The effectiveness of our strategies for change

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance
#1

Hi all! In another thread, Brian proposed starting a new discussion around the question:

In the long run, what are the most effective strategies for human behavioral change in order to best preserve the ecosystem?

I like this idea, because I think everyone who is dissatisfied with the status quo needs to have this discussion.

I really agree with the importance of what Brian said:

I want to try to take each action and imagine its effect realistically and from a wide perspective, not imagining how it would work in a vacuum, but based on real human behavior.

I also agree with another thing he said, which really hits on the main difference of beliefs people have about this:

I think the main conflict in my thinking (and yours, from what I can tell) is between Jensenian strategies (violent and crash-provoking) and Quinnian strategies (education and civilization abandonment).

From what I have learned about Daniel Quinn’s philosophy, and Derrick Jensen’s, the difference can aptly be summed up as idealism vs. materialism (philisophically, I mean). Idealism represents the belief that ideas shape material reality (that ideas come first), while materialism believes the opposite. We can see this difference between, on the one hand, the belief that in order to change society, people must first be educated and change their mentality, and on the other hand, the belief that people’s mentality directly results from material reality, and that for the most part, changing people’s mentality FIRST requires changing the material reality (changing society).

These differing philosophies also describe the difference between liberalism and radicalism (politically), along with a few other things (individual action vs. collective action, for example). Actually, I think this last point relates to another major difference in strategies. Consuming “green” - discriminating between good and bad companies and products - represents an individual action, as well as the belief that solutions can be found on an individual level - implying that the problems are also caused by individuals. But if one believes that the problems are systemic - rooted in the underlying society itself - then it follows that the solutions will require changing that underlying structure.

Honestly I find it illogical that so many who understand the true roots of the problem, still look toward individual “solutions.” Unfortunately, I think this has resulted from the total lack of any discussion of the real-world consequences and effectiveness of the commonly proposed solutions (why I like this thread!)

Really, all activist work falls in two categories - indirect action and direct action. Indirect meaning actions that only indirectly work to bringing about change, through educating other, raising awareness, and symbolic protests (trying to influence the public and the politicians). Direct action refers to things that have concrete results, directly affecting the thing they aim to affect, in and of themselves (without requiring any outside agency to act on their behalf).

I know that in all my time working as an activist, I always took the work we were doing for granted, as the only way to go - never once seriously examining the effectiveness of our strategies. This often leads to activist burnout, when one wants to achieve real, concrete results but confines oneself to symbolic, indirect actions - because the one does not lead to the other.

If one wants to focus on indirect actions, great! Just don’t operate under any illusions that indirect actions can achieve anything other than raising some people’s awareness & understanding, or you risk getting discouraged and quitting political activity altogether, like myself and so many other activists. In fact, this discussion has played a key role in motivating me to get back INTO political activity - realizing that I CAN fight the system in a way that has a real, concrete impact - I just have to change my tactics!

By the way, for all who didn’t already know, Derrick Jensen wrote a whole book pretty much for the express purpose of discussing the effectiveness of our strategies for change - Endgame, particularly volume 2 (I think volume 1 deals more with why we need to take action, of any kind!) Of course, he represents a certain point of view, which he explains up front in the premises at the beginning of the book. Since every author (and every human being!) expresses a unique POV in everything they communicate, I really appreciate the honesty of stating it up front (in my opinion, anyone who claims to represent an “objective” point of view ends up lying, despite their best intentions).

Jessica

1 Like
#2

I think this article is a much more succinct version of “Endgame”…
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/hti.htm

At this point, I think trying to control or bring down civilization is like trying to bring down a hurricane. It’s way too big, powerful, and complex to think I can do something to stop it in its tracks. I love Derrick Jensen’s works. He has truly brought me back into radicalism with a passion. But I think it’s too simplistic to just say we should “bring down civilization.” With even a well-organized guerilla army, that’s a long shot, and in the industrialized world, where resistance is a choice rather than an immediate fight for survival (I mean, it is a fight for survival, but for many radicals only in the metaphorical sense at this point), there will never be that kind of organized resistance.

I think the system is coming down now in slow motion. I don’t know if there’s a thing I can do to facilitate it. I think it’s partially a matter of evolution that when this disturbance hits, a small portion of the population will have developed an adaptation to that scenario and then that will become the dominant paradigm. So, rewilding folks may be fairly small in numbers now now, but it need not become popular, it just needs to effect enough people in enough places so that as the lights flicker and go out on various power structures, this new paradigm will prove itself to be the one to ensure survival, thus becoming the evolutionary winner (not that I imagine there will be a clean break where rewilding is reigned in as the new global worldview on the winter solstice 2012, though i won’t try to stop it if it does).

Maybe I’m just avoiding the issue in wanting to do nothing to “bring down civilization.” I’m scared, sure. But I’m just one organism trying to live just like every other organism out there. And like all other living creatures, I live under the iron fist of civilization. So for now, I bide my time, learn some skills, get to know places, plants, fungi, and animals and wait.

~wildeyes

#3

Hey, Jessica… I like the premises of direct and indirect action. Obviously we’re not limited to one or the other, but it’s a good way to distinguish things.

I also think you’re right on about an “objective” POV. I sometimes think Daniel Quinn believes himself to be completely objective, and he is pretty good at trying, but alot of times I can tell he’s full of shit. Objectivity almost by definition seems to be something that can’t be put into words. If you really focus and get into a certain state (possibly drug induced), I think you can catch glimpses of the un-biased truth, but that’s about it.

I must apologize for only having skimmed through Endgame Vol II so I can’t hold up that end of the discussion yet (It’ll be the next thing I read, I promise). But on the indirect action end of things, my own last post reminded me of an idea I had before:

Have you ever thought of gathering as many copies of Ishmael as you can get your hands on and sending/mailing them to culturally “influential” people? Or maybe just passing them around to as many people that you know would have a pretty good inclination to read it? I’m sure somebody has already done this to some extent, but I’m wondering if it could be taken a step further. If it were legal, we could start an online pool and have people donate their used copies of Ishmael for redistribution. I’d feel bad for old DQ’s revenue loss but, hell, If he really cares about the earth, and all those copies were originally paid for, I don’t see a problem.

I would pick Ishmael to send out because it’s a pretty good “rewild” primer in a mysterious and entertaining novel form that catches the average person’s attention. I haven’t read Derrick J’s books thouroghly, but from what I’ve seen they’re not as immediately inviting and accessible (especially to non-environmentalists). I could be wrong. But I know Ishmael is very human-centered and does a pretty good job of exposing many cultural myths in one short volume. It also has an easy to remember name. But I suppose other books could be used, depending on the personality and interests of the intended reader.

Now, being realistic (which I promised to do), what initial effect might this have? I suppose a great many people wouldn’t read something just sent throught the mail to them by an anonymous person. Most people read books because either:
A). They seek a book out
B). A book “catches their eye”
C). A book is a gift/recommendation from friend/family
D). A book is required reading for school/job

Our only hope to appeal to the unwilling reader would be to channel it through their friends/associates, or accompany it with a very convincing letter (assuming they actually read the letter).

The second reality check of this strategy is whether it would actually have any real effects in the behavior/thinking of the “culturally influential” reader that would ripple out in any signifigant way through their influence.

I know Eddie Vedder read Ishmael and based an album (or at least a song: “Do the Evolution”) on it. But I have no idea whether this brought Ishmael any new readers (maybe hardcore fans and Vedder’s groupies?) or if it really changed Eddie’s or his fans thinking to a signifigant degree.

I suppose musicians, filmmakers, and actors would be the most likely to take the bite and follow through. If we had an actual correspondence with them, we could suggest other books to follow up. But we could also try for people in different levels of corporations and politics… anybody somewhat public/powerful who is willing to read. Maybe they could send the books back if they didn’t want them.

This idea could be farfetched as something that could effect change. I don’t know how accesible these “celebrities” are to contact or mail to, or if their support would help or hurt anything. It could all amount to wasted effort. Maybe they’d just recycle more or give money to some useless charity. Maybe they’d feel just a little more or a little less depressed in their shallow, lonely lives. Or maybe their positioning would somehow allow for a brief resurgence of publicity for a 16-year-old novel. Or maybe I would just lose alot of money on postage. Or maybe Daniel Quinn would have me thrown in Jail for redistributing his books! :smiley:

#4

Hi Brian,

I’ve had similar ideas about an Ishmael distribution effort. If you ever pursue this more please let me know, I’d be interested in possibly helping you out however I can.

Here are some Q&A’s with DQ that answers some of your questions.

On making money off from Ishmael: http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=698

The Gideon’s Bible idea: http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=519

Take care,

Curt

#5

What a coincidence! I’m currently writing what basically amounts to a rewilding propaganda novel. Bet that could come in handy.

To some extent, I think it’s a good idea to consider our effectiveness. We don’t want to waste our time on ineffective action.

At the same time, I think we can paralyze ourselves with endless talk about our action, when sometimes we just need to get out there and fight. We just need to do something, anything. Undermining civilization in little ways like novels and zines and community discussions might not seem very effective, but it can build up to death by a thousand cuts.

#6

I like the thread, but I hope nobody minds if I inject some proactive caution.

“Most effective” may vary from individual to individual for a wide array of reasons. So, I respectfully request that everyone who posts on this thread keep that in mind.

Granted, so far, I see plenty of understanding of that :slight_smile: but I figure it doesn’t hurt to put up a reminder.

#7

Yeah, Thanks for the link, Curt!

I can see that this probably wouldn’t bother DQ. I thought I had read all of those Q and A’s, but I better go through them again. Now I understand a little better how an author gets his money. I didn’t really think about the fact no one can publish a book for free (even the Bible costs something) and that DQ’s hand are mostly tied as far as giving away or redistributing copies himself because of his relationship with the publisher.

Well, if this could be an effective idea, I’ll get on to more technical concerns i have:

I’d like to get as many of these books as cheaply as possible. I’m imagining a million copies of Ishmael just getting dusty, sitting on shelves of people like us (who probably don’t need to reread it) or people who read it once and moved on. I gave my original copy to a girl and never saw it/her again. I only know of one copy freely available to me, and that’s my sister’s. I suppose I could start by asking friends, and maybe people on this site could gather any copies they were willing to give up, or make sure to send them on to other readers by their own volition.

Thanks for the input incendiary dan! You’re right about all this talking, but I think I remember Derrick Jensen saying “we have to be smart.” This is a great place to talk ideas out and filter out any nonsensical aspects of them before we act. That’s awesome that you’re writing a propaganda novel, and that brings up a few interesting questions about book distribution:

1). Should Ishmael be the central book?
I think other books/manuals could be used for sure, but I need some feedback on this. I liked Ishmael because it moves so slowly into a new paradigm that there seems to be much less “cognitive dissonance” with Civ-minded readers. But I’ve heard others say they found it frustratingly stupid, slow, and condescending. (or they couldn’t get past a talking gorilla!) Maybe a new, all-encompassing volume needs to be written.

2). Should the books be “re-marketed”?
Sometimes I think Ishmael and other books we talk about haven’t been “marketed” well enough in proportion to how important I think they are. Tagging the book or laminating its cover with something like “you need to read this” or “this book will change your life” or “If you want to save the world, read this first” could possibly entice more readers. But, could it also have the negative effect of seeming too cult-like or religious and turning people off? I’d like some help on this as well.

3). Should this be a non-profit business venture?
I certainly don’t have unlimited money to put into this idea with nothing in return. Perhaps the books can be bought and sold for very low prices. Paying a little something might also encourage the buyer to actually read it. It looks like some copies of Ish are going for as low as 3.00$+ shipping, but I’d still like to send some out for free.

http://catalog.ebay.com/Ishmael_0553375407_9780553375404_W0QQ_fifptsZ1QQ_pcatidZ4QQ_pidZ434760QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em271

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0553375407/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

If I was swimming in enough cheap/ free copies, books could be laminated and put in hotel rooms, doctor waiting rooms, etc… There could be links to other books/information laminated on the back cover and a message encouraging the reader to pass the book on.

On a last note, jhereg, you’re absolutely right about the “most effective” comment.

"Most effective" may vary from individual to individual for a wide array of reasons. So, I respectfully request that everyone who posts on this thread keep that in mind.

I second that, and while we shouldn’t put any ideas “down,” I would invite people to post on this thread who would like help with their ideas and wants to clarify them through brainstorming and a little constructive criticism.

#8

Ha! I keep getting slightly thrown off, since DQ happens to me my initials as well. Hel, I even have the same first name as the Daniel Quinn.

Maybe I can hope that when people look at my novel quickly, they mistake the name on the front for Quinn’s and might look at it closer. That is, if it ever gets published.

One problem I think people my have with Ishmael and My Ishmael, (didn’t read Story of B yet) is that not much actually happens. The activity in them is basically the bare minimum necessary for readers to identify with the characters any. I’m hoping to provide a bit more entertainment in my novel. In this regard, Ishmael might fall slightly short.

#9

HA HA ;D Sorry Dan,

DQ always makes me think of “Dairy Queen” :stuck_out_tongue:

Yeah, I hear you about Ishmael… It’s so hard for me to get an outside perspective on it because it was the first “paradigm shifting” book I read. I like that kind of warms you up slowly to the idea that earth does not belong to humans, acknowledging that you’ve been told all your life that it does. But even I had some mental preparation going into it, having read a lot of Henry David Thoreau and being somewhat attracted to environmentalism and tribalism to begin with. The only other personal problem I would find with Ishmael, other than its entertainment value, is that the only solution to civ offered in it is “be inventive,” which probably matters very little depending on who is reading. Like I said before, other book suggestions (and web addresses) for continued reading could be attached to the book.

This brings up a few interesting questions that I’d invite as many people to answer (maybe on a new thread) unless there is already a thread like this:

1).What was your personal first “Paradigm Shifting” book? (If you needed one)

2). Why do you think it was effective?

3). Would you recommend it for a wider audience?

#10

When I first read Derrick Jensen, I felt so angry that I’d made it through so much life and so much schooling before learning most of the stuff he talked about, that I had this fantasy about sneaking copies of The Culture of Make Believe into all the school libraries everywhere so other kids would know!!!

But that information has pretty incendiary effects. It blew up a lot of stuff in my head and heart. I had violent physical responses to the feelings it brought up. How do you grieve that kind of thing? Lucky for me, the timing coincided with finding this community of rewilders and getting to know other real human beings on a similiar path as a crash pad and support group. And to help me find other sources of inspiration. If Derrick Jensen tears down the vision of the civilization we live in, and Daniel Quinn points the finger at taker scum, who offers comfort and visions of a life worth living? (er, ok, I have a few ideas. . .)

My life experiences have shown me that I can wish for people to change til I get blue in the face, but I can’t hand them a prepackaged gift epiphany that will fit. Sometimes folks need to bump into change on their own.

Also, I’ve had the experience of folks not ready to hear “the civ” challenged who find anything contrary to it “condescending”. It makes them feel bad!

That said. . . I just finished reading Tales of Adam–Daniel Quinn’s shorter, gentler, book about the Law of Life. Then I read it to my 5 year old son, and he wants to hear it again and again. It soothes him to sleep, he loves it.

Check it out!! What do you guys think about that for mass distribution?

#11
My life experiences have shown me that I can wish for people to change til I get blue in the face, but I can't hand them a prepackaged gift epiphany that will fit. Sometimes folks need to bump into change on their own.

Yarrow dreamer, Thanks for sharing! I haven’t read Tales of Adam… I’ll have to check that one out!

I hear what you’re saying about the “prepackaged gift epiphany” and totally agree. In your experience, have you found it counterproductive to try to “force feed” ideas, religion style? In other words, would distributing books do more harm or good for rewilding cause? I’m beginning to lean more towards the “cheap sale” distribution or the “Gideon Bible” model rather than trying to mail copies to specific people. Anything to get those dusty books off the shelves and promote them a little.

#12

Hey Brian,

Just stepping in as a moderator here…

Could you start a new topic about the subject of distributing a rewilding book? I generally don’t mind when threads go off topic, but I’d like this one to stay focused. Thanks!

#13

I think direct action can only be effective after mobilization and organization through indirect action. IMHO I think that people can change, but not overnight. In my experiences there are people who are capable of change, they just can’t process all that information at once. Accepting the end of the world as inevitable is a scary thing to most. I firmly believe, and have witnessed first hand, that if you explain things to people in the right way, then they will slowly but surely begin changing their mind. A lot of people have a really hard time abandoning the luxuries of consumer capitalism for primitivism. But if you bear with them I think that many people, and as the end of the world becomes more apparent even more people, are at the very least capable of change. If you explain the seemingly blatant flaws of civilization to people, and do it slowly over a long period of time, people will eventually change. You just have to do your best to not abandon all hope as well as to be tolerant of them as they make the change. People don’t like to feel like their being condescended or preached to so you really have to take the right angle. I like to call this diplomacy.

I also think that indirect action can take many different forms. It can take the form of speeches, literature, protests, etc. But I think the most effective way to get through to people is to speak to those closest to you. And to get as close to as many people as possible. People are more likely to trust those closest to them, when they read a book or listen to a speech they respond to it as propaganda. People don’t take well to propaganda that isn’t their own. But when a friend tells a friend the same thing it comes off as more loving and caring and people are far more likely to listen to someone they trust then someone they see as a mere propagandist. I find that a lot of my friends will listen to me when I discuss primitivism, and most of them will even admit to the legitimacy of what im saying. Not to say that I’ve yet to truly change anybody but I’ve been noticing small changes in a lot of people around me.

As far as materialism vs idealism. It is subjective. Some people need something to be materialized in order to accept it as a good idea. The argument I get most from people is that primtivism just won’t work. If these people saw people living primitively and doing it successfully then they’d be proven wrong. Unlike those on this board who seem to have the idea and wish to materialize it. I believe that on a broad scale materialism must come first, but the idea is born on a small scale. Idealism comes first, but in order for an idea to reach the majority it must be materialized first, otherwise most people will simply write it off as flawed. So unfortunately until the idea spreads amongst enough people to make materialism possible it will be near impossible to convince most people that the idea is worth while. So I guess in a general sense idealism DOES come first but in the case of the individual it is subjective. The trick is finding those that are willing to accept our ideas. Find enough of those people and we can materialize these ideas. Can we do that before the world ends? Hell if I know, but there’s no good reason not to try. And at the very least we’ll have passed the idea onto enough people who will likely accept it with open arms once it becomes their best option for survival.

#14

Great posts everyone! Keep it coming.

To some extent, I think it's a good idea to consider our effectiveness. We don't want to waste our time on ineffective action.

At the same time, I think we can paralyze ourselves with endless talk about our action, when sometimes we just need to get out there and fight. We just need to do something, anything.

I definitely agree with this. We need to do both! And as jhereg said, the best thing for each person to do depends on their unique skills, situation, likes & dislikes, etc. I just would like to guard against choosing actions that won’t achieve what we want them to achieve. Whatever we choose, we should base that decision on reality, so that we don’t feel like our actions are failing, which would discourage us from future actions.

For example, if someone has the skill and desire to discuss with and educate others, like what John said, that may constitute the most effective way for them to act. I would only see a problem if they, for example, desired to change the mindset of society and spark a revolution through that type of action. Then they would inevitably get discouraged and demoralized. But if they limited their goal to changing a specific person’s mindset, for example, then they could see success, and come away from that feeling good and motivated to keep it up.

If Derrick Jensen tears down the vision of the civilization we live in, and Daniel Quinn points the finger at taker scum, who offers comfort and visions of a life worth living?

For me, only the end of civilization (or the process thereof) will give me comfort. Civilization and its way of life gives me nothing but torment. Or maybe I just don’t have any desire to find comfort in it (not that you were implying such). All my comfort comes from dreaming about the end of civilization, and a new way of life without it.

My life experiences have shown me that I can wish for people to change til I get blue in the face, but I can't hand them a prepackaged gift epiphany that will fit. Sometimes folks need to bump into change on their own.

Also, I’ve had the experience of folks not ready to hear “the civ” challenged who find anything contrary to it “condescending”. It makes them feel bad!

You’ve hit on the exact reason why I believe in materialism - that reality shapes consciousness. I do think it can go the other way as well, but not NEARLY to the same extent, particularly on a social level. I support the book distribution idea, because I believe that many people out there are receptive to these ideas, but just haven’t heard them yet. But I also believe that those who do not want to change their mindset, who aren’t open to these ideas, won’t change no matter what we do.

I believe that most people don’t WANT to hear these ideas, because most people have been so completely brainwashed by this culture. They identify with it enough to feel personally threatened by anything that challenges it. As DJ said, “the civilized will smile while they tear you limb from limb”. I don’t blame them, because we have very strong herd tendencies in our nature, like many other animals. So much of our personalities, our behavior - our identity - is shaped by those around us. Most people would find it extremely difficult to go against the grain, and most would never want to. For these people, who I believe make up the vast majority, they would only reject civ once the majority around them reject civ.

Yes, fringe ideas can become the mainstream, over time, but the more they threaten the dominant culture, the more effort is made to wipe them out. Only rarely do subversive ideas become mainstream - and pretty much always the process of becoming mainstream changes them, domesticating them so that they no longer represent a threat.

The trick is finding those that are willing to accept our ideas. Find enough of those people and we can materialize these ideas. Can we do that before the world ends? Hell if I know, but there's no good reason not to try. And at the very least we'll have passed the idea onto enough people who will likely accept it with open arms once it becomes their best option for survival.

I totally agree with this, and think this describes well why we need to both reach out people with these ideas, and do the direct action necessary to materialize the ideas (another description of materialism = physical actions change reality, not ideas). But getting the ideas out there (propagandizing) becomes necessary in order to get more people to take action. In this way it represents an important stage in the process.

Jessica

#15

This makes me think of a point Jensen makes in Endgame Vol.2. He talks about strategies and tactics, and also the differences between them. One of the main points he tries to make though is that no direct action can be taken without a good, and well thought out, stategy. And that any direct action taken without first thinking through the strategy of said action will only hurt the cause. Mostly in that people see it fail and use that as another reason to not be convinced, as well as those already convinced becoming even more discouraged about their plight. This is something I fully agree with.

#16

Im not sure on the use of the word “strategy” for change. As decentralized groups and individuals I don’t think “we” should be talking about strategy at all. The change / strategic shifts that will happen globally will be an emergent property of our lives and tactics locally.

World-spanning strategy is way civ. I hope we’re not falling into that trap or that im simply misunderstanding the use of the word strategy in this discussion.

ps. the word “we” is not meant to imply a unified group with same goals / prinicples etc. etc.

Cheerio!

#17

I don’t think anyone’s recommended any sort of overarching, global strategy. We’ve all got our different strategies, and we have to weigh them against our current situation and how much we think we’ll actually get done.

#18
Im not sure on the use of the word "strategy" for change. As decentralized groups and individuals I don't think "we" should be talking about strategy at all. The change / strategic shifts that will happen globally will be an emergent property of our lives and tactics locally.

World-spanning strategy is way civ. I hope we’re not falling into that trap or that im simply misunderstanding the use of the word strategy in this discussion.

Hi TimeLESS,

The intention of this thread, as I see it, is for those of us who (in addition to rewilding the best we can in our own lives) want to examine other actions/tactics from a larger perspective for their strategic effectiveness in the process of de-civilizing the earth.

I think “we need it all”, of course: rewilding havens, rewild camps, books, websites, classes… everything! Its just that some actions don’t have very visible results, and I think it’s helpful (for some of us) to encourage each other to know that those actions are making a difference.

I could be wrong, but at this stage of rewilding, I think it is also helpful for us to have a somewhat “centralized feeling” for encouraging each other and attracting others to the rewilder way of life. For example, the existence of this website has been a great encouragement to me because there are currently no people around me that understand/accept rewilding. I thought this was what Willem meant with the New Underground Railroad:

http://www.mythic-cartography.org/2008/06/13/the-new-underground-railroad/

And this quote:

I think this describes what individuals might benefit from posting on this thread, but if this topic is not welcome on the site we could take it elsewhere.

My apologies to Willem for the quote in a different context.

#19

Strategy. Plan. Purpose. Design. System. Culture. Organization. Way of Life. Society. Life.

Wonderful thoughts. Mostly worthless suggestions, generally speaking. People are evil, good, lovers, haters, covetous, giving, heroes, villains, unpleasant, kind, rude, thoughtful, ignorant, gracious, knowledgeable, silly, serious, foolish, wise, lovely, ugly, and everything in between, at once, severally, in series, in parallel, at will, and against their better judgment. This is one thing that has not changed in five hundred thousand years and is not going to change now. No strategy that does not begin with this as its assumption is doomed to a quick death. Or worse, a slow one. I have a suggestion I’ve been working on for several years, and I think I may have something worth sharing. I’ll post it in December I think. Once I finish my current labors.

  • Benjamin Shender
#20

[quote=“Hypnopompia, post:19, topic:1182”]Strategy. Plan. Purpose. Design. System. Culture. Organization. Way of Life. Society. Life.

Wonderful thoughts. Mostly worthless suggestions, generally speaking. People are evil, good, lovers, haters, covetous, giving, heroes, villains, unpleasant, kind, rude, thoughtful, ignorant, gracious, knowledgeable, silly, serious, foolish, wise, lovely, ugly, and everything in between, at once, severally, in series, in parallel, at will, and against their better judgment. This is one thing that has not changed in five hundred thousand years and is not going to change now. No strategy that does not begin with this as its assumption is doomed to a quick death. Or worse, a slow one.[/quote]

That’s why tribal living organization will probably always work best for humans on a finite globe. But we need to learn how to live in this type of organization and also protect ourselves from outbreaks of civilization .