Iuval Clejan
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-
-
Matthew, I just saw your reply. I guess Paul is too busy to deign a reply. I couldn’t find your Homestead Earth Model by a quick search. Can you provide a link? I don’t think the whole earth needs a paradigm change. Small groups need a paradigm change, and the concurrent cultural isolation so they don’t get swamped by the mainstream global industrial paradigm. Such is the way of speciation, aka getting out of a local rut in the negative fitness landscape. Also, how does one get from this paradigm to another one? The answer is master memes need to be mutated, just like in biological speciation. Other mutations produce adaptations, which are small deviations about a changing maximum of fitness in gene/meme space, not speciation or a paradigm change (which requires lots of genes/memes to mutate in a concerted, system-wide way, under control/regulation of one or a few master genes/memes). Have you actually read the LMP proposals on my website? Also see:
http://culturalspeciation.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-path-through-mountainpass.html
which addresses explicitly how to get from here to there. I agree that we need many tactics/goals, but right now I see only 3 viable ones, according to evolutionary theory (though my understanding of evolution is not necessarily widely accepted). My proposal is still the only one of the 3 with no funding, probably because those with funding leverage are part of a different paradigm. What is your email? Mine is clejan.iuval@gmail.com -
I am thinking of the kind of village where people can produce their basic needs. Please see the links in the open letter to Paul Ehrlich on this forum for more details. The scale is experimental, to be determined based on achieving the goal of self-sufficiency, but based on guesses it would be a few hundred at least. It would of course depend sensitively on local conditions, but there might also be some technologies that could be more universal and hence transferable. The main thing that would be transferable would be the meme that a solution is NOT to be legislated and global, but figured out through experimentation and local, and the meme that reestablishing the direct feedback between production and consumption leads to more responsible consumption, and a plethora of other benefits. Replication would be ensured by selection for fitness, as in other evolutionary processes.
-
Dialogue can be effective in promoting better understanding between people, but it isn’t very effective in changing one’s behavior, or in solving a technical problem for which one is not knowledgeable to solve.
The people whose consumption habits would change with dialogue have mostly changed already. Information travels fast nowadays. But consumption is only half of the equation. And dialogue will do almost nothing when it comes to changing production in a way that would make an environmental, social and psychological impact. You could ban nuclear power, but the industrial machine will keep cranking carbon into the atmosphere, promoting war, and harming people’s psychological health. Even if people wanted to change the mode of production, most of them have no idea how. What is needed are experts who can figure this out. An analogy is to try to build a car, a factory or an atom bomb with dialogue. It takes a team of experts to do it.
Once a sustainable village is demonstrated, it would take a little bit of dialogue, but more observation for people to want to live that way. It is not something to be done at the nation-state level (for many reasons that I can elaborate on if anyone is interested).
-
