Re: WSN needs some positve ideas

    Paul> Richard Moore has lately tried to promote his plans for a
    non-hierachical, harmonizing New World Order, but in my
    opinion, his ideas are nothing but wishful thinking.

I'll agree with 'hopeful' thinking.  I pursue this path
precisely because of the benefits it promises, not because
it looked obviously doable.  But to my surprise, I've found
it's not as hopeless as you presume.

    
    > Such a system might have worked with the Sioux tribes,
    because they were composed of hunter- gatherers, individuals
    with almost identical interests and who probably needed to
    cooperate for best hunting results.

The evidence seems to be that it was primarily the small
size, and overall small population density, that was the
determining factor.  When agriculture first began, people in
small proto-villages still had more-or-less identical
interests and needed to cooperate - but their ways of
settling conflicts didn't scale up. What would have been a
minor brawl before, now became small-scale warfare.  In
every case, the problem was 'solved' when someone seized
power and established a chiefdom of some kind.  Clearly we
need to find a way to deal with scale.  I'm not saying this
is a trivial problem.

   
    > In almost any modern community there are groups with very
    different interests, that only in very rare cases might
    achieve his desired harmonization,
    
Rare indeed.  But the evidence seems to show that the
rareness has to do with (a) lack of trying, and (b)
ignorance of processes capable harmonizing conflicting
interests.  In fact there are such processes, and they are
widely known in some circles, but far from generally known. 
Since you have expressed a desire to look 'objectively' at
'postive ideas', I humbly request that you at least consider
the possibilty that such processes might exist, and that you
perhaps take a peek at Tom Atlee's website devoted to such
processes:
    http://www.democracyinnovations.org



    > As to larger entities, there are so immense differences in
    wealth, viewpoints etc. that chances for success would be
    nil.

This, I suggest, is the problem of scale, not a problem of
inherently less resolvable conlicts.  Even in a medium-size
town you've already got a microcosm of the various kinds of
conflicts.  If we know how to resolve local conflicts, then
we need to find a way to apply those processes to
larger-scale entities.  One method, which has been used with
some success, is what one might call the 'jury' method.  
You select a representative sample from the organization, or
political population, and work with them to resolve the
conflicts.  The results seem to show a kind of holographic
effect - the resolutions found by the small group tend to
find acceptance in the larger group.

Dee W. Hock, founder and CEO Emeritus of VISA International,
now runs 'The Chaordic Alliance'.  (Thanks to Robert Holt
for bringing this to my attention.)  They are using
processes which grew out of Hock's decentralized business
model at VISA, and the Alliance applies them to corporate
organizations as well as communities.  You might take a peek
at their website:
    http://www.chaordic.org

If you want to run a society by such methods, then more
development of the ideas is needed.  That's what I've been
working on.  But I certainly don't expect to succeed by my
meager efforts alone.  I'm hoping that other people, such as
yourself, would give at least some attention to figuring out
how some of the problems might be solved, rather than
presuming they cannot possibly be solved.

    
    > Furthermore he has not been able to explain, how decisions
    arrived at by consensus, could be carried out without an
    executive with authority to act,

I think this is a far easier problem.  If we have a society
where the decsions have been reached by overall societal
consensus, in which everyone can participate, then eveyone
is going to be eager and motivated to see their ideas
implemented.  Why do they need a top-down boss to order them
to get on with the work they themselves have requested?

Clearly we will need infrastructures, and organizations, to
build roads etc. etc.  If the people in these organizations
have agreed on what they need to do, then they can use their
same processes and their same organization to implement. 
The feasibility of decentralized organization has already
been demonstrated by the Chaordic Alliance, and there have
been many other examples as well (eg. in Spain).

    
    > without even thinking of the immense tasks needed to
    address the grave problems of our time, such as the
    exponential growth of populations, the needed changeover to
    a sustainable management of natural resources etc..

Well yes, these are difficult problems.  Our current regime
is doing an unacceptable job of solving them, in fact it is
hell-bent on making them all worse.  So, how do we solve
them?  Don't we need to get together and talk about them and
figure out what we want to do about them?

It turns out that the same processes which enable groups to
'resolve conflicts', serve at the same time to 'solve
problems'.  In fact, the way the processes work is to
transform 'me vs you argue' into 'we together solve common
problem'.  People start off arguing among solutions, and
eventually they discover that they should be looking at the
problems together.  After that, their creativity emerges,
and they are able to find solutions that work for everyone.
It could even happen on an email list, if people would 
talk about the problems together.

I'm not saying I've 'proven' anything, or suggesting that
everyone should jump on this bandwagon.  But I think there's
more here than 'wishful thinking'.

all the best,
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org