This post by John Boik is republished from Medium.com

It’s hard to believe that current systems are the best we can do. They appear dysfunctional now and suicidal in the long run. It’s time to investigate what might work best.

It’s
not news that human civilization and ecosystems are at risk of collapse
in our lifetime or that of our children. Biologists, sociologists,
ecologists and others have been issuing dire warnings for easily half a
century on all the big issues. We’re well aware of them: climate change,
habitat loss, pollution, topsoil degradation, groundwater depletion,
rising rates of species extinction, financial meltdown, poverty and
wealth inequality, and nuclear war, to name a few. A recent headline
captures the flavor: Plummeting insect numbers threaten collapse of nature.

What
might be news is that we can do something to help change course,
without waiting for governments to act, or even asking governments to
act.

First,
let’s clarify the goal. We wish to thrive, not just survive. We want
healthy communities where collective wellbeing runs high and the
environment is protected and restored. Among other things, this means
access to quality and affordable education and health care, meaningful
jobs, eradication of poverty and excessive income inequality, and
systems of organization that are just, transparent, and deeply
democratic.

I
believe we can reach this goal, in our lifetime, if we think outside
the box. The first step is to ask this seemingly obvious question: Out
of all conceivable designs for systems of social self-organization,
which ones might improve wellbeing, resilience, and sustainability the
most?

It’s
a scientific question at heart, begging for rigorous study, not mere
opinions. And yet it’s also a question to be pondered by everyone on the
planet.

It has a natural follow up: If we were to develop new, high quality systems, how could we best implement and monitor them? This too is a scientific question at heart.

These
two questions have the power to change our world. At face value both
are utterly sensible to ask. Why wouldn’t we want to know the answers?
But beyond that, they embody several profound realizations.

First,
if we want bold change, we should look to science for demonstration and
assessment of the possibilities, more so than to politics. While
science might not have all the answers, it would certainly have a
tremendous amount to say. We need and could obtain clear evidence of
which system designs might serve us best, and how and to what degree our
lives might improve.

Second,
our big problems are symptoms of a deeper defect. As societies, we
could have long ago taken sensible actions to address pressing problems.
But we didn’t. Why? Because the systems by which we
self-organize — governance, legal, economic, financial, and more — are
too often inadequate, even dysfunctional, when it comes to solving
problems, especially big problems.

The
dysfunction isn’t due to bad leaders in business or politics, although
these exist. The rise to power of too many selfish, dangerous, or
unqualified leaders is just another symptom. Rather, the dysfunction is
due to the mechanics of our systems — their very designs, built-in
motivations, concentration of power, and embodied world views. Because
of these, they lack the capacity for solving today’s big problems.

This
failing should not be a surprise. Our systems largely evolved to solve a
different, older problem, which is how to maintain and concentrate
wealth and power for those who already have it. In this they have been
wildly successful. Consider how quickly the billionaire class is growing, and how fewer and fewer corporations control ever larger swaths of the world’s economy. Consider how the legal system favors the rich.

The
last realization embodied in the question is that bold change is
possible. Given advances in science and technology over the past 50
years, the hard work of many on issues of social and environmental
justice, and the looming threat of collapse, we’re overdue for an
evolutionary jump. We’re ripe for sweeping change.

You
might think that universities or research groups would have long ago
started work on such important questions. But almost no one has. Perhaps
political pressures or funding realities have gotten in the way. Or
perhaps it’s because core fields like complex systems science, cognitive
science, and ecology needed to mature a bit before questions about
societal self-organization could arise. Whatever the reason, the work
has barely started.

So
let’s get on with it. After all, it’s hard to believe that current
systems are the best we can do. They appear dysfunctional now and
suicidal in the long run. It’s time to investigate what might work best.

If
in this moment you’re thinking about comparing socialism to capitalism,
I’d ask you to think bigger and further outside the box. Those are
economic systems, not whole-system, integrated approaches to
demonstrably improve wellbeing, resilience, and sustainability.

Rather
than thinking of isms, it might be better to think of biology. Humans
are highly social animals. Our communities and societies are akin to
living organisms — metaorganisms, if you will, composed of many
interacting individuals. Just like biological organisms, the natural
purpose of a society is to learn, rise to challenges, adapt to changing
conditions, and solve problems that matter.
Learning requires information, and so also information processing.
Action requires decisions and thus decision-making processes.

Start
there. What kinds of designs for whole, integrated systems might best
help us to perceive, process, communicate, learn, predict, make
decisions, and orchestrate action, at scale, as communities and
societies, in order to solve problems and thereby increase social and
environmental wellbeing? And how would they be monitored and measured?

Keep
an open mind. In this exploration, the very concepts of business,
money, wealth, voting, governance and more might evolve into something
new. Wealth, for example, might be understood not as personal financial
gain but as the degree of shared wellbeing. Money might be understood
not so much as a static store of value but as a transparent voting tool
in economic democracy, valuable only through use.

A Viable Path to Development and Implementation

The
task of developing and implementing new systems of organization might
seem daunting at first glance. But on closer examination, a viable and
affordable path can be seen. I’ve described it elsewhere,
along with results of a computer simulation that illustrates potential
benefits (including eradication of poverty, higher and more stable
incomes, greater income equality, and economic democracy).

One
bedrock characteristic of the approach is that it’s science based. An
R&D program lies at its core. New systems would be thoroughly
tested, similar to the way new designs for a jet airliner would be
tested. This means simulations, field trials, and more, using various
measures of quality that address wellbeing, resilience, sustainability,
and problem-solving capacity.

Another
key characteristic of the approach is that new systems are designed for
implementation at the local, community level through a club model. This
allows progress without waiting for governments to act. And it allows
for rapid field testing of multiple systems in parallel. A club can be
started with just a small percentage of an urban population, perhaps a
thousand people, without any legislation. Participation in a club is
voluntary and free.

Once
field trials demonstrate that better systems are both possible and
popular, interest will naturally spread and new clubs will form in new
communities. As they do, networks of clubs will also form. Part of the
R&D effort is to ensure that these display the same characteristics
that make individual clubs successful — like rich communication, deep
democracy, and high transparency.

The
R&D program is affordable. The annual budget in the first decade
would likely be no more than several tens of millions of dollars, which
is modest enough that the world’s young adults could fund the program
alone through donations, if sufficiently motivated to do so. So too
could any other group or set of groups. A social investor could fund it,
and receive reasonable economic returns — a social business model
exists.

We
could fund it — the collective we who are aware, concerned, willing to
think outside the box, and willing to take action and try something new.
For arguments sake, let’s say we’re 5 to 15 percent of the world
population. We’re large enough and powerful enough to see this through
to fruition. It doesn’t matter if the other 95 percent or so have no
interest. Enough will, later. All that’s needed to start are early
supporters; feedback, ideas, and assistance during bench scale and
usability testing; and in time, early adopters who will participate in
scientific field trials. The rest will follow naturally.

If
we initiate this R&D program, much of the scientific community will
be on our side. They’ll understand its potential and view the project
as exciting and timely. Even the big players — the Harvards, MITs, and
Stanfords of the world — might eventually join in.

The
potential gains are large and downsides small. With better systems of
self-organization we could increase our capacity to solve problems and
improve conditions within our communities. Transparent and deeply
democratic systems could build trust and engender a greater sense of
shared purpose and hope.

If
systems are well designed and deliver what they promise, worldwide
participation will grow. At some point along the way, and it might take
several decades, a tipping point will be reached where new systems
spread like wildfire to become the norm. When that happens, communities
almost everywhere, or maybe everywhere, will be enjoying greater
wellbeing, resilience, and sustainability. They will cooperate, by
design and by choice, in successfully solving problems that matter.

By
John Boik, PhD. To learn more about the wellbeing centrality R&D
program, the LEDDA economic democracy framework, or to download (free) Economic Direct Democracy: A Framework to End Poverty and Maximize Well-Being (2014), visit https://principledsocietiesproject.org.

Please share and republish.
The post Two Questions Could Help Save Us From Collapse appeared first on P2P Foundation.