Back to Home

contact


The Need for Designing the Future Collaboratively:
To Whom the Future of the Earth Might Concern.

The differences that there exist among all our ideas--ideas of all who share this planet, about what our common existence on this planet should ideally be like--should be resolved by any what-so-ever expedient, appropriate means first: by modeling (computer modeling, or any other kind of modeling) at the global level, round table style discussions at the community level, before those differences resolve in real life, causing real waste of lives, resources, and time in the real world.

Once there would be a clear idea of what we all agree that our common existence in this world should look like, only then it would be possible to achieve this commonly held ideal.

This contrasts with the way in use now when we are mostly trying to improve our existence in this world by forever fixing the infinite problems stemming from our past mistakes that plague us, and usually causing new problems to arise with our fixes--never knowing well what kind of existence we are trying to achieve, and therefore never achieving any kind of existence that would be fully acceptable by anyone.

Why There is a Need for Designing the Ideal Earth Cooperatively:

Normally we sort out the differences that we have about how our collective, social lives should be conducted in real time/space with the familiar results: our collective existence on this planet is becoming worse in many vital aspects.

We have to find a way of effectively resolving our differences before those differences start being sorted out in real life.

It is imperative that we find a way of collectively deciding what kind of a common existence on this planet we all want--we have to have a collectively shared "vision" of what we want the Earth to be.

This "vision" (Meadows 2004), or a "choice" (Fritz 1984) has to be based on what there, in the ideal reality, we would really like to have, without considering whether this would be "realistic", "possible" (Fritz 1984), or any such considerations for the nonce. It has to be ideal; as ideal as possible--to the point that one could not improve on the vision any further, as if.

"By vision I mean the inner crystallization of the result that you want to create, so that the result is conceptually specific and tangible in your imagination--so tangible and so specific, in fact, that you would recognize the manifestation of the result if it occurred." (Fritz 1984, p66)

Only after this, once a vision is formulated in as minute detail as possible (Fritz 1984), would the finding of ways of how to achieve this vision start. It would not do to start looking for such ways without the vision not being fully defined, or at least as well defined that we would recognize this vision should we encounter it (Fritz 1984, paraphrased again).
It has to be understood very firmly that creating a vision of what one wants (I paraphrase Robert Fritz in his The Path of Least Resistance [Fritz 1984] frequently without always acknowledging this) is in no way forecasting the future!--Sometimes this is not clear! It means deciding on a goal to be striven for consciously, not waiting for a vision to descent upon us from above (or wherever from)!

This approach is very different from the hit-or-miss, band-aid superficial approach that we, the humanity, have been using so far in trying to improve our conditions for life on Earth, with the results clearly observable--increasing environmental and societal crises that have no precedents in humankind's existence.

So far we have mostly been responding to problems as they occur, with the result that we have been able to successfully deal with some of the problems, but, on the whole, although we have achieved a lot of "progress", we usually manage to create even more difficulties in this way due to our not dealing with the root causes of most of our problems.

Most of us know what kind of a world we would like to live in. And to make sure that we end up living in a world that we all would like to live in, we have to reconcile any possible differences that there might be among our individual ideas of what the world that we would like to live in should be like before we start striving for it--just to make sure that we, each of us, are not striving for different objectives! As much as we share the same place, the same planet together, that much we have to share our planning for our common co-existence, our common future together.

We have to collectively create a model of the world that we would like to live in in order to have a "visible", a referable to portrayal of the commonly designed ideal, and while we all cooperate on constructing the model, we all work out all the differences that there might be among our ideas of what our ideal world should look like as we progress on construction of the design.

Of course, constructing the model of an ideal world would never be finished--it would be continually improved upon--but we would start eventually getting the idea of what it is that we are all agreeing on, and we would start working towards the ideal world in real time and space as soon as the design would be clear enough to permit this.

This forever ongoing cooperation of us all on creating of an ideal Earth agreeable to all would be far better than the way of resolving of our differences on occasions, then going our separate ways, and then getting into difficulties with each other again--over and over again, as we are accustomed to doing "normally".
While continuously trying to improve the model of all of us existing together, we would spot potential trouble spots long before those would develop in real life to cause real problems--an improvement over the cycles of violence we adhere to presently! It would be dealing with problems before those occur--not after problems occur!

It is very important that everybody would have an access to the process of creating of the model, so that anybody's ideas of the ideal that might differ from the ideas of others would get sorted out in the model, rather than waiting for those differences to be sorted out in real life, causing real damage!

With the free access of everybody to the modeling/designing of the ideal world everybody would be able to and forced to learn what they would need to learn "on the job"--first by taking a part in designing of the ideal, then by cooperating on actually achieving the ideal in real life--the best possible education for anyone, an education that would relate to our existence on this planet directly.

The ongoing designing of the world would become a permanent feature in everybody's life. It would be a feature that would be consciously encultured into the social/cultural fabric of the society from generation to generation seamlessly, and thus (I hope) would prevent any future possible reversal to our current way of conducting politics. After all--resolving problems, differences, controversies, and complaints before those could engender real life damage would, at all times, be clearly superior to any other ways of living.

It would fundamentally differ from the way "politics" is being done in our world now-a-days in that, that it would not be personalities fighting for partisan and personal power; it would be ideas that would "compete" for inclusion into the ideal world design; only ideas that would best fit in with all other components of the design, and with all that we know about ourselves and about the world would be included in the design, to be replaced when better ideas would be submitted. It would never be necessary to know who is behind which idea! One's satisfaction would not depend solely on others' approval, but from actually seeing one's good ideas put to good use.

This imagining of what the ideal Earth should be like should start on the global level and from there the design would be putting each local community into the global context, because were it otherwise, in the end, during the process of each community's becoming what the whichever community might consider "ideal" might interfere with what other communities might consider "ideal"--they would be wise to check on the global design just to prevent any future conflicts. In this case the "think globally, act locally" would have its rightful application. In practice this thinking and acting would occur simultaneously.

Please read "Designing a Lasting Peace Together", where the need for collaboratively designing the future of the world could be seen best.

Please, also see The Ideal Sustainable Earth Model: Proposal.

N.B.
The concept of designing the future collectively described in these pages owes its existence to Mahayana philosophy and to ideas presented in The Path of Least Resistance (Fritz 1984) by Robert Fritz, which I paraphrase and quote from often, not always necessarily acknowledging this.

Bibliography:

Fritz, Robert
        1984 The Path of Least Resistance.   Salem, MA: DMA Inc.

Meadows, Donella H., Jorgen Randers and Dennis Meadows
        2004 Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update.
        White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company

Back to TOP

CREDIT and DEDICATION
Copyright information
Domain Name Registered by pairNIC

Things for an "indie" website maintainer.

"W3C" HTML 4.01 compliant