Login Join IOPS

PLANNED BANANAS

forest
  • Written by:
  • Published on:
  • Categories:
  • Comments:
  • Share:

when considering the question of how we "should" move forward as a species or global society.. we're faced with a host of dilemmas, maybe more difficult than ever.. given the current population, ongoing ecological damage including climate change, and massive disparity of wealth, resources, and technology between regions around the globe.

we're also faced with differences in ideological beliefs and varying degrees of understanding and knowledge of what any of that means to any particular individual.. including variations of how much anyone cares to think about it or has the capacity or space. and, for any individual or group that feels they have a pretty good handle on the basics of where things need to head.. it might contrast greatly from how things are currently and/or what many or most others believe or have thought about, even if generally "correct". correctness itself might come with some assumptions, such as seeking to maximize quality of life for all in such a manner it can continue into the future.

and, let's say "we" agree on as much as 'sustainably maximizing quality of life for all human beings', and we have in mind some nonexistent mechanisms or institutions we think necessary for that to be more true, we are now faced with a host of dilemmas on how to get to that place from here.

for the initial purpose of this blog, i'm removing some of the issues of climate and ecological timelines we touched on in other recent blogs, but it relates. i'm also removing much of the dilemmas we may face when it comes to strategy or steps, though it could lead to that. the questions i'm about to pursue relate more to what one considers to be sustainable, or what one envisions as a functioning planned global economy. bare with me.

without an official assessment of resources, i'm guessing that not every adult within our near 8 billion global populace could have an electric car (which also requires roads to drive on) and a multi-roomed house on a couple acres (which would also require construction and likely demolitions along with other infrastructure). i won't even go past that. and maybe i'm flat wrong. we discussed a bit about iphones (and other existing consumer items) which may not be possible for everyone to have either. we might suppose that in a planned economy, they would have never existed in the first place, or would be applied to only specific uses. yet, some have them now, and some don't. some can buy them, and some can't. does everybody want a smartphone? ok, shove that to the side for now.

when considering a more planned egalitarian economy, we are naturally concerned with "fairness"- including both accessibility to needs and wants, and also the labor required to produce. and, we must also be concerned with the physical constraints of the natural environment we utilize to provide our living standard.

if we roll back the timeline, groupings of humans have previously relied on their local or regional landbase to provide their living standard, whether that's hunter-gatherer or agrarian based cultures. trade between regions has obviously increased over time, but was previously limited by less advanced means of travel and other technologies, such as refrigeration. what changed that profoundly (though not equally), has been our use of fossil fuels, from coal to oil and natural gas. additionally, we have also introduced crops and livestock to regions beyond their native origins (in some cases to establish slave plantations to provide for free folk).

question time:

we are concerned with fairness. does this mean we assume that if the global population finds bananas to be equally desirable, they should be equally available?

if you live along the equator where bananas are being grown, there's far less to factor in as far as transport goes, versus.. the banana lover in Alaska. in a planned economy (as you see), does this increase the consumer cost to the Alaskan only, or is it valued by spreading the cost based on Alaskan (global) demand so that the Guatamalan also sees an increased cost and potentially less availability while living next door to banana trees?

is transporting bananas to Alaska even sustainable at all? if we remove fossil fuel, will we be shipping much of anything over long distances, particularly food?

what kind of infrastructure is assumed necessary for a global planned economy? do we assume that people living in Sudan should have access to Chinook Salmon? some areas have vaster natural resources (or vastly different).. does it need to be equalized by sharing resources from all regions to each other? by what means would that be accomplished as far as transport goes? what living standard is considered equal?

can the global population all have computers and access to the internet? is that a necessary piece for indicating your consumer needs?

could also ask some questions about the labor implications (such as balanced job complexes) as based on different regions and resources.. BUT you could look at most of the questions above as more of a thought process of potential factors involved with the initial question. YOU will no doubt view it with your own mind. i made the root question bold so it's obvious that the rest is just for peeling. bite how you may.


previous conversations:
(chronological order)

http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/the-earth-is-in-a-death-spiral

http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/dreams

http://www.iopsociety.org/blog/why-reform-of-revolution-is-undecidable

brought to you by...

Discussion 48 Comments

  • Boulder Dash 9th Dec 2018

    And lets not forget medical equipment/technology. Bananas or even computers may or may not be that important to some, but I reckon medical stuff would be...how do you move that shit around? And if you do or can, using ecologically sound motors, maybe throw in some bananas and Chinook salmon for the good folk in Alaska and the Sudan!

  • Dave Jones 9th Dec 2018

    I say medical equipment gets a high priority (devote more collective resources) while exotic foodstuffs get a low priority. Salmon and bananas would have a sustainability factor rating attached to them. Number goes up the farther they have to be transported. We all have an allowance ( based on sacrifice), so a Panamanian could get a salmon but he gives up all his mangoes for five years and has to work weekends. In Montana I get lots of huckleberries but will send some your way via sailboat.

    • Alex of... 10th Dec 2018

      perhaps some huckleberry jam via solar rail, if possible

  • Boulder Dash 9th Dec 2018

    Plus medical equipment/technology would probably be on a national consumption level whereas bananas and huckleberries...probably individual...

    Even if the economy was not a planned one there would still be this allocation and cost/benefit issue...

    If economies were only local to regional, then maybe bananas would be these exotic foods people had only ever heard of...never seen let alone tasted!

  • Alex of... 10th Dec 2018

    planning planned bananas:

    i'm going to separate but not sever something here. if i'm considering what is "important" versus "desirable" i think of both- where we are now as a global society, and a potential future as a sustainable planned society.

    that is.. if in the future, a sustainable global planned economy has been achieved, then we have moved through a phase of establishing the necessary infrastructure to support our mechanisms and institutions that produce an equitable outcome for human life.

    from where we are now, what "should" receive a high priority is naturally different, considering some people don't even have access to clean drinking water.. or risk death smuggling basic needs through the tunnels to Gaza. i'm assuming we've worked out that much, and a bit more, in the future plan-soc.

    but, if planning toward said plansoc, then our priorities are not just about solving some of the most dire needs or disparities the global population currently faces.. it is also about planning our collective resources toward what is considered possible. i say that, as we have also talked a bit about resources, we use or will 'need' to use for infrastructure, which may be limited. and, we also aim to eliminate fossil fuels, which will change transport ability and plenty else.

    that potentially means to me, we only have one shot at some things. and again, i am not really including the political and cultural challenges into that at the moment.. also, separate but not severed.

    expanded thoughts:

    much of our global infrastructure has been based around fossil fuel and colonial capitalism. places where cultures once fed and clothed themselves from the local landbase have been turned into plantation nations and slave mines which need to produce for the global market just to survive now. we pump water into deserts and build cities there. some of this could return to more local sustainability. but some areas are just not all that livable wihtout pumping resources in from somewhere else.

    and, even before fossil fuel and globalization, some areas have been easier to live, with more variety and available resources. i might have preferred the area i reside right now over living in an igloo eating seals, or surviving the outback.

    maybe bananas aren't that important to me if i still have access to the fruits and veggies that can be grown here in washington/cascadia/duwamish land. but, while some regions may not be livable without outside resources.. some could sustain, but with far less variety without imports.

    i assume migration (no political obstacles) necessary for some of that equation. but, i am wondering what amount of global trade can be expected that would help equalize sustenance. again, minus fossil fuel transport at some point (or highly limited).

    medical equipment around the world sounds great. bananas are not as important as access to clean water, but i'd like to still have them if i could. computers aren't important as far as old world survival goes, but do they fall in the category of high priority to make available? are they more than a great tool, but even necessary (along with internet) for a global planned economy, and to what degree? what are the top priorities to apply our collective resources toward globally as far as planning the future?

    pause:

    that is, again, just a thought process where i'm attempting to leave out some of our strategic obstacles, as to focus on what a planned global society would actually be like.

    i should ask first, if the general thought process makes sense, as rooted in the idea that "our priorities are not just about solving some of the most dire needs or disparities the global population currently faces.. it is also about planning our collective resources toward what is considered possible" as a sustainable planned society.

    at least as far as exploration goes, is there anything disagreeable about what i've setup so far? anything that is way out of whack? i don't want to boil it down to a question or two without a chance for initial reaction.

  • Boulder Dash 10th Dec 2018

    Seems on the money Alex. To me you seem to be talking about how to connect the dots which means that there’s something out front of all the doing, some possibility that’s a little more than a vague notion.

    It’s kind of like what I was getting at before. If you extend from planning around anchor institutions further out, or even elaborate on the type of planning, and the logic of it, considering the kinds of limitations or restrictions on and immediate concerns about the things you suggest above Alex, you may be able to build a better picture of future...maybe Parecon is like a logical end point, or something like it.

    And I think, and maybe I am an idiot, it’s highly likely, that we need something coherent and possible, and economically revolutionary, out front of the doing in order to connect the dots. To give a direction even a green new deal can morph.

    The sort of thinking you are doing here is rare to see. If it is happening it’s happening away from the public eye, behind closed doors, perhaps within radical/progressive left thinktanks like the Democracy Collab or P2P Foundation or Commons Transition (but I don’t see stuff like this there much) which it shouldn’t..connecting dots sensibly with a view to what is urgent now and what will or could be of importance later...long and short term together...connected to,a real coherent visionary/revolutionary possibility...at least economically?

    Does that sound sound? I don’t know.

    • Alex of... 10th Dec 2018

      sidenote:

      "The sort of thinking you are doing here is rare to see."

      i sort of understand this as far as your average Hannah Banana goes. i mean, i'm the idiot who can't even afford a better computer to learn the video editing software i need to put together some applicable shit in a way people might actually watch it. i've planned my personal economy pretty piss-poorly. maybe i just need to listen to more Tony Robbins.

      but like ya say, there's these other established orgs, some with funding.. but i have no idea what the fuck they're really working towards. reminds me.. you might recall that the Next System Project promoted Teach-Ins a couple years back. you could host a Next System event locally around the same time as others, connected to their Org. locally, it was picked up by a UW teacher (name?) and a staff member of "Rethinking Prosperity" - Deric. my friend Syd was working for the UW as an event coordinator, so it got me a sit-down with Deric ahead of time so i could propose a follow-up panel-event centered on coops, to be promoted at the Teach-In.

      results here: http://rethinkingprosperity.org/weconomics/

      but, in that meeting i discovered he knew nothing about the Cleveland Model stuff or Parecon, for that matter.. never heard of any of it. he's gotta degree and gets paid. and he's doing good stuff, but? hell, i don't even really like thinking about all this shit..



      but.. fuck- not sure how NOT to think about it either. world's fucked. i would do a fuck-ton more if i wasn't struggling with bills, working jobs that don't mean shit to me.

    • Boulder Dash 10th Dec 2018

      That’s interesting. I too knew of those teach ins. It is significant, at least to me, that Michael Albert has offered repeatedly to do some of those for the NSP, with absolutely no response...he told me this.

      To me, change or how things are to change is not necessarily as out in the open as most suggest...the ideas that is...

    • Alex of... 12th Dec 2018

      it should please you that i had a back and forth with Michael earlier this year where he agreed to do an interview for inclusion in my documnetary idea. my intention is to take a little trip to Boston, but i've had some financial snags thus far.

  • Eisenhower's Shotgun 10th Dec 2018

    ^^ WOR*K 'N' PR*OGR*E$$


    #1 IS PEELING. BITS; BYTES; BITES! (2/2)


    >>COMMENTS 4 ALEX & IOPS *react* (respond; routing)


     


    The question of how we could/should move forward as a team and global online community // Face 2 face w/ Maestro Sir Trollsalot // Host of Dilemmas (DIFFICULTY: VERY EASY) by Irie Zen Nessuno-Raskolnikov


    I love this reign and rain of differences in ideological beliefs and styles and sounds et cetera; The varying degrees of understanding and knowledge is why I'm here; why I stay here! There's something goin' on again..; here at the I. O. for a P. S.; Some decent emotion.. even traces of commitment. The space* is here; and a shimmer of capacities.


    The process must and will contrast greatly from how things are handled recently. I'm seeking to maximize the quality of **** (FUNK?/LIFE?/SHIT?) for all in such a manner it can continue into the future.


     


    I PLANSOC // "We're sustainably maximizing quality of life for all human beings." // +1! LIKE!


     


    Eye Relates! More? Towards what 1 considers to be sustainable, or what 1 envisions as a functioning planned global economy; Or both in 1? Below is some vocabulary: More bits'n'bites; another condensate to work with; or to ignore; or to come back to later.


    Mobility; Transportation; Housing; 'A Couple Acres Initiative'; Technology; Terminals and Knowledge Hubs; Consumer* Items* in Our: PLANSOC


     


    I PLANSOC // "Our priorities are not just about solving some of the most dire needs or disparities the global population currently faces; It is also about planning our collective resources toward what was considered impossible." // +1! LIKE!


     


    Exploration: "Freedom/Fairness/Future" - Accessibility to needs and wants; and labour; to physical constraints of habitats; "Destruction/Dumbness/Degrowth" - Agrarian based cultures; trade; distribution. "Time/Travelling/Technology" - Fossil fuels, crops and livestock; in our case to abolish slave plantations* to provide for ****.


     


    Answer* iThyme:


    Global population: Bananas*; Good: Monkeys*


    Less availability*! Increase the consumer* cost to the **** only, and value **** by spreading the cost and revenue based on **** and global demand so that the **** also sees an increased **** and LIVING STANDARDS* & TAXATION*


    Infrastructure for a global planned economy: Some areas need to be equalized* by sharing resources!; Computers! WWW! Index: Consumer* needs! Labor implications; Balanced job complexes!


     


    Your thoughts/processing of/and potential factors involved with the initial question: HIGHLY APPRECIATED!


    ^^ "YOU will no doubt view it with your own mind [..] bite how you may.": DIGESTABLE; BITE-SIZED; YUMMY!


     


    Co-planning in jammies: Planned bananas*

    ^^ I'm going to separate but not sever something here. "Important" vs. "Desirable": GO AHEAD; GOOD START FOR A BUBBLE DIAGRAM // MIND MAP




    I PLANSOC // "In the near future an ecological and sustainable global planned economy has been achieved; We have moved through a phase of painful limitations* and developed the necessary infrastructure to support mechanisms and institutions that produce an equitable outcome for mankind."


     


    What "should"? What "could"? Priorities; Lead; Lives.


     


    one shot w/out thyme;


    political and cultural challenges;


    separate but not severed.




    Good! *expand* RE:Thoughts!


    Global infrastructure; fossil fuels; colonial capitalism? "Places where cultures* once fed and clothed themselves from the local landbase have been turned into deserts;" Slave states which need to produce for the global market just to survive. "Some of this could* return* to more local sustainability;" - "..but some areas are just not all that livable wihtout pumping resources in from somewhere else." PAINFUL LIMITATIONS? NO! (?) Maybe bananas aren't that important to me; if i still have access to; the fruits and veggies; that can be grown here; some could sustain with far less variety; without imports. 1 assumes M I G R A T I O N * (no political obstacles) (?) necessary for some of that equation. Yeah; Important subject.


    ^^ "Medical equipment around the world sounds great; bananas* are not as important as access to clean water; I'd like to still have them if i could." We'll see.. XD.. every now and then.. for christmas perhaps.. XD - I see..; Computers! Terminals; I see categories of high priorities: 2 B XPLORE; Some possible top priorities to apply our collective resources on.. towards bananas w/ bandanas* planning bananas* for pyjamas* in monkeys*.


    ^^ At least as far as yo exploration goes: Outstanding setup so far! Nuttin' wack! Boil it up and down again! Initial reaction: 1 IS GRATEFUL!

    • Eisenhower's Shotgun 10th Dec 2018

    • Eisenhower's Shotgun 10th Dec 2018

      ^^ WOR*K 'N' PR*OGR*E$$


      #1 IS PEELING. BITS; BYTES; BITES! (1/2)


      >>WORKING W/ TEXT *compute* (complete; comprehension)


       


      when considering the question of how we "should" move forward as a species or global society.. we're faced with a host of dilemmas, maybe more difficult than ever.. given the current population, ongoing ecological damage including climate change, and massive disparity of wealth, resources, and technology between regions around the globe.


      we're also faced with differences in ideological beliefs and varying degrees of understanding and knowledge of what any of that means to any particular individual.. including variations of how much anyone cares to think about it or has the capacity or space. and, for any individual or group that feels they have a pretty good handle on the basics of where things need to head.. it might contrast greatly from how things are currently and/or what many or most others believe or have thought about, even if generally "correct". correctness itself might come with some assumptions, such as seeking to maximize quality of life for all in such a manner it can continue into the future.


      and, let's say "we" agree on as much as 'sustainably maximizing quality of life for all human beings', and we have in mind some nonexistent mechanisms or institutions we think necessary for that to be more true, we are now faced with a host of dilemmas on how to get to that place from here.


      for the initial purpose of this blog, i'm removing some of the issues of climate and ecological timelines we touched on in other recent blogs, but it relates. i'm also removing much of the dilemmas we may face when it comes to strategy or steps, though it could lead to that. the questions i'm about to pursue relate more to what one considers to be sustainable, or what one envisions as a functioning planned global economy. bare with me.


      without an official assessment of resources, i'm guessing that not every adult within our near 8 billion global populace could have an electric car (which also requires roads to drive on) and a multi-roomed house on a couple acres (which would also require construction and likely demolitions along with other infrastructure). i won't even go past that. and maybe i'm flat wrong. we discussed a bit about iphones (and other existing consumer items) which may not be possible for everyone to have either. we might suppose that in a planned economy, they would have never existed in the first place, or would be applied to only specific uses. yet, some have them now, and some don't. some can buy them, and some can't. does everybody want a smartphone? ok, shove that to the side for now.


      when considering a more planned egalitarian economy, we are naturally concerned with "fairness"- including both accessibility to needs and wants, and also the labor required to produce. and, we must also be concerned with the physical constraints of the natural environment we utilize to provide our living standard.


      if we roll back the timeline, groupings of humans have previously relied on their local or regional landbase to provide their living standard, whether that's hunter-gatherer or agrarian based cultures. trade between regions has obviously increased over time, but was previously limited by less advanced means of travel and other technologies, such as refrigeration. what changed that profoundly (though not equally), has been our use of fossil fuels, from coal to oil and natural gas. additionally, we have also introduced crops and livestock to regions beyond their native origins (in some cases to establish slave plantations to provide for free folk).


       


      question time:


      we are concerned with fairness. does this mean we assume that if the global population finds bananas* to be equally desirable, they should be equally available?


      if you live along the equator where bananas are being grown, there's far less to factor in as far as transport goes, versus.. the banana lover in Alaska. in a planned economy (as you see), does this increase the consumer cost to the Alaskan only, or is it valued by spreading the cost based on Alaskan (global) demand so that the Guatamalan also sees an increased cost and potentially less availability while living next door to banana trees?


      is transporting bananas to Alaska even sustainable at all? if we remove fossil fuel, will we be shipping much of anything over long distances, particularly food?


      what kind of infrastructure is assumed necessary for a global planned economy? do we assume that people living in Sudan should have access to Chinook Salmon? some areas have vaster natural resources (or vastly different).. does it need to be equalized by sharing resources from all regions to each other? by what means would that be accomplished as far as transport goes? what living standard is considered equal?


      can the global population all have computers and access to the internet? is that a necessary piece for indicating your consumer needs?


      could also ask some questions about the labor implications (such as balanced job complexes) as based on different regions and resources.. BUT you could look at most of the questions above as more of a thought process of potential factors involved with the initial question. YOU will no doubt view it with your own mind. i made the root question bold so it's obvious that the rest is just for peeling. bite how you may.


       


      planning planned bananas:

      i'm going to separate but not sever something here. if i'm considering what is "important" versus "desirable" i think of both- where we are now as a global society, and a potential future as a sustainable planned society.

      that is.. if in the future, a sustainable global planned economy has been achieved, then we have moved through a phase of establishing the necessary infrastructure to support our mechanisms and institutions that produce an equitable outcome for human life.

      from where we are now, what "should" receive a high priority is naturally different, considering some people don't even have access to clean drinking water.. or risk death smuggling basic needs through the tunnels to Gaza. i'm assuming we've worked out that much, and a bit more, in the future plan-soc.

      but, if planning toward said PLANSOC, then our priorities are not just about solving some of the most dire needs or disparities the global population currently faces.. it is also about planning our collective resources toward what is considered possible. i say that, as we have also talked a bit about resources, we use or will 'need' to use for infrastructure, which may be limited. and, we also aim to eliminate fossil fuels, which will change transport ability and plenty else.

      that potentially means to me, we only have one shot at some things. and again, i am not really including the political and cultural challenges into that at the moment.. also, separate but not severed.




      expanded thoughts:

      much of our global infrastructure has been based around fossil fuel and colonial capitalism. places where cultures once fed and clothed themselves from the local landbase have been turned into plantation nations and slave mines which need to produce for the global market just to survive now. we pump water into deserts and build cities there. some of this could return to more local sustainability. but some areas are just not all that livable wihtout pumping resources in from somewhere else.

      and, even before fossil fuel and globalization, some areas have been easier to live, with more variety and available resources. i might have preferred the area i reside right now over living in an igloo eating seals, or surviving the outback.

      maybe bananas aren't that important to me if i still have access to the fruits and veggies that can be grown here in washington/cascadia/duwamish land. but, while some regions may not be livable without outside resources.. some could sustain, but with far less variety without imports.

      i assume migration (no political obstacles) necessary for some of that equation. but, i am wondering what amount of global trade can be expected that would help equalize sustenance. again, minus fossil fuel transport at some point (or highly limited).

      medical equipment around the world sounds great. bananas are not as important as access to clean water, but i'd like to still have them if i could. computers aren't important as far as old world survival goes, but do they fall in the category of high priority to make available? are they more than a great tool, but even necessary (along with internet) for a global planned economy, and to what degree? what are the top priorities to apply our collective resources toward globally as far as planning the future?


       


      pause:

      that is, again, just a thought process where i'm attempting to leave out some of our strategic obstacles, as to focus on what a planned global society would actually be like.

      i should ask first, if the general thought process makes sense, as rooted in the idea that "our priorities are not just about solving some of the most dire needs or disparities the global population currently faces.. it is also about planning our collective resources toward what is considered possible" as a sustainable planned society.

      at least as far as exploration goes, is there anything disagreeable about what i've setup so far? anything that is way out of whack? i don't want to boil it down to a question or two without a chance for initial reaction.

    • Alex of... 11th Dec 2018

      i'm officially trading in my "GO GREEN" t-shirt for an "I HEART PLANSOC"

      (perhaps bamboo fiber, though i prefer the feel of cotton)

  • Alex of... 11th Dec 2018

    ok, i gave it a couple days in case anyone had a major beef with the logic above. now, throwing in a couple more thoughts..


    i first think to ask.. can anyone point me to something that attempts the kind of assessment i'm talking about? (but, what AM i talking about?)

    there's IPCC assessments and their SSP's. there's UN reports, World Health Organization, UNICEF, OXFAM, tons of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_rights_organisations etc.

    there's US-based outlines for renewables such as the recent GND and Stanford's 50-state plan, which i think mostly assume business as usual and don't account for resource allocation at a global level of fairness and limitation. there's the US-based Climate Mobilization Victory Plan.. perhaps similar in approach?

    note, i don't claim to have read through everything available, so this is partly why i start with that question. if i suggest what i would like to see, there will be no need to do much more as far as that goes if it already exists. it is my guess that there might be a combination of assessments and information, when put together, comes much closer. at which point, i ask.. which ones? but at that point, it's time to define what it is i'm looking for.. or, what it is a few of us might agree would be helpful.

    the general idea is to map out what is ecologically possible in a "fair" world with the current population level (roughly). obviously, that can't be mapped to perfection. and, we are faced with the same kind of issues that required the IPCC to generate SSP's. that is, the path taken from right now will change what is possible later. if we do nothing about climate change, what are potentially habitable regions if we actually do something, may no longer be. if the United States uses up most of a particular resource to create a renewables grid to support its current fossil fuel based infrastructure, that resource will no longer be available to other regions.

    perhaps an initial map could be based on waving a magic wand. no projections, timelines, new technologies, or socio-political obstacles.

    this magic wand was not picked up at the Venus Project, so it does have some limitations. it will not just raze our current structures to spring forth equal living accomodations spaced across the lush green into communites powered by a renewable electric grid and connected by aesthetically pleasing railways.

    it is also not necessary for it to define the specific mechanisms or institutions required of a planned global society, which i'm just going to start calling plansoc from here out.

    it would need to identify priorities based on where we are now and where to fairly apply our collective resources toward a plansoc. and i would certainly settle for a pretty general version as a basic template. all of which could potentially be expanded or split into a few timeline-scenarios with more efforts.

    we could identify regions that could not survive without importing outside resources on a continued basis, so likely require migration. we could identify regions that have been tranformed to serve the global market with a handful of exports, which could sustain themselves better locally if transformed (though there may be other options if global transport can maintain some of its levels). we could identify some of the top priorities, beyond basic needs, that all of humanity should share, such as medical eqipment, electricity, internet and communications. we could identify the resources required to created renewables and basic infrastructure to better understand the limitations of how they could be allocated. we could package this with very basic descriptions and visual presentation, while noting some priorities on areas that need further expansion.

    i propose this as something that could be created as one project of multiple related projects. that is, by first identifying a general picture of a plansoc, we could also identify some potential paths and strategies. in maultiple layers, we start introducing some of the reality of our current politics and cultural ability, and so what is actually worth directing energy towards or supporting.

    i propose this as a way to identify research projects that need doing, even if we don't personally have the "right stuff" for all that, or currently have the people here to do it all. we can at least identify some of the framework. we can potentially invite people to IOPS to contribute to a specific project that falls within their expertise, inclination or general forte. perhaps turn this place into an useful think-tank.

    thoughts.. reactions.. ??




    http://theconversation.com/bamboo-could-turn-the-worlds-construction-trade-on-its-head-29685

    • Alex of... 11th Dec 2018

      sidenotes column:

      PLANSOC = GLOBAL INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY

    • Alex of... 11th Dec 2018

      "an useful".. a noose full?

    • Alex of... 11th Dec 2018

      perhaps i'm not as extreme as Jensen in his perpective or conclusions, but the premise here is still correct.

      https://www.derrickjensen.org/endgame/choices/

    • Alex of... 11th Dec 2018

      what can we have and what's worth having?

    • Alex of... 11th Dec 2018

      purr-spective

    • Alex of... 11th Dec 2018

      remember:

      every good project should be engaged with vigorous anxiety towards unachievable goals until the point of exhaustion and despair

    • Boulder Dash 12th Dec 2018

      See, this is why I freely improvise, absolute minimal planning...younwant to compose a ten minute piece of music, it takes ten minutes!

  • Boulder Dash 12th Dec 2018

    “perhaps turn this place into an useful think-tank.”

    Imagine this place being a repository for ideas generated or published by the NSP. Imagine the Commonstransition folk dropping ideas here as well. Or Hahnel and Albert, Erik Olin Wright, Takis Fotopoulos, Kate Raworth, and whoever else you can think of.

    Like not just publishing there ideas, essays, thoughts whatever at their own websites, which generally offer very little opportunity for the layperson to get involved in the discussion, but posting them here, so the layperson can.

    It’s interesting that Hahnel’s outline of a grand alliance between movements and Albert’s description of a “Bloc” are pretty much the same. A movement of movements, aware of great difference and disagreements between groups and movements, aware of the need for complete autonomy in regards to facilitating change in specific areas due to obvious knowledge and expertise of individual movements in that area, but also aware of the need to work together in solidarity at all times.

    I mean if that doesn’t call for a kind of website that enables that, a hub of sorts, I do not know what does. That has always been my confusion regarding this place and it’s desertion by so many. To me this place is not specific to any kind of left ideology, not specifically Marxist, anarchist or whatever. It seems a perfectly reasonable website that could be utilised for such purposes, at least now. A left think tank or hub that tries to draw movements together.

    So Richard Smith writes an essay for System Change Not Climate Change and posts it here as well. Alperovitz or anyone at the NSP does same. Albert, Hahnel, Olin Wright and others do the same. Fotopoulos, Michel Bauwens, or anyone from the P2P foundation or Commonstransition does the same. Kate Raworth, and even Monbiot if he wants. Essays or articles or notes that pertain to goings on within the various movements or projects with links to the home websites.

    This has always been my problem with Albert’s notion of “we”, or anyone’s really, when they talk of the Left as a kind of movement out there somewhere. There really isn’t a we at all. There are a bunch of movements, projects, initiatives, groups, all identifying with something, but all over the place. A “we” that needs to learn from its mistakes, the past, a “we” that needs to grow stronger and bigger needs a place of sorts to actually confirm to those outside that there is in fact a “we”. But it needs a place of sorts to confirm to the “we” itself that they are part of a bigger and unified “we”. You can’t just allude to it in the odd essay, that is probably being read by a very small number of insiders, and then just expect everyone in this amorphous “we” to somehow heed the message. It’s weird to me.

    I mention something to someone, then they say, have you seen this website or heard of this group? Have you heard of the NSP, yes, but have you heard of Commonstransition? Have you heard of Parecon? No, but have you heard of Inclusive Democracy? Etc., always trying to find this website, that website, that idea. Everyone starting up their own website revolving around their own exclusive kind of take on the matter which usually isn’t all that exclusive or different really.

    The separate websites seem to counter or work against the idea of solidarity. They work against the idea of a movement of movements or bloc or grand alliance as described by Albert and Hahnel. They create the perception that each separate group has they answer, or that they aren’t all that concerned with what others are doing.

    The closest I have seen to this is the NSP, but the website is merely a place to read shit or look at videos. No interactive mechanisms at all for the layperson reading all that shit.

    But it is clear to me now that this place becoming that kind of think tank that could help glue shit together in some way is a ridiculous idea. I think image is the problem. Each group has an image of themselves, their mission, their modus operandi and that image, their supposed exclusive solution or take on the problem, is one that must be maintained. If the NSP started dropping essays here their exclusivity, their kind of unique approach, their own ideological position kind of gets undermined in a way, opened up to criticism they may not want. I think this is the same with most other groups. I would love to read Alperovitz, Ted Trainer and Albert in a three way ongoing discussion on vision and economic alternatives and have the chance for involvement. But that will never happen because it is time wasting and they do not have the time for that. Yet, at the same time, that kind of attitude precludes the development of a bloc or a grand alliance of movements...And here’s the real rub, I’m a layperson and no one is going to pay heed to this idea. If they do, they will merely point out its impossibility and it uselessness...or at least I suspect they will...but of course, Alperovitz, Trainer and Albert all expect some kind of participation in the various projects they individually conceive and think important.

    Albert has kind of tried to do this. He gets lots of signatures but not much else. Why? Seriously, no one has ever answered the question, and I am not talking about laypersons not involving themselves, I am talking about those people that Albert himself respects within the left “we” out there in the world doing good work not involving themselves beyond their signature. I also think what I am suggesting aligns with Paul Streets personal email to me alluding to left leadership ego and sectarianism as being a significant problem.

    For this place to be a think tank in any real shape or form it needs those figureheads, or experienced folk to participate. If they do not, it’s just a bunch of laypersons throwing shit into the wind and hoping some of it lands on others. But laypersons have little pull and not that much confidence in their own ideas as testified to here by myself and Alex.

    I remember Richard Smith kind of agreeing with me regarding this whole idea. He told me at some point to join System Change Not Climate Change, but it’s funny that I did not tell him to join IOPS, and if I did, I doubt very much he would have joined, and if he did, I doubt he would post his essays here. That’s a guess, but I reckon it’s on the money. I reckon the same would be true for Samuel Alexander of the Simplicity Institute. I might give that a go and see if he would do it. They probably think it would compromise their intellectual integrity or their own ideological position by joining such a site, considering its initial mission statements, but as far as I’m concerned, much of the initial reason for this organisation are gone and out...it’s merely a website now with certain functions.

    This is the foundation for my conclusion that there is no real left “we”. It’s an illusion and goes back centuries, highlighted no better than by the animosity between Marx and Bakunin.

    Fucking intellectuals. Oh, and fucking narcissistic comedians (just thought I’d throw that in)

    • Alex of... 12th Dec 2018

      i may not have significant pull, but what is sound or not about my ideas is up for anyone to decide. i'm being a bit cheeky with my "unachievable goals" comment. it is more a note that the kind of project i mention is not meant to just bang out a complete picture in a couple weeks, or really ever. i would, instead, suggest some very simple goals. i see no reason why the intelligent folks i'm hearing in these past few posts could not create some useful frameworks. my limits revolve around time and money more than anything. plus, everyone has their own unique talents.

      for this place to be more useful, i would also suggest a handful of items for code-monkeys.. mainly tagging ability and some extended "project" functionalities.

      tags: ideas/comments need tracking and connectivity
      projects: need ability to move stuff around, sub-comment, levels of autonomy and cross-over ability to other projects (not getting too specific at the moment)

      online discussions take time, so i can understand why someone might not be inclined to post their work with an expectation to engage with every thought that might come their way as a result. i see more merit in inviting someone to contribute to something specific that involves their personal work.

      at least for the purposes of this blog, i would be more interested in thoughts more specific to the project being suggested. i don't mean that in offense.. i of course have some thoughts based on what you're talking about. probably notice a trend with me, that i'm inclined to separate the components of discussion, and set small goals.

    • Alex of... 12th Dec 2018

      "i see more merit in inviting someone to contribute to something specific that involves their personal work."

      at least as a way to pump some life into things.

    • Bat Chainpuller 13th Dec 2018

      Do anything. Don’t care. Contribute specific to personal work or whatever. Do what Irie does. Authors don’t have to respond if they don’t wish. But I reckon more people would respond to something written by someone with cred. Plus it gives the site more cred. But I know it ain’t ever going to happen. It can’t happen here to paraphrase Frank. This place has no cred.

      In answer to your more specific questions identifying stuff...wouldn’t know...bit stuck... can’t think of nothing...not sure if I’m qualified to identify anything. Maybe some others can do that. You may have to yell a bit louder for that to happen but...

      All I can say is that I don’t think it is going to work like what you’re suggesting or we would both like to see anyway. I think the actual trajectory is pretty obvious...possible slow tentative reforms, or maybe a GND of tentative variety...a big big maybe...more than likely just as we are doing now, with tech fixes (which solar kind of is)...geoengineering (some major perhaps)...as problems appear...by those who rule the world...meanwhile comedians will take over all panel shows and most other media to keep us all emotionally and intellectually balanced and laughing of course...Joe Rogan will be crowned king of all comedians...it’s just a joke




    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      well, i didn't suggest anything would happen any particular way. i'm suggesting that it would be useful or helpful to first understand what would be "possible" ecologically IF we were actually collectively planning without all the socio-political obstacles. we don't currently live in a global planned economy that would be achieving that, so i'm suggesting the need for a rough snapshot of what potential results would be. it gives a kind of baseline to explore potential trajectories and strategy.

      there seems to be a range of assumptions on how such a future world might look like. i gather that exploration is not something you are personally willing to contribute to. i'm not really yelling for anything, just putting out a possible project idea based on recent conversations.

    • Boulder Dash 13th Dec 2018

      I know you’re not yelling for anything...the yelling bit was to get others involved...a joke really...as you no doubt knew...

      It’s not so much I am not willing I do not know where to begin in regard to your plansoc. I have read Parecon books that illustrate or endeavour to what a planned society may look like...as far as ecologically sound now, with a view to a plansoc...I have no idea because the views range within poles...further I cannot imagine the “without socio-political obstacles” bit...I guess at heart I am still not sure what you want...not your fault, it’s mine I guess...I’m just having a go at responding in any way I can, maybe something will fall out...maybe not.

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      as for people with "cred" as you see it, or hub activity.. perhaps that warrants an exploration of reasons and methods of invitation.. the obstacles, potential solutions or efforts. break it down from a brainstorm-blog to a project of different categories which aims to whittle down to some actionable items. i'm aware that you write to people sometimes. i'm not sure if you've ever first asked a few others to vet the content as a collaborative effort. i would contribute to some of that exploration. sometimes i think it's worthwhile just to hash out multiple things that need doing or seem worth doing, so that they are available for further pursuit, even if some things will not be immediately moving further past that.

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      "multiple things that need doing or seem worth doing"

      - plans on the table could have a repository easy to find from the homepage so people visting can find them from a set of links
      - perhaps just use a project with categories that hold links to other projects that have hashed something out but requires further attention
      - a way to understand previous activity and potentially take further based on someone's area of interest

    • Boulder Dash 13th Dec 2018

      The hub, or think tank or cred thing is merely my reply to the constant call for organising and for a mass movement...all the ideas, the thinking, the identifying is going on but it’s all over the place...between the poles...

      The hub thing has more to do with a Hahnel’s grand alliance or Albert’s Bloc, or a mass movement of movements that seems necessary...to create a place virtual and elsewhere if possible that shows that a movement of movements is possible (which I think at the moment, is a pipe dream), otherwise it will be business as usual with GNDs only, thrown in for good measure...I guess...

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      i am suggesting it is possible to explore some different angles or pursuits that could help accomplish at least some of that kind of thing using the tools already available here or potentially expand as well

  • Alex of... 12th Dec 2018

    comes back to.. maybe first then.. is it useful to have a better understanding of what is ecologically possible in a "fair" world of our current popluation?

    and, what work exists to show that, if so?

    • Alex of... 12th Dec 2018

      sidenote:

      second question does not require an extensive answer here. only, if there is something that does a great job at this, please point me to it.

    • Boulder Dash 13th Dec 2018

      1st question answer. Probably. Or probably?

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      Irie's probably just putting the finishing touches on a global map that shows all the regions with water shortages or otherwise rely on too much water from other regions, with population stats and little arrows indicating potential migration

    • Bat Chainpuller 13th Dec 2018

      Probably?

      I'm sure the simplicity folk and degrowthers, the NSP, CT, and many others have all that too...

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      just giving an example of some of the kinds of information that could be categorized and sought.

  • Boulder Dash 13th Dec 2018

    2nd question answer....Sorry, no choice.

    In terms of ranges or poles regarding what needs to be done, fleshed out, or identified more specifically, you have this,

    https://thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/green-new-deal-and-shift-new-economy?mc_cid=4d80025e86&mc_eid=862269f537

    and then the Jensen or Tucker,

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-tucker-interviews-with-kevin-tucker

    In terms of a plansoc the stuff is somewhere in there...and much depends on how close the predictions are...12 years from now as the NSP piece says...or is it much shorter now considering a Street article I read some time back citing Klein? Is it possible it’s longer? Who does one read? Belief comes into play and belief is a biggie.

    The problem with being really specific about this now is that it’s a matter of judgement/belief and perhaps even attitude, all huge variables, and it also means that the vision for the future can overstep if you hold fast to your beliefs/attitudes...far worse than say something like Parecon is criticised for doing. Like anarchist-primmies and simplicity folk can often do...they basically spell it out with a “too bad we made our bed” caveat...we’re right/your wrong binary...not sure it helps really, though I enjoy reading Tucker...or did at times.

    Jensen’s choice...Tucker’s desire....

    The issue with a green new deal is it’s still rooted in mainstream thought, markets with regulations and changes in certain property, ownership of means of production that s, and renewables (problematic as well) and it’s described with smiley faces selling legislation that apparently gets the pollies and others, all excited, so it sounds crappy, you don’t trust it and you’re not sure where it’s going...but one sees it as a mainstream necessity that doesn’t require us all to go out hunting for mushrooms and bark for food to prepare for the collapse.

    A plansoc is essentially a planned economy and I am not sure one can get specific now about anything. Too many variables. The only thing one can do really is push most everything that is happening now as best one can with a hope that fairness and equality are not lost within the urgency of mitigation and find the optimal path...that’s a hard road to travel down and at the moment this mythical left “we” is not even close to being together really, on a balance between the two things. And any plansoc for the future needs fleshing out and I reckon much of the fleshing has been done by Hahnel and Albert...as they say, if anyone can come up with a better one, please do so...but I can’t be bothered...beyond my ken.

    Thinking Forward, the book, already fleshed out how Parecon was arrived at in the head...how we arrive at something like it from now is dependent totally on numbers and a movement of movements and within that the ideas would flow and those with clear heads, right minds, right speech, would float to the surface with cred...otherwise it’s like listening to Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris going on for hours repeating themselves endlessly trying to find common ground, never actually doing so but believing they’re close and believing what they are talking about is cutting edge, fucking important and necessary and what they are really doing is just confusing the fuck out of everyone listening, who take sides anyway because the feel they have to.

    Sam Harris: There is no free will.

    Jordan Peterson: I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just not so sure.

    So refreshingly new...a unique spin on the problem...NOT.

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      with a cursory look, the Next System link seems centered on using the GND as a potential focal point or cataylst for economic transition. it's relevant as potential strategy, but as i mentioned is US-based and assumes a degree of necessity in one country perhaps without regard for global availability of the resources that would be used. and the project idea is not so much about strategy in itself, but an assessment.

      the Kevin Tucker interview moves toward post-collapse with an assumption there will be no electricity and a bunch of people just die off. yes, again.. Jensen's choices are relevant, but part of the exploration i suggested is about establishing potential priorities (such as medical equipment) to understand better if they could actually be made available to our global population, or what could. as in, what kind of living standard is possible without welcoming-in the death of billions.

      so, i don't think either does a "great job" at answering.

      if i were setting up a project, i would establish some initial categories and a bit of methodology.

      "And any plansoc for the future needs fleshing out and I reckon much of the fleshing has been done by Hahnel and Albert"

      if you mean institutionally, as i said, this is not about the economic mechanisms that would produce an equitable outcome. if you mean that they have fleshed out the resources necessary to carry renewables-based electricity to 8 billion people in equal distribution, then i would like to see THAT report.

      "Too many variables."

      many variables, but some large ones that can be assessed, or have likely been assessed i would be looking to compile.

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      that is, how much electricity could actually be fairly distributed based on planetary resources?

      there's various ways that question can begin to be approached. i am not looking to do that on this blog specifically. it is however a potential priority toward a fair global society. and yes, any amount of resources used for that becomes an ecological trade-off.. a choice. it potentially trades off other uses for some of the same resources as well.

    • Boulder Dash 13th Dec 2018


      with a cursory look, the Next System link seems centered on using the GND as a potential focal point or cataylst for economic transition. it's relevant as potential strategy, but as i mentioned is US-based and assumes a degree of necessity in one country perhaps without regard for global availability of the resources that would be used. and the project idea is not so much about strategy in itself, but an assessment.

      AGREED.

      the Kevin Tucker interview moves toward post-collapse with an assumption there will be no electricity and a bunch of people just die off. yes, again.. Jensen's choices are relevant, but part of the exploration i suggested is about establishing potential priorities (such as medical equipment) to understand better if they could actually be made available to our global population, or what could. as in, what kind of living standard is possible without welcoming-in the death of billions.

      WELL, EXACTLY...I’D PREFER NOT TO WELCOME IN THAT. BUT PRIMMIES SEEM RESIGNED TO IT...SOME AT LEAST.

      so, i don't think either does a "great job" at answering.

      I PUT TUCKER IN MERELY AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE POLARITIES BETWEEN WHICH THERE WILL BE DIFFERING VIEWS AS TO WHAT IS POSSIBLE GLOBALLY, TRADE WISE OR OTHERWISE AND LOCALLY .

      if i were setting up a project, i would establish some initial categories and a bit of methodology.

      "And any plansoc for the future needs fleshing out and I reckon much of the fleshing has been done by Hahnel and Albert"

      if you mean institutionally, as i said, this is not about the economic mechanisms that would produce an equitable outcome. if you mean that they have fleshed out the resources necessary to carry renewables-based electricity to 8 billion people in equal distribution, then i would like to see THAT report.

      NO, I MEANT IN THE ILLUSTRATIONS OF HOW SUCH A PLANSOC MAY LOOK OR OPERATE THAT THEY DESCRIBE FOR THOSE WITH A MORE VISUAL BIASED IMAGINATION . OF COURSE THEY HAVEN’T DONE WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING HERE.

      "Too many variables."

      many variables, but some large ones that can be assessed, or have likely been assessed i would be looking to compile.

      BUT LIKE I WAS TRYING TO GET AT, AND WHY I FIND THIS HARD, PERHAPS TOO HARD, THERE MAY BE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETATIONS OF VARIABLES AND WHAT IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE, DEOENDING ON MANY FACTORS, NOT THE LEAST IDEOLOGY.

      NOT YELLING, UPPERCASE IS FOR CONTRAST WITH YOU.

  • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

    potential MASTER PROJECTS with SUBPROJECTS!!
    by stormy BRAINS...

    PLANSOC - global resource assessments

    HUB-A-BUBBLE - world bloc party

    THE DECIDER - collaborative exercises

    MICROTRAUMA - disrupt and replace tactics

    COOPERATUS - anchor archipelago

    CODE MONKEYS - bananasoc

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

      on second thought...

      BANANASOC - code monkeys

    • Alex of... 13th Dec 2018

    • Eisenhower's Shotgun 15th Dec 2018

      IRIE'S RE @


      WATER | ARROWS


       


       

    • Alex of... 18th Dec 2018

      and more...

      PROPAGANDATE - the revolution will be sexy

      ROGUE EXPERIENCE - riffing on pioneers of fake frontiers

      ANARCHIST JOB CENTER - not currently hiring

  • Boulder Dash 13th Dec 2018

    Ok,

    Maybe like, for communications/computing we need certain minerals from the DMC...where does that sit in importance...I reckon highish.

    Med equipment...well, obviously it includes the above and a lot more. So what is shit made from and all the rest...

    Water’s a must.

    Electricity??? Massive prob....old bicycles? Pedal power....

    See, got no clue how to,approach this because the simplicity folk will have their own view of musts regardless, which will differ in quality to a degree from the primmies, but significantly from the GND folk and even others at the NSP....

    Fuckin’ mine field....

    Even if I found info pertaining to something I’m sure someone else would bust my balls....

    Like Jensen and others about solar....

  • Alex of... 19th Dec 2018

    (see graphic!) National Incomes

    "According to the same report (2005)... In order for the world's population to attain the living standards typical of European countries, the resources of between three and eight planet Earths would be required with current levels of efficiency and means of production. In order for world economic equality to be achieved with the current available resources, proponents say rich countries would have to reduce their standard of living through degrowth. The constraints on resources would eventually lead to a forced reduction in consumption. Controlled reduction of consumption would reduce the trauma of this change assuming no technological changes increase the planet's carrying capacity."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth#Ecological_footprint


    ^this kind of info and research..

    i am reminded of one of the first activist groups i participated in, known as GMOP or Get Money Out of Politics. one of the focuses was stopping the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) back before it really had any media attention.

    a couple folks had put together a little flier they intended to be available for distribution. it had a handful of bullet points about the TPP, and no web address for further info. i said the bullet points sounded scary enough but it doesn't really tell me why the TPP makes any of that happen. one of the main folks told me "well, you can find all that at Public Citizen (Ralph Nader's org)" (gee thanks).

    HE was knowledgable about that. EYE had read through much of that before (and previously read Nader's book about NAFTA), but some of it was extensive and not broken down very well unless you're inclined to do a bunch of reading right off the bat or become an expert. i was kind of brushed off, but my point was..

    you want to convey something to others and have offered two options:
    1) believe these scary bullet points and sign a petition or go join an action
    2) go figure it out for yourself

    as online information goes, i have a preferred layout for many things.. an expanding click-thru process. say, a title and graphic with a single sentence description. click-thru to find bullet points with short concise descriptions. click thru to expanded versions of those points.. paragraphs (and visual stuff to aid). links from there to more extensive reading and videos.

    doesn't have to be JUST like that for EVERYTHING. but the point is hopefully clear that it is useful to move from simple, cut-through-the-crap information toward more extensive information or research.