Skip to content

To see the world, and act – the real Big Society

We are in crisis. One third of the population of our species live in abject poverty and horror. They watch their children die young. They die young themselves. You know these people are out there. The world is on fire. We have climate change. We have massive destruction of the natural world, mass extinction that will be visible in the fossil record forever. We are trashing the planet. You know these things. In a particular crisis like Haiti, a few people stop their lives and Do Something. A lot of people take the cost of a night out and send it. And our lives go on as if nothing had happened, while they scrape and scramble and try not to die in the process of recovery, perhaps one day returning to the abject poverty of their pre-disaster conditions rather than the utter disaster of their post disaster state. Before the earth quake, half of Haiti had no clean drinking water or toilets. From bad to worse to bad again is not a recovery. The economic crisis is where we are about to get slugged. Greece is falling apart. Iceland narrowly avoided it. America is abandoning core public service provision. You are not going to have the future you expect. Now, that does not mean that it's going to be wars and rumors of wars, and violent mayhem in every city center. That is not at all the future we should expect - in almost all cases, hardship and massive civil disorder are different phenomena. The hardship comes from a shrinkage in opportunity. The civil disorder comes from pre-existing perceived wrongs: racial, ethic, nationalist, religious and other pre-existing time-bombs finally explode in the hardship and contraction of the future which comes with economic contractions. Those are the things you really need to watch. The inability to buy our way to the lifestyles we have always thought we would have one day is one of the critical features of our time. But we should not be confused about the position we are in - as some of the most protected and privileged people in the world, the hardships we can rationally expect to face in upcoming years as our economies shrink and some of our nations run into severe political problems are as nothing compared to the living conditions which people all over the world call "normal". It is bad out there, and when we had everything we did little or nothing about it. After all that we took from the Empire, is 0.7% of GDP in international aid really reflective of a good, fair deal? Why did Kyoto and Copenhagen fail? Fundamentally the world divided into two factions - the poor, populace nations who said that every human has the same right to use the atmosphere, and the rich, smaller nations who said that everybody should tighten their belts by the same percentage, regardless of current consumption. You can see the hypocrisy of that position from here. And we sit with it. Tiny fragments of the population get upset and act, some directly, and some as activists trying to raise general awareness of these paired crisis issues. The vast majority of us sit concerned with our own affairs as the situation worsens, both politically and ecologically. Business as usual is about to close. This middle position, of the quiet struggle to maintain our advantages and borrow our way to maintaining our quality of life as the world gets harder has come to an end. The next phase is how we are going to adapt to a world in which financial constraints precede ecological constraints as we are forced by reality to live within our real means. Apathy is not longer a viable strategy for making a good life for yourself. It is going to take bold and decisive action, as individuals, groups, organizations and states to push through the oncoming chaos to a genuinely sustainable "new normal" based on real ethics and actual productivity. We are going to change, or we are never going to become an old culture. Now I want to put this in perspective. Haiti and Pakistan are real places. The people there feel about their lives much as we would in the situation they are in. It is awful. Are we our neighbor's keepers? That is an open ethical question for each of us. But there can be no doubt that we are equally entitled to our fair share of our country's and our world's resources simply by virtue of being alive. Did you do for Haiti, or Pakistan, what you would wish them to do for you were our situations reversed? Worse, before the disasters came, did you do for them what you would wish them to do for you? In the upcoming shenanigans, as the world throws off the last vestiges of the colonial/superpower order, we are going to have to justify every single advantage which we wish to keep while denying to others. Our nations may well be made liable, financially, ethically and morally, for what our ancestors did in the colonial period, and for our roles in toxifying and destroying our shared world, its climate, and our fellow species. The prosperity we have was bought at the cost of trashing the world for the entire human race, and the time for settling these accounts is near. The debt we owe is cultural and economic. The atmosphere is not filled with carbon because of Africa's historical winching itself out of poverty by burning fossil fuels: that is our carbon. Our governments are created by popularity contest. It is impossible to stand up in front of a room full of people and tell them that they are inevitably going to get poorer and that they are liable for the massive over-consumption of their forefathers. Do not expect this kind of political accountability to come from our shared structures of democratic governance. It may be hashed out at international treaty negotiations as our elected leaders are coerced into accepting full responsibility for the previous actions of our states, but it is never going to be a platform on which people get elected. The inability of democracies to say no to their people has cost us the fundamental legitimacy of the nation state as a way of organizing our affairs. This is not good news. But if liberal democracies sabotage global climate negotiations to keep their populations fat and happy for one more electoral cycle, costing us the vital time we need to implement real climate management steps, in what way can we stand up and say that "the will of the people" is the correct form of governance? I raise this as an open question. Perhaps more responsible populations will emerge and elect stronger leaders who are capable of making us live within our environmental and financial means. Perhaps the truth will become a gold standard currency. But, in going forwards, I want to light a flame in your hearts. The government and our democratic ideals have fallen far below the standard of behavior required for us to protect the planet, take care of our responsibilities to our fellow man based on our previous treatment if nothing else, and therefore the burden of responsibility for these matters must fall from the shoulders of the state to the individual. This is not to say that the state has nothing to offer, rather it is a mechanism we must push as hard as we can to do what is necessary. But until we can admit, cleanly and clearly, that the international order of the nation states has fallen far, far below the standard of discipline necessary to protect the world we have not taken responsibility for the problem. Kyoto was the warning shot. Copenhagen is the last straw. It is up to us now, and I do not know what that means, but I no longer believe solely in state-level solution. The Green movement, Transition towns and similar groups have looked at this problem from various angles in the past. But they have not seized the fire from heaven, and that is what must be done now. It is up to us to redesign institutions which will actually take responsibility for protecting the planet from human weakness and corruptibility, and from the irresponsibility of the states in pandering to whatever will make the voters check the right box at the polling station. You have to face this: democracy in its current form has not delivered the results we were promised. The governments of the world's leading democracies lied to each other and their populations to justify illegal, bloody, destructive wars. Hundreds of thousands died. They sabotaged the climate talks. We have no idea what the consequences of that action may be. They have largely ignored poverty for decades, costing millions upon millions of lives. All of this in our name and with our consent, one election at a time. Is this the best of all possible worlds? I say no. The state takes our individual free wills, and binds them together to create a collective will to produce peace, prosperity and order. But our states have become diseased and insane, threatening the very continuity of our world and our species. We all know there is something wrong with the government. Nobody wanted the Cold War, mutually assured destruction, the horrific site of nuclear stockpiles that stretched to heaven while the world starved and drowned. All of that was pathology - behavior that at an individual level would have been psychopathic and delusional but which we accepted meekly as our leaders did it allegedly for our own good. This is not the way. So you must stop looking to the government to set the acceptable standards of environmental behavior and international relationships with citizens of other countries. There are terrible limits in the ability of democracies to produce the kinds of collective behaviors that we wish to see. Gandhi was not elected. Hitler was. Let us stop electing tyrants and expecting this arbitrary concentration of power at the center to result in justice and good government. Rather, let us each shoulder the individual moral burden of containing global warming, adapting to climate change, stopping biodiversity loss and repairing our relationships with people in foreign countries. We will need to design new forms of collective action to make up for the shortfalls in our existing systems, which almost all draw their legitimacy and power from the state. They've tried, they've failed, and now it's our turn. The state is not going to do it for us. This is the real meaning of the big society.

On true love, and the morning after.

Generally speaking, people don't think of me as a romantic. I will not close my eyes to the worst things the world has to offer, and while I work in subtle ways, I do not rest. I've dedicated my life above all other things to making a difference for the very poorest, and while it's drawn me into strange relationships with the military-intellectual complex, that's based on a very long bet indeed that the same kind of thinking that gave us the Internet will also give the poor much of the essential technological support they need to escape poverty. SSTR (security, stability, transition, reconstruction) has been a defense priority for a while, and when they get good at it, we'll have the tool kit we need to really address poverty for the billions. It is a matter of time until military R&D produces the tools we need to fix poverty, although other approaches may yet get there first. A little of an enormous pie vs. a lot of the tiny charity pie: both approaches may bear fruit. You might think that kind of mind that can make a devil's bargain like that would not love deeply or foolishly. Nothing would be further from the truth. So let me point out a little something. When you ask people about how they met their partners, particularly the people they had children with, how often do they bring up absurd synchronicities? I know one man who wound up sitting facing the same woman on two completely different flights in a two week period, and married her. Another pair of friends crossed path when one bought a sword made by the other, and later were drawn together in impossible ways. These stories are so routine they have generated their own genre: the romcom ("romantic comedy") which always glides over the surface of this deep, strange question: why does falling in love seem to change not just how we feel, but how the world itself works? I was trained as a tantric. Over years I examined every facet of myself that I could find, and held each in the fire until there was nothing left to burn. I did not complete the training - 9/11 was the end of my education - but I got about half way. As a result I do not teach, except the very basics, and I will never be a guru in this lifetime unless things take a very unusual turn. That's fine - there are plenty of gurus, and right now what the world needs is a hutwallah, not one more dodgy spiritual teacher. From the tantric perspective, love is a decision. Two people decide - choose - to see each other in particular roles, and from there a dance of creation unfolds, affording (ideally) another generation the privilege of existence. While much is made in the literature about non-reproductive recreational tantric sexuality, the tantras of the householders are rooted in a deeply conventional life pattern, and a single, simple question: how do you love one person completely for your entire lifetime, through every phase of life after childhood? And this turns out to be a difficult question, requiring substantial transformation of our instinctual character, with its tendency to reproduce difficult mammalian reproductive behavior patterns, to achieve. Without a substantial mastery of the sex instinct, true love is extremely difficult - the best possible children in the best possible circumstances is our reproductive goal, and (alas) a perfect alignment between that drive and the urges of the heart does not exist under most circumstances. To choose love requires guiding sex. This is all hinted at in the conventional structures of marriage. Fully explicating it requires much the same psychological transformations as monastics go through, but with the goal of sealing the sex instinct within a relationship, rather than sealing it within the self. The simple truth is that to be human beings fully under our own control the base biological programs of the body have to be integrated into a life-script which works for us as spirits in the material world. Real tantrics breed. The kama sutra was the playboy's guide to Calcutta. Out in the villages, a different way of life existed, with sexuality integrated into a largely disciplined arranged marriage culture. The precise details vary over time and between castes and cultures, but the same logic applied in India as in Europe: two virgins married and faithful produces a child-rearing environment free of incurable sexually transmitted diseases and paternity questions. If enough of the culture plays by these rules in each generation, herd immunity to disease and social breakdown through uncontrolled reproduction and resulting property rights disputes can be generated. What passed in the village lineages, the little gurus of small family lines, was the know-how to live in the material world of a medieval peasant as if the world was a spiritual pure land, and they took their transcendence where they could find it. Does this sound like it has anything to do with love? Certainly not as the lightning bolt, the uncontrolled force, of Krishna and Radha (she's somebody else's wife, by the way - the Hare Krishnas don't talk about that bit so much now do they?) This is where the two paths diverge. Biologically-driven relationships endure cycles which drive efficient production of the best possible children in the best possible environment, which includes all kinds of competitive grinding between the parents and their extended families as the genes jockey for transmission. People replicate family patterns because it is known to work well enough to produce another generation and evolution proceeds a generation at a time. Spiritually-driven relationships start at the point where people have controlled the sex instinct to the point where a monastic life is an option. If you can't see the world without a partner as an option then, at some level, there is a vestige of the reproductive or family-producing instinct remaining. That thread can pull the fabric of a relationship in all kinds of strange directions which may be out of harmony with our surface personas and desires. Complex spiritual practices unravel ever-deeper levels of this blending of our individual, personal desire, and the species-and-wider level instinctual base known as kundalini - the lizard brain and the will of our ancestral programming to reproduce itself is nigh-on unstoppable, as indeed it must be to have gotten our forebears through some billion years of life. It is not purified until it hits home in transcendent eternity. And this is not even the teaching level, this is the simple householder practice of the tantrics who expect to have families. What then of love? Conventional romantic love is the negotiated and uneasy balance point between mammalian reproductive instinct, culture, and individuality. Tantric love is simply individuality, with reproductive instinct and culture sandblasted out by main force. All of this Californian self-indulgent tantra is bhoga - enjoyment of the ride - rather than yoga - enjoyment of the act of being. One of these paths has a future, the other smashes your dreams against the wall of old age. The uncompromising force of love as a spiritual contract between two people who are free to do as they will, unconditioned, is the apex of the tantric spiritual path, and is said to have the very regeneration of the world potential within it. Three times in my life I have loved. In each case, for a while, the world behaved quite differently, abandoned its old linear-random habits for a complex orchestration of causes and effects as my lovers and I carved our way into the future. On two of those occasions, the wake we left was felt by millions in ways directly related to the choices we made together about what to do with our lives, heroic deeds performed on the path to home and family. Things no individual would ever comprehend as doable become quite manageable as a couple. The broken road claims all wagons. So I am alone. I'm writing this to say that love is hard not because we are broken and crazy, but because it is the reactor who's fire, like the fusion of the particles which make up the sun, propels life forwards, generation by generation, into infinity. When you understand what the stakes are - the very fabric of life itself rewoven in each generation by those single moments when we decide to eat and drink, or wait and think - somehow the hardships of the path of the heart seem easier to understand. Love is the loom on which we weave the future.

The Future We Deserve project update

Hello, everybody! This is an update for the authors and supporters of The Future We Deserve. The book is going very well.
  • We've raised 70%80%88% 101% - $2017 - of the $2000 we need to do the book. We have raised the money to do the book!. Feel free to donate additional funds, but we now have the core funding. Thank you very much to all of our donors. Really, really so pleased :-)
  • We have 71 authors signed up, some doing more than one piece. We could use a fair number of additional authors, but I'm sure people will keep showing up!
  • About 1/4 of the material is in, 26 pieces so far and the pieces are inspiring and powerful.
The "first deadline" is September 15th - a month from now - and October 1st is the hard deadline for the book. So please get writing, and I'll be sending out periodic reminders. If you can, please get your material in early so that we can really get the conversations about the book going as the process unfolds. 26 pieces so far is a great start, but it would be great to have half the book in place by the end of this month! The blogathon features pieces from the book: If you have time time, please pick a piece from the pieces submitted so far, run it on your blog, and add your thoughts on the piece. It's a really good way to showcase the book and the ideas in it. We're well on track, well done, and thank you for all of your help!

The Razor’s Edge

In Europe, we fought two senseless wars. World Wars, we called them, started over nothing but childish games of gain and loss. Whatever dreams of wealth and power were imagined to come from those conflicts were as nothing compared to the real gains that would have been made had the money, time and talent gone into the laboratories, schools and factories. Now we have a slightly different problem: everybody has lent money to everybody else, at fierce interest, and now there is not enough money for all to be paid back. This has the name "crisis" not because it takes the bread off the shelves but because the rich cannot own a little slice of every life, and expect to get their share. The state worries not on their behalf, but on principle. But let me tell you where we started. In the age of Ford, the poor starved, and we did nothing. In the age of SUVs, the poor starved, and we did nothing. In the age of the Internet, the poor starved, and we did nothing. This so-called crisis is a crisis because it is happening to us, and not to our designated punching bags in the developing world who watch their children die with one eye, and coca cola advertisements with the other. Is it not true that this terrible thing we are afraid of now has been elsewhere eating into the human race for our entire lives, and because it was other people, we did not act? Why, then, when it is us who face the end of the money, would we expect others to act on our behalf? Poverty. The result of the banking crisis may well be poverty. But it is not the first poverty to exist in the world. Think about it.

The Party We Never Had – on peace and prosperity

(play this, and read on) In 1991, to all intents and purposes, world peace broke out. The US had won. Truth, Justice and the American Way - democracy itself - had been vindicated by the economic collapse of the Soviets. Even with 50% defense spending in the US, even with tensions between the US and China, even with all the small wars, the world was at peace with America victorious. The last gasp of the nuclear weapon, the stray terrorist bomb, continued to haunt us but it was a threat we could face, unlike the threat of mutually assured destruction and its unspeakable, unimaginable true meaning: the loss of all life on earth in a single day. We had arrived at the place longed for and sought for through generations of sacrifice. 20 years later the world is bankrupt and America is broken. What went wrong? The country failed to make the turn, to adapt to peace, and now it is losing wars and bankrupted. What happened? For 10 years, 1991 to 2001, the US maintained huge defense spending. The "peace dividend" was tiny. Most importantly no new social roles were opened up for former soldiers. A declaration of victory, of peace, followed by slashing defense spending and using the money to put former soldiers and defense contractors back into the peacetime economy, a Marshall Plan for America is what was needed. But the standing army was left standing. The communal celebration which could have saved America's soul was not held. The party that could have saved our civilization was not thrown. Without the communal celebration of the collapse of the Soviet Union the relief that was was over never became a part of our collective consciousness, our social narrative. Project for a New American Century nibbled away at the wires, and when finally Bush came to power the chance to demilitarize, re-arm, and go after Permanent Sole Superpower Status came with 9/11. The agenda in Rebuilding America's Defenses was tried, and failed. The US is mired in two wars. Real unemployment figures hover around 20%. The world financial system has been bailed out by borrowing money from future generations which will never be paid back. The entire thing is rickety and clapped out, with none of the resilience needed to cope with climate change and the onrushing crises of globalization because of the Puritan reluctance to declare Jubilee. In 1991, we needed to declare victory. We needed to throw the party to end all parties - indeed, the party to end all wars. We needed to tell ourselves, and each-other, that we were safe from Stalin's legacy and that if we worked together, the peace dividend could last forever. And one man ended this dream. You may want me to say Osama bin Laden, but it was not. It was George Walker Bush who, with his backers, took a tragedy and started two religiously inspired wars of opportunity, to finally fly the Christian flag over the middle east, and the American flag over its oil reserves. We watched them invade Iraq, a country completely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks. We watched them kill a million people there, give or take. Now President Obama claims that it is legal to murder American citizens and to criminalize those who would offer those citizens legal council. All of this because we were not willing to declare victory when the Cold War was won. We did not declare peace, we did not cut military spending, we did not make new social roles for the former members of the military-industrial complex returned to productive employment. And now the world is bankrupt from the most expensive war in history. Blood and treasure burned in the sand, a false sacrifice to the vain gods of Empire. This financial collapse did not just happen because of lax banking regulations. It happened because a society cannot maintain a war footing for nearly a century, cannot maintain the hypocrisy of preaching peace while making war, of exporting democracy at the point of a sword, and of leaving its own children ill-fed and poor while shattering the lives of entire generations. I have worked closely with the military, specifically the American military, trying to forge paths to peace. I went as an infrastructure specialist, as somebody who knew how to rebuild and remake. I went to try and build a road out of the quagmire. I will not say it was for nothing, but it was glacially slow progress and not much to show for nearly ten years. One rather good paper, and its associated project, is not what I'd hoped for. Now, at the end of my rant, let me propose the three conclusions.
  • The failure to declare victory, or to declare failure, damages us by trapping us in old struggles, whether we won or lost them.
  • The celebration, or the sorrowing, is the emotional phase of letting go of an old way of life.
  • If we do not do this for the time of material abundance we have enjoyed, at the cost of mortgaging all life on earth to our greed as we burn the biosphere for industrial productivity, we will not be able to exit this phase cleanly.
We need a ritual to exit the phase in history when we, the victors, had everything and when the Earth was sufficiently strong to shoulder the burden of our foolish and absurd greeds without visible complaint. We stand at the gateway of a new chapter, when peace - the silent, quiet peace of a world at bay - and war, the bloody war over the last scraps of oil-fueled prosperity - are both possible. How are we to have the celebration and the sorrowing for our industrial prosperity, and for the over-consumption which has blotted our our fears of nuclear annihilation for generations as we labored under the Cold War's umbrella of unholy terror? Now that the nuclear rockets are gone from our skies, we can think straight, open our eyes, and look at the world around us, and each other, and say - sober and sane - that we have gone astray. The terror blinded us, and we slaked our fear at the mall. It is over and we must clearly, consciously and without reservation come in our hearts to the realization that our madness has ended, and it is time to clean up from our insane century of war, holocaust and nuclear terror. It is possible to think again, because the flash from the skies is gone. I want us to throw the party which never came, the party at which we declared war is over, and peace has come. I want us to throw it in the ruins of a bankrupt America, as the troops come home because there is no financial alternative. I want us all to set the world to rights by acknowledging that it is over, the terror from the skies, and we can stop shopping, start taking care of each other, and building a world worth living in for everybody. Because we did not declare peace when we had the chance, we got another round of war. When the chance for peace comes again, as it must, let there be celebration and sorrowing, and the admission the world of war and excess, which we have suffered and reveled through, is ended.

Jason Theodor’s Creative Method and Systems

See slides 167 (!) onwards of this excellent presentation on creativity. It's really a very, very clever model of creative relationships, and I'm going to do more reading up on this guy's work.

A Nightmare – Sawtooth Politics

I'm not sure I believe this. But I'm afraid, sometimes, that I do. And, yes, when the President of the United States of America can "legally" order the murder of US citizens, and forbid legal aid of those so-sanctioned, the Constitution is dead. The only way we're getting ahead on this one is new technology, like the Three Reasons For Hope. That stuff, so far, seems to actually accomplish much of what we're trying to get done here globally. So this remains the challenge: how to we fund the research into the stuff we need to get done to survive, when our collective agency devices - the governments - are acting like total assclowns as the world burns?

The Future We Deserve – Blogathon

So I've been thinking about how to bring more focus to some of the great work going on at The Future We Deserve. I am happy to have figured it out. Welcome to The Future We Deserve Blogathon! Simply take a look at the submissions page, pick an article you like, and run it on your blog. Remember it's all CC licensed already! You could post the whole thing, or you can find a link to the article at the main Collaboratory page and blog a response. Post a tweet with the tag #theFWD so we can follow you. I particularly want to encourage authors to post pieces from other authors and discuss how they reacted to those pieces. I'll go first.
A Future Without Childhood by Julia Macintosh, @cricket7642
I propose a future without childhood. No, no, no, don't get me wrong; not a future without children – I hope children continue to happen, generally speaking. But I wonder if the idea of childhood might not be one of the methods by which we learn to experience denial, if it might not be inflicting a subtle and persistent violence upon us? What exactly is childhood, anyway? How can it be defined? Is it biological - a specific period within the early stages of physical development? Mental – a period during which personal faculties are formed and developed? Moral – a state of innocence and grace? Political – a state of powerlessness and exemption from responsibility? Economic – a parasitic state of dependency? Historic – constructed in the last few centuries in parallel to western imperialism? Cultural – a shared system of learned behaviour? Each of these aspects of the term will inspire a full spectrum of views; the literature on childhood is vast, and there are many thriving professions devoted to the study, the cultivation and the servicing of childhood. There are deeply entrenched investments in childhood as an unassailable operating concept (brightly coloured plastic tubes of yoghurt, anyone?) and for that reason alone we should question it further. How is childhood connected to denial? I would argue the following points: that the idea of childhood reinforces an expectation that innocence and protection from harm can be secured, even guaranteed. It instills a sense of separation and difference from others, the adults, to whom society grants agency and legitimacy. It creates the illusion that power and responsibility are something that can be picked up and handled at a certain age, when one is ready for them, rather than something inherent to the social experience. Many of the ongoing debates around children's issues in our culture arise because the lives and experiences of real children flout these parameters constantly. Childhood also only exists with its complementary state, adulthood. This is the state in which we surrender innocence, assume legitimacy, and wield power. Of course, the real experiences of adults flout these parameters constantly as well. The concepts of childhood and adulthood embody the idea of progress. A state of childhood suggests that there will, eventually, be a state of adulthood. The future is inherent in the idea of childhood. The children are our future! But does it really work that way? A couple years ago I helped to run a conference about nature kindergartens. This was one small event in an ongoing movement to promote nature as “key to children's lives and learning.”1 The conference was organised by myself and other adults in an enclosed, flourescent-lit office, our eyes glazing over from hours at a computer screen. We all accepted the irony of this with resigned duty and wistful suggestions to hold our planning discussions outside in a nearby park. This kind of irony is central to the disconnection that the idea of childhood allows us to practice. The implicit message of childhood is: live it up while you can, enjoy your freedom, these are a temporary respite from the grim slavery of the responsibilities you will eventually shoulder. Surrender joy all ye who enter adulthood. A future without childhood may therefore also be a future without adulthood. And what would there be instead? Perhaps simply personhood. What sort of cultural paradigm could we devise around every person counting as a legitimate part of society, irrespective of age? Could this be a paradigm in which every person counts as a legitimate part of society, irrespective of their biological, mental, moral, political, or economic state? We could even look further into personhood, as is already being done in the areas of animal rights, the study of consciousness, evolutionary biology and in many other fields of inquiry. Our philosophical ponderings may take us into what we mean by work and play, freedom and responsibility, and what we mean by human nature: are we an integrated participant in the natural universe or are we special, more special than trees or microbes or air molecules? “Your children are not special.... There is no future. There's no such thing. It doesn't exist. You're our future. The children are our future! There's no such thing....”2 A future without childhood might be a future in which everyone and no one is special, it might be a future without the future, a future of the here and now and of the everybody in it together. 1 Children in Scotland magazine, Issue 84, June 2008 2 Bill Hicks, from Rant in E-Minor
For me, Julia's piece made me think in a totally different way about the future. I'm very focused on how technology changes the future. I follow and model how we adopt better technologies, or how existing technologies begin to drive social change. So it was really thought provoking for me to read and think about a future in which one of our deepest social roles fades out, leaving a more egalitarian society, with no technological drift involved. If you want to help us raise funds for the book in your post, you can include the following HTML to link to the Kickstarter in the body of your post. <a href='http://kck.st/cBScWu'><img align=right width=200 border='0' src='http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/461743612/the-future-we-deserve-100-days-100-visions-of-the/widget/card.jpg' style="padding:15px; border-style: none; " /></a> Thank you!

Introducing aiac – a new word for Western Civilization

Aiac is a new word, an acronym coming from Agro-Industrial AutoCatalysis. It's intended as a precise, technical term to refer to the "technically important bits" of what is often loosely called Western Civilization or Market Capitalism or various other loose, not-quite-precise names. So let me break the term down. Agro-industrial meaning of agriculture and industry. Autocatalysis meaning, literally, a thing which makes it easier for more of itself to exist. Some chemical processes produce molecules which act as catalysts which accelerate the reaction even further. The Profusion - the age of cheap plenty - is produced by aiac. We have machines which produce cheap, reliable parts for other machines. That makes it cheap to make machines, which makes it cheap to make things. We use machines to make plentiful cheap food. That leaves us lots of time to work the machines which make things. This whole network has evolved (and I mean that quite literally) to make its own function more and more efficient in certain areas. There are some quirks - we don't seem to do energy efficiency even when it is profitable - but generally speaking aiac is marvelously sleek and fit for purpose. Aiac has two problems. It is extractive at one end (mining, cannibalization of the ecosystem and so on) and aiac is polluting at the other end. The challenge of sustainability is to close the loops on aiac so that it is no longer extractive or polluting. The collaposnomics problem can be stated as "to what degree could an economic contraction cause a failure in aiac?" - if the banks seize up, do we suddenly find ourselves in a cascade of events which makes industrial bolts cost $11 each and so on down the supply chain, suddenly resulting in the loss of our ability to make cheap, reliable machines to multiply our labor. Protecting aiac is critical. Protecting the world from aiac's flaws is also critical. Aiac. It's a good word. You should use it!

Special Exchanges – a subsidy free of market distortion

A special exchange is an instrument which government can use to subsidize trade in a commodity without subsidizing either buyers or sellers. It is therefore substantially free of moral hazard and market distortion. In a market where there is too little profit to support a market maker trade often grinds to a halt. When the spread between buyers and sellers is too small, nobody can make a living providing the value-added services required for buyers and sellers to find each-other and transact business. These kinds of markets must exist: they are just below the threshold of profitability required for the free market to function. To form a special exchange, government subsidizes or operates a market maker, who's job it is to match buyers and sellers in the given commodity. This market maker's effectiveness can be measured by the volume of transactions which pass through it. In the instances where these transactions are at least sometimes taxable, an estimate can be made of the cost or benefit to the public based on increased tax revenues. The argument against special exchanges is that government may be facilitating trade between buyers and sellers of a marginal service, but preventing the formation of market makers in that space by acting as one. However, if the subsidy to market makers in the arena is structural (a bonus paid as a percentage of the value of transactions facilitated) this problem can be kept to a strict minimum. Areas in which special exchanges might make sense: car sharing, trading unused industrial tooling capacity, personal services for the disabled and poor in general. In general, the special exchange is a useful utility, like the feebate, which could be applied to a variety of policy objectives. The non-market distorting subsidy is something of a holy grail, and in some areas the special exchange provides that utility.