DO 140 - Gregory Landua, Daniel Schmachtenberger, and Jason

[@ErnestoEduardoDobarganes]

excellent convo

[@teiuq]

Thanks for this conversation although its very sobering.

[@iuvalclejan]

It seems to me that both the totalitarian and chaotic breakdown attractors are avoided with properly nested levels of human organization, all the way from our psychological parts to big companies (with lots of departments, or consortiums of big companies) and federations of nations. Thomas Friedman made me aware that global capitalism destroys (outcompetes) or is in the process of destroying all the intermediate levels: individuals, families, villages, tribes, small companies, civic and religious associations, cities, nations. One needs each of these levels for the well-being of all levels immediately above and below them. Too many parts of a level are hard to monitor and regulate. And without higher levels, competition of the highest levels is too fierce and destructive. So the way to a better future is to restore all the intermediate levels (not just the family and village) and thus outcompete global capitalism (GC). A market is a means of creating beneficial inter-dependence, but not of creating a membrane (or more generally a module, which could be dynamic, not just spatial), and reducing competition and externalization within the membrane. Some parts of a market economy are still destructively competitive (aka perverse incentives). Some competition between parts within a membrane could be useful for figuring out the best specialization of parts (as in a village market), but this is not the only competition that GC encourages and allows. Competition between intermediate levels which have not yet been destroyed (individuals, families, small companies, municipalities, nations) is allowed and encouraged in GC, without appropriate lower levels to soften the damage. There are also special benefits of restoring the lower (local) levels: 1.Belonging: this is an evolved psychological need of humans. Some companies can promote this. But individuals (promoting belonging of their parts), families (promoting belonging of individuals) and tribes (promoting belonging of families and individuals) are best at it, and GC, with or without the donut, destroys these levels. 2. Deep connection: This also happens best within small companies, individuals, families and tribes. But these are all selected against in GC.

[@olivergilpin]

Timestamps?

[@dannydreadnought-xk4qx]

Got 'em. The conversation starts at 0:00 and ends at 1:45:36

[@mmraike]

Canadian Permaculture Legacy has a great KZbin channel. It's not just for us Canucks, either.

[@MrEkly]

Daniel is very cerebral and a great systems thinker. He should be set free on the capitalists and globalists. For us lowly simpletons with healthy biologies, we’ll go off to the side grow plants and animals, be one with nature, help our neighbors, raise our kids, sit around the fire at night, create and solve locally and create the world we desire.

[@iuvalclejan]

In the mean time, while we figure things out intellectually, liberal intentional communities are failing at a higher rate and in a shorter time than conservative ones. We need to figure THAT out. What can we learn from conservatives about functional hierarchy, family, constraints on individual behavior, commitment, selective inclusion/exclusion, and loyalty?

[@phcobb2635]

You've missed the whole point of Daniel. The left/right binary is too simplistic: they're two sides of the same coin -- a coin that's being tossed in a far more complex game. I think you'd benefit from his talks with Tristan Harris on the Center for Humane Technology channel.

[@iuvalclejan]

@@phcobb2635 I am pretty familiar with Daniel, but not with this particular conversation with Tristan, will take a look, thanks. I am not saying there is a left/right binary, but there are many traits that correlate and have a two-peaked distribution. And that it goes much deeper than political values: according to Tuschman, all the way back to in- vs out-breeding, but probably even before that into traits that favor higher levels of information and resource abstraction (aka liberal), and traits that favor maintaining current levels (aka conservative). And my mathematical modeling suggests that for lower levels to maintain their evolvability when higher levels emerge, while at the same time keeping free riding at bay (i.e. the third attractor) both liberal and conservative populations are necessary.

[@iuvalclejan]

@@phcobb2635 OK, I watched a bunch of conversation between Daniel and Tristan, and I think I understand why you thought I missed Daniel's whole point. I am using left/right or liberal/conservative in a different way than the common political meanings, though the political meaning is related to my meaning. I am using this dichotomy to propose a different game (with a different network structure) that would avoid, or at least greatly reduce all the problems Daniel talks about. The game involves different, nested levels of organization, with each level sharing resources (including information) more internally than with higher levels. The basic nodes (which could be either human individuals, or psychological modules of them) are either left or right, with left nodes synergizing and coordinating with each other both inside and (to a lesser extent) outside of some local membrane (and to a lesser extent with right nodes within a local membrane) to form a higher level The right nodes are synergizing and coordinating only with other right nodes inside a membrane (and to a lesser extent with other left nodes within that membrane), not outside the membrane. Each level above the 0th (nodes) has a mixed population of left and right nodes, so we can't call it pure left or right anymore, but in order for the nested levels to persist, each level (defined by a membrane, which could also be defined by resource flows, not just geography) should have more right nodes than left (I am still working out the details of this, there may not be a fixed ratio of right to left, it might depend on resource flows). This is not the situation in the current system. We could discuss how each generator function of the current system is defeated by the system I'm proposing. Our bodies are examples of this nested level of organization: organic molecules share resources more within cells than with other cells (but there are a few molecules involved in energy and information import/export outside of cells, the "liberal" ones); cells within organs share resources more with each other than with cells in other organs, cells within our bodies share resources more with each other than with other bodies (and we can go on to families and higher levels). The only innovation we must provide that nature hasn't already figured out (in order to avoid all the free riding behavior that Daniel mentions, though not with that lens), is how to keep the human individual evolvable. Without that extra hack, we get dystopic or totalitarian systems, where only the highest level has evolvability. Without sufficient membranes or conservatives, we get the chaotic attractor, where evolvability of lower levels results in free riding and long term destruction of higher levels (and lower levels, which have become dependent on the synergy at the higher levels). I also did not address the fungibiity problem of a global currency that Daniel talks about, in my previous comment. That's more of a feedback issue, solved by having quick and less noisy feedbacks provided by local levels. Non-fungibility is a result of feedbacks that happen when we clearly see the results of depleting resources or having essential modules that are not getting their needs met. Fungibility is a result of slow and noisy feedbacks that happen without local levels, on a global scale.

[@dunkelheit3114]

you got schmactenberger on!? saved for later