Interesting thoughts. I don't agree with all your proposals, but these are the kind of forward thinking ideas we need at the moment.
Thank you, kindly. I hope you will feel free to express areas of disagreement, as you might help me challenge, strengthen, or change my thinking. Finding weaknesses can help with the evolution of these ideas, for sure.
In any case, I appreciate your reading and commenting.
Well, when you put it that way it makes me a tad hesitant, because we may, scratch that, we do have some philosophical differences here. It's not about weaknesses in your ideas. But I'll think about it and circle back around to this after I finish some work.
No pressure. And thank you.