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
Co-operatively:
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
co-operate 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 co-operation 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 co-operating 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
|