THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

Congrats on your approaching anniversary. It's an important milestone.

I will pose a question for you- one I raised when we chatted in The Frozen Tundra- but first I want to refer you to a website for an organization called The Natural Step which is focused on sustainability. Their precepts appear to dovetail with many of your beliefs. One entry point to their website is http://www.naturalstep.org/en/faq#natural-step-framework

Now, onto my question. I post this to stimulate a dialogue regarding what I think is a fundamental tenet to your Systocratic approach: that individuals of the human species can be educated to act with consideration of the impact of their actions on others and the earth.

To put it simply, I am skeptical of this perspective. My belief is that human beings are hard-wired organisms biologically programmed to be selfish. Only societal regulation can prevent "the tragedy of the commons" from overtaking our species. Individual desires are essentially never-ending whereas available resources are limited. All the education in the world will break down under pressure because of the innate greediness of our species without the enforcement of "appropriate" (i.e. sustainable) behavior by society. And greed is inevitable because desires are limitless and resources are finite.

So just "thinking about the impacts of our actions on others and the planet" is nice, but frankly it's not enough. One needs to ACT in accordance with those principles. "Appropriate" actions are only ensured by societal enforcement.

Vic: I firmly believe that we can teach humans to act in a sustainable manner. but it will likely involve a fundamental change in the way we organize our affairs. I think you've accurately described the human condition in this modern age - we are selfish, materialistic, etc., but I don't think we're hardwired to act in this manner. Instead, I believe that the structure of any civilization determines the values of its people. Put simply, at present our civilization promotes the wrong values and needs to be reorganized according to Systocrat/sustainable principles.

For example, right now capitalism is the dominant economic theory around the globe - in particular, American-style capitalism is becoming increasingly popular. Unfortunately, American-style capitalism promotes selfishness, materialism, greed, etc., both explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly, the inherent message of the American capitalist system is that more is better, bigger is better, more expensive is better, and that the more money you have, the more important you are and the greater your right to have your individual desires fulfilled. Given that we are bombarded with various iterations of this message every day, it's not hard to understand why we're such a self-centered society at present.

Implicitly, I believe capitalism, and the competition for resources that it fosters, promotes unhealthy levels of self interest by creating the fear that a reasonable standard of living will not be available to all members of society.

Human history does feature a few societies where excessive self-interest was not the rule. For example, Bartolome de los Casas gives us an account of the Arawak society that Columbus encountered when he landed in the West Indies. De los Casas informs us that the Arawaks had little regard for the idea of personal ownership, sharing resources and even mates with little difficulty or friction. Also, the majority of the various Indians tribes in North America, although perhaps not the models of conservation that we've made them out to be, did not appear to be overly interested in the accumulation of wealth, or in most cases power, at least until the Europeans arrived.

So, given the promotion of proper values, I do believe that a sustainable global society can be created. Obviously, the change from our current model of excess to a sustainable one will take time, during which some form of regulation will almost certainly be necessary as people gradually adopt the values of the new sustainable system.

I'm a Zen Buddhist. I've never heard of Systocracy before, but it sounds like an excellent approach to what, for some,is a question of philosophy or intellectual discourse.

Me, I just know that Tom is right. Putting aside the most basic instincts, (which I do not find to be part of the mind proper), no mind to be hard-wired.
Most people understand that their mind is how and why they think. Consciousness is independent of, and usually opposed by, thinking.

Buddhism perceives the world as "Indra's Net:" an impossibly immense set of nodes that connect every sentient being (a term that includes all ostensibly living things, all seemingly lifeless things, things that have died, and things that have not yet been borne). Whatever happens to one being happens to every other being in the net. We don't notice it except through certain disciplines.

Selfishness, though a very common character trait, is not an inherent part of our consciousness. It is common knowledge that people who are normally selfish become generous when their hearts open, such as in a common disaster or a single event that moves them finally to notice that their are OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE. That would not be possible if we were hard-wired in any respect.

This sounds pompous and self-righteous but I will still say: I KNOW that everything is one. I was not intentionally taught that, nor do I merely believe it or suspect it is true. I have seen it with my own eyes, over and over again.

Remember the movie "Matrix"? Putting side all the Hollywood stuff and the content of the plot, I thought that movie depicted the Buddhist world ins a a startlingly accurate way. No one but the characters could see
the extra scope of reality.
That reality was horrifying in Matrix, and does not reflect how I experience the world. My point is that the full scope of our existence is as unknown to us as was the dark world in that movie.

One of the happiest experiences of my life was when, soon after I had seen something important, I went to the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle. It was summer, and packed with people. When I arrived, it became obvious to me that all these people were members of my own family. I mentally greeted each person as my living, deceased, or future brother, mother, father, child, etc, throughout all periods of time. When you focus on it, you realize that your family tree spans at least 1.5 million years just in the form of humans, and an unthinkable period of time before that. That includes far more people than were in the Zoo that day. And that does not even include the plants, and the water and rocks that have been tumbling together throughout the life of Indra's net.

If you want to see a world where the there is no desire for fame or gain, there is a way to do so. But for now, I would take what Tom says very seriously.

Thanks, y'all.

John Bannon

John: As you suggest above, I believe that to some extent, "Indra's Net" is there for all of us to see, if we'd only take the time to look. For example, people should take a moment to consider all of the people/animals/things that they routinely depend on during any given 24 hour period to ensure that they have food to eat, clothes to wear, clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, fuel to power their cars and homes, etc., and then consider all of the people/animals/things that the first set of organisms/objects depends upon, and so on and so forth.

I'll also note that "Indra's Net" is nearly identical to "Gaia Theory," set forth by James Lovelock, a former NASA scientist, in the early 1970s. Gaia Theory postulates that the entire planet, including inorganic matter, is in fact one complex "super-organism" that self-regulates in order to ensure that conditions remain hospitable for organic life. In his book "Gaia - a new look at life on Earth," first published in 1979, Lovelock defined "Gaia as a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans and soil; the totality constituting a feedback of cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."

In an updated preface to "Gaia," Lovelock further noted that the initial version of his theory "failed to make clear that it was not the biosphere alone that did the regulating but the whole thing, life, the air, the oceans and the rocks. The entire surface of the Earth including life is a self-regulating entity and this is what I mean by Gaia."

The upshot of all of this is that everything on the surface of the earth, including the rocks and the soil, has a role to play in the complex Gaia self-regulating system, and the disruption of any part of the system has the potential to affect the workings of the entire super-organism.

Ultimately, I think these observations are important in making the case that a egocentric system of values should be replaced by a more inclusive view. The question remains - how to get those who are not yet "awake" to perceive this interconnected reality. Perhaps, as you suggest above, it will take a major catastrophe - maybe an environmental disaster on a scale we've not yet seen.

Here's my take on your thoughts. You said: "In
order for the Earth system to function, each part of this system must fulfill its role without disrupting the harmony that naturally exists. Problems occur when discrete
parts of the system are altered or otherwise manipulated in
a manner that reduces or eliminate this harmony." Although I fully ascribe to your concept of the interconnected-ness of everything on the earth, I don't
universally agree with your value-laden assumption of
"harmony" or your value-laden assumption that "problems occur." There is no doubt that changes occur when parts of the system are altered or manipulated. But the
value assumptions in there are part of what cleaves the
like-minded like Us from the "Them" who don't yet 'get
it' that Vic is concerned can't be educated because of human hard-wiring.

As an example from the field of conservation: when enviros sought to protect endangered species because "the world as we know it will collapse if the bald eagle goes extinct," they were derided and got some justifiable
back-lash (ie Reagan & Watt's 1980s Interior Dept). Do any of you realize that there used to be a sea mink and a great auk that thrived on the coast of Maine? Both are long gone from our coasts. I truly believe that my experience of the world is lessened because of their absence.but really, before I had heard about them in college, I didn't miss them or notice their absence. Life goes on. If the bald eagle went extinct, life would go on.
It would go on in a vastly or minutely different manner;
but it would go on. [Credit this line of thinking to my mentor Bill Drury & his book "Chance & Change" that I was honored to help publish.]

Certainly, one change like a species' extinction will
have unintended consequences that also change the make up and relations of life. But to say "problems occur" assumes that the changes are inherently negative. Whatever it is that wiped out the dinosaurs was a major
"problem" from the dinosaurs' perspective.but mammals and hominids have thrived in the backlash of that in
a way that we may very will not have done without that
alteration. Perhaps this is the wrong context to think about, because the morals behind loss of a whole species of living thing are strong, but the same can be said for
climate change. Melting ice caps, major changes to coastal
areas, and shifts in climate/weather patterns will not end the world; but they will radically change the world as we know it. Some of those repercussions may be enjoyed by some human populations, while to others those changes may be devastating.

The same can be said about changes in our societal relations (tax policies, welfare programs, etc). Such changes are neither inherently bad nor good. Is 'good' what is good for human society as a whole? Or what is good for me and my family? Individual amassing of wealth is something that has to change for the world to be a world that I want to live in. But, having married into a conservative, right-wing family, I am continually astounded
by the great variation in perspectives on 'good' and 'bad.' Don't get me wrong, I have the strong belief (shared among Systocrats, I dare say?) that much of the changes in the capitalist system (as compared to the less wealth-driven societies you mentioned) are Bad. But until we recognize that these are value judgments, we cannot hope to educate those with opposite value beliefs based on the science or facts of the matter.

I heard the other day about a woman who bought a $200 pair of flip-flops. This was in January 2009, in America. Really. And the fact that there is a designer out there making, an agent out there marketing, and a store out there selling a $200 pair of sandals speaks to the fact that the world is chock-full of people who actually value such things. And, those common disasters that bring many people to selflessness as John noted, also result in rampant self-interest (common looting) and human atrocities of the absolute worst kind (rape & other violence). Why are some humans touched by the disaster encouraged to hurt rather than help their fellow man? I would say that there is chronic disaster all around us - the liberal press keeps saying that the U.S. financial crisis won't change until there is a major outcry, and that just isn't materializing. It overwhelms me, sometimes, to think of the enormity of the 'problem' of these people who just don't share my values. I can't buy the dogma that my values are inherently "Right," and the rest need to see the light. But I do believe that my values are better - better for me, better for humans generally, and better for the natural world that I want to surround me.

Shy of annihilating the human species, how can we get to
these changes we Systocrats want to see in the world? Obama's mere occupation of the White House is not enough. It must happen at home, and on all fronts of our
personal lives. I suggest that we need to approach human
education in a manner that includes increased self-education, and that seeks the common ground to articulate the characteristics of the world that we all want to live in (Us and Them), and why that particular world is a
Good world for all people. (We all want to be loved, right? .is that our only commonality?) I can find no better way to educate than to demonstrate. So, I try to live by my values. over-ride my own hard-wiring when opportunities
to maximize my short-term self-interest arise. Give blood. Give to charities. Choose to spend time with my family rather than earning a greater financial compensation. Share love with those who I don't understand and whose choices I don't necessarily respect (this is so hard!) Certainly, my example did nothing to make that Florida banker share his multi-million dollar bonus with his employees and ex-employees. But someone's example
did. And his example goes far to convince me that the $200 flip-flops are an aberration that (relatively soon) can become an historical oddity just like the debutantes' hats adorned with great auk feathers.

--Sarah

Sarah:
You raise a number of interesting points, and I must confess that I've had to restrain the urge to respond in a purely intellectual manner, analyzing your critique from a theoretical perspective, etc. Rather than respond to your comment in kind, I instead invite you to conduct your own investigation re: the simple ideas set forth in Systocrat No. 1. In the end, this is the only way that real change will occur - when people do their own critical thinking and reach consensus re: the way forward.

The fact is that this is not a mere intellectual exercise for me - no dogma is being expressed and I don't expect anyone to blindly accept what I've proposed. I've set forth this theory because I've thought about it and applied it to every situation I can think of for over a decade and I firmly believe it to be true. This is the "value" expressed in the ideas I've set forth in Systocrat No. 1, but as far as I'm concerned, there are no "assumptions." I would invite TSP readers to do exactly what I have done - investigate for yourself to see if the theory is sound.

One word about the good-bad issue. I've defined problems/issues as a "disruption of harmonious conditions." Although it is true that we don't completely agree on our definitions of good and bad, the fact is that humans agree to a larger extent than most of us realize. As I've also stated, issues do not always arise when a person acts in self-interested fashion without considering the effect of these actions on others, but on the whole these types of actions are responsible for behavior that the vast majority of us would agree is "bad." I also firmly believe that excessive self-interest is also the very thing that generates fundamental disagreements about "good" and "bad."

There will be additional posts that will demonstrate the truth of this theory (at least as I perceive it) by applying its principles to various real world situations and further fleshing out the ideas expressed above, so please stay tuned for those.

Hey Tom,

First off, my BFAM, I enjoyed reading your SYSTOCRAT PAPER NO. 1, and I look forward to reading your past year of postings and future postings. I am interested in better understand what the Systocrate way is. I agree with the premises that “the Earth and everything on it is part of a whole, or an integrated, interdependent “system.” But the real issue you seem to have is about Moral Intelligence and Moral Competence. Let’s define them both. A speaker on human behavior, Doug Lennick (www.lennickaberman.com) defines Moral Intelligence as knowing the difference between right and wrong and Moral Competence as doing what is right instead of what is wrong. Moral intelligence and moral competence can be practiced no matter what system, culture or civilization, as long as it is free. Doug Lennick believes that unlike a person’s IQ, moral intelligence and moral competence can be increased. (You are right that I didn’t define what is right and what is wrong, but I’m not the one writing a manifest. Yes, I’m a smart ass.)

You say that the disruption of “the harmony that naturally exists” on Earth may not always arise “when a person, faction or entity acts in self-interested fashion or without otherwise properly considering the effects of their actions on the whole.” I say that is only true to the extent of whom the disruptions are felt by. I am of the belief and agreement with Einstein, that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. By the way, you used the word “most” describing the amount of people that agree upon the difference between “good” and “evil” acts. I have an issue with this because you explain why not all people believe every selfish as is evil, (“am not suggesting that issues always arise under these circumstances”), but you did not explain why not all people agree that unselfish acts are always good. You know, like mercy killing.

Sara made in interesting point in her comment that, “Life goes on.” A lessen learned from an animal going extinct. The question she brought up was there and is there a missed interaction on the environment? Absolutely, but does the life of mankind depend on it, probably not. Does the existence of the Earth depend on one living creature; not at all, the ecosystem will just replace what died off with something else. The Earth and its ecosystems have a funny way of balancing itself. When the harmony, as you describe it is thrown off tilt, there is usually an environmental reaction equal to its level of imbalance. When the imbalance gets severe enough, entities that can’t survive the correction will start dying off. Understanding that the entity causing the imbalance is not necessarily the one dying but harmony is still eventually restored, and the Earth is happy. One day that species could be humans, I believe that humans have and need to understand that they are animals that interact with the Earth. We Humans also need to understand that we are replaceable just like the extinct animal mention in Sara’s comment. We humans also need to understand that our behavior is that of the animal that we are.

I read somewhere to the effect that a person can influence others who are willing to listen; and if you are also willing to listen and be influenced, you can often influence others. History shows us that you can’t force humans to change, they will resist force. In order for human beings to unit and sacrifice for their existence, they have to understand they are on the same team, that they are all in the same situation. Self enjoying is not wrong, self enjoying while hurting others is wrong. Making millions of dollars is not wrong, hurting others to make the millions is wrong. Being lucky enough to not having to worry about food, water, shelter, protection, a car to drive to work, a job to make money that provides for your quality of life is not wrong, not being grateful for it is wrong. Capitalism is not wrong, communism is not wrong, freedom to choose your path is not wrong, not loving is.

And by the way, life is not fair.

I still don’t believe it s not as simple as choosing a side, either “short term gain for self” or “long tern gain for concept of population.” Right now I’m trying to align my way of living a quality life with three basic components. (Maybe you heard this already, I didn’t make it up but unsure of the true origin of this concept.) People need three things; something to do, someone to love and something to believe in.

Do-this is about work and productivity, goals and performance. This is not who you are, it should not define a person.

Love-loving others is an awesome thought and very fulfilling. I once read that 99% of people who say they love someone or something say it because that someone or something gives them pleasure. But true love it not receiving joy, it is giving it and not expecting anything in return. It is commitment.

Belief- this can be religion, but it is more about purpose. This defines who we are as people. Purpose is our spiritual stance/beliefs and our ethical values.

I spent that time writing a comment and among other things I can't spell manifesto. Oh well!

I'm looking forward to catching up on your past writings.