A Celebration Society

Author: Jonathan

  • This Must Become a Collaboration

    This Must Become a Collaboration

    So far, nearly all of the postings at this website have been my own. However, I do not want this to continue. I have invited Society members with whom I correspond; men and women of accomplishment, to write guest blogs. None has yet found the time. They are busy people who, unlike me, are not focused on this, so that is no surprise. But it will come.

    More importantly, as I see it, the next two major projects should be a simulation and developing a plan for building a Celebration Society. The two would appear to support each other. (Ideally, there will be a virtuous cycle of mutual feedback and improvement.) The key difference between them is that the simulation will be a co-participative process involving large numbers of regular people, while the planning process will be a co-participative process involving experts in all of the relevant disciplines.

    In neither of these do I see myself as running the process. I have no expertise as a planner, nor with simulations. A Celebration Society will not happen in a hierarchical fashion. It will happen as a network of people, with deference granted based on the ability to articulate a persuasive argument. As I said in the book, “Leadership will not be based on hierarchical power structures of how many people are obligated to follow your orders, but rather on a collaborative model of how many people are willing to follow your vision.”

    It needs to go beyond even that. Mature people recognize both their competencies and their limitations. A project of this magnitude will require one of the widest sets of expertise of any project in history. What we will need, then, are mature people whose strengths and weaknesses overlap. If I am strong where you are weak, and you are strong where I am weak, we complement each other. If we both recognize this, and defer to each other (not blindly, but based on evidence), we can be stronger together than apart.

    Extend this thinking to dozens of people, and you have the basis for a project. If each domain of expertise goes further, creating its own collaborative team, then we will avoid many of the mistakes that inevitably happen when an individual (however gifted) is solely responsible for such a domain.

    The book is a very high level overview. It offers a scaffolding upon which many different ideas can be hung and tested. It doesn’t go deeper than that, because I lack the expertise to do so. Even if I did have relevant expertise in some of the domains, it would be imprudent for me to go into such depth.

    If this isn’t a collaborative process of definition, testing, and refinement, we will fail before we begin. For that reason, I am deliberately limiting my role to those things I do well: articulating a vision, enrolling people into that vision, speaking and writing.

    Already, our allies include experts in transportation, architecture, software security, organizational development, education, and certain other disciplines. I am excited to see how this is unfolding!

  • Citizen Income Vs. Guaranteed Income

    Citizen Income Vs. Guaranteed Income

    I’ve written elsewhere about the many hurdles standing between the beautiful idea of a guaranteed income and its actual implementation in a way that takes care of all the people.

     Briefly, all approaches to a guaranteed income (universal, basic and minimum) share certain characteristics. They propose that everyone in the society–or at least all of those in a broad class such as adult citizens–are assured of some minimum level of monthly cash.

    This is an inherently confrontational, scarcity-based solution to a problem that is best answered from the context of abundance. First, all such schemes are proposed on the basis of somehow taking away money and other assets from those who are wealthy, have a high income (not the same as wealthy), or who own the means of production. Without passing moral judgment on the rightness or wrongness of such a concept, I simply observe that it is a substantial hurdle.The very people expected to pay for this are those most adroit at avoiding taxation , getting laws passed or modified to suit them, or moving their assets abroad.

     Second, this is not a hurdle in a single nation,  but in every nation. In our interconnected world, as conditions continue to destabilize due to  accelerating change, greater numbers of people will be seeking to relocate from one country to another.
    Imagine if a city implements such an income, as has been proposed. What will keep people from leaving other cities that lack such an income? It’s not just a problem with cities within nations. In Europe, the rules allow EU residents to freely travel across borders. If any EU nation institutes a guaranteed income by itself, it had better prepare for an upsurge in immigrants. This will strain the social fabric.

    The availability of such an income, even if delayed for a time due to citizenship requirements, would be an almost irresistible attractor. Already, there is much nativist sentiment arising in Europe and United States. It will get far worse with a guaranteed income.

    Essentially, those who advocate a guaranteed income are attempting to solve a problem associated with the uprising of planetary abundance from within the context of the Scarcity Game.

    It may work in wealthy, homogenous nations, if they can protect their borders. But in  divided nations, the reaction will be quite different. In such nations, for many years to come, a guaranteed income will be derided as socialism, and for many recipients there will be a sense of shame in accepting the money. This is not a way to create meaning.

    All these problems with the guaranteed income can be addressed within the Celebrationist model. First, the entire society will be a consensual co-creation of the various residents/owners. If some kind of guaranteed income were to exist in such a society, no one would be able to say that it was imposed upon them from above.

    Second, in a Celebration Society, Citizen will be a hard-won office; a position of respect. While this office will potentially be available to every resident, not everyone will seek it nor qualify for it. The income will be paid not just for holding the office of Citizen, but for one’s sworn availability to be of service in the government.

    Only Citizens will have roles in the government . Duties will include jury duty, occasional service via lottery selection as members of Parliament, and-most vital – a deep knowledge of the Charter and the society’s laws, and vigilance about assuring that these are respected and that the government has integrity.

    If a Citizen were called upon to work several hours per week, which would, in my estimation, ordinarily be the case unless one were serving a single term in Parliament, no one would ever call such a situation welfare. Such service would be respected, and even esteemed. It would be meaningful, and useful to the society.

    This income would be paid from the two basic sources of societal revenues. First, as a tourist destination, the society would charge most visitors a daily fee equivalent to DisneyWorld. Second, those people as well as residents and Citizens would purchase things. Since a consumption tax favors savings and long term investments, and treats everyone the same based on their consumption levels, I’d favor that a simple flat consumption tax be charged on all transactions. This should be limited by Charter to some modest level such as 15%, with no exemptions. (That fact plus an all-electronic monetary system would largely eliminate tax system manipulation.) Eventually, with full Celebrationist systems of production, even those taxes would likely be phased out.

    No forced redistribution of wealth would be required, and this might even be a culture wherein those Citizens who did not need the Citizen income would be encouraged to return it to the General Welfare Fund, so that others such as residents who are in need would be cared for. This is part of the whole societal concept of “paying it forward”.

    A guaranteed income is at best a palliative; at worst a mirage. We can do better, and we must.

     

  • What Will the World be like in 2053?

    What Will the World be like in 2053?

    (Note: this was originally posted as an invited answer on Quora. However, by writing this I extended my previous thinking in some new ways, so I thought it should also appear here.)

    I’ll turn 100 in that year, so I’m pleased you chose it.

    As I see it, assuming we avoid scenarios in which civilization implodes, we will have a world of universal material abundance. Further, this abundance will be much less physically expressed than in our time because of the universal availability of fully immersive, zero latency VR.

    I expect tomorrow’s VR to be marketed as “Better than Real”. Sight will be at 8K visual levels or better, sound will be full surround, and touch will be as if one were there. All manner of future, past, alternate universe/SF, and even fantasy scenarios will be available, with the option to play any character in the narrative or to invent and insert one’s own character. I imagine that groups of friends will have an endless hobby of joining VR simulations and playing in them together. (Some, the Simulation Theorists, might argue that’s what we’re doing right now.)

    I expect such gaming to be the primary form of recreation circa 2053, Concerns about physical inactivity can be addressed in multiple ways: (1) the VR experience can be designed to include real movement of one’s physical body, (2) biological and nanotech means will likely exist to give the benefits of exercise to one’s body. (There is already genetic treatment that produces massive muscles in mammals. Researchers create “mighty mouse” with gene tweak that doubles muscle strength GHB, used in Europe to treat depression, insomnia and as an aid to childbirth, strongly stimulates growth hormone release.), (3) people can actually spend some time in “real” reality (which I hope we can make so enticing and delightful that this will be a pleasure, and not a duty. If they do so, technologies such as PACE exercise (for aerobic capacity) and the PowerPlate (for muscle strength, flexibility and balance) will allow people to stay fit with little time invested.

    That said, there are basically two ways this abundance can be manifested. Either a small, elite group of owners will enjoy abundance like the space colony dwellers in Elysium and the Tomorrowland residents, with the rest of the people warehoused (still with VR, though), or everyone will enjoy that kind of abundance. I have made a specific proposal for how we can assure the latter outcome.

    Exponential acceleration of technology notwithstanding, I do expect human inertia and irrationality to delay adoption of the above technologies in various parts of the world. However, given the tremendous benefits to those desiring entertainment, education, and tourism, I fully expect an effective black market to develop for VR software that doesn’t comport with the moral codes that will seek to regulate it. (Even though no real people or animals are harmed!)

  • Reality isn’t realistic

    Reality isn’t realistic

    When people tell me that a Celebration Society isn’t “realistic”, I’m perplexed. Sure, it’s bold; perhaps even outrageous. But unrealistic is a far more damning term. Is it valid?

    As I’ve explained elsewhere, those who believe that automation will once again create more jobs than it destroys are engaged in dangerous, wishful thinking. They are assuming that history will repeat itself here, and ignoring vital new machine learning capabilities. Among those who agree with me, most believe that the solution is retraining or a guaranteed income for those displaced. As I have also explained elsewhere, neither of those is going to be enough. At best they’re palliatives; at worst mirages.

    If I’m right in the above conclusions—and some pretty solid people agree with me here—then the Holmesian response would be, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    I’m not saying that a Celebration Society is the only solution that remains. But I will go so far as to say that all of the remaining solutions will have to be based on abundance rather than scarcity–at least, if we are to avert massive social disruption and eventual total state control of everyday life. If others have a better abundance-based solution than a Celebration Society , I’m eager to learn about it. (Perhaps the two, combined in some manner, would be better still.)

    All of that is to explain why I’m not much impressed by arguments that a Celebration Society isn’t realistic. But we could go further. Reality isn’t very realistic either—at least, if we define “realistic” as Google does: “representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.” To be clear about this, we have to go deeper. “True to life” means that it comports with our understanding of how life works.

    The problem is that this understanding is not how reality works. We know this from science. Most people used to believe the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the solar system, if not the whole universe. Why not? Those appear to be true, based on everyday experience.

    Biologists have long known that human senses of sight and hearing capture and interpret only a tiny fraction of the available spectra. Some animals smell thousands of times better than we do.

    Now, physics knows that matter is mostly empty space. But that’s hardly true to life. We know that time only moves forward, but a recent finding in physics solves a great problem in physics by showing that time mostly moves forward, but it also “jiggles” backwards. That certainly isn’t our experience in life.

    So, we have to accept that we’re imperfect modelers of reality. Much of scientific advancement has happened by developing ever more accurate models. However, as quantum physics demonstrates perhaps best of all, the most accurate models may have little to do with anything that is familiar, accurate, or true to life.

    A Celebration Society may not fit the definition of realistic, but it offers a way out of technological unemployment, a problem that most of us are going to find very realistic in the 2020’s. So, the next time someone says that a Celebration Society isn’t realistic, I’m going to respond, “Compared to what?”

  • Rites of Passage

    Rites of Passage

    Google’s dictionary defines a rite of passage as, “a ceremony or event marking an important stage in someone’s life, especially birth, puberty, marriage, and death.”  I think this is a very serviceable definition.

    One thing missing from our modern society is a complete set of these. Yes, we have marriage, divorce, birth, birthdays and funerals/wakes. But some of the most important of these events are not recognized in modern society. They were very much part of traditional societies.

    I should think that a Celebration Society would benefit from also recognizing these events: puberty, formation of a new House/family corporation, First Recognition (the first time one is acknowledged in a city-state wide celebration for one’s service), induction into the Royalty, becoming a resident, becoming an adult, renewing of marriage vows, adoption into a family, and others–most importantly, becoming a Citizen.

    Some rites of passage would be brief and private; others lengthy and public. Each would be designed by the Citizens as a whole to be appropriate to the needs and desires of the society; excepting those that are very private in nature, which would be designed by those involved (possibly using model examples from previous such events, as those participating may wish to share their libraries.) I envision the Royalty as developing a Rite of Passage for those inducted; perhaps something to finally integrate one’s shadows.

    The Oath of Office for a Citizen would be brief yet poignant, coming as the completion of a long, arduous journey in which the person’s character would be tested and found worthy. The entire Rite of Passage for Citizenship would, it seems to me, likely include something like this:

    Begins with a resident who is of age (perhaps 25, as that is when the brain matures), or who has special judicial exemption, formally petitioning the Parliament. This is the Application Stage.

    Parliament reviews these applications either as they come in or in batches. (It may delegate this process.) Each receives either Approved or Not Yet as a response. The latter comes with remedial preparation recommendations. The former comes with an agenda for the Candidate Citizen to follow. This will include some particular service(s) the person is to do, usually as part of a team. Such services will be those that Parliament has deemed important to the society or in service to another Celebration Society, perhaps one in its formative stages. This is the Service Stage. I would envision this Stage extending over months, though it will be a community decision.

    Upon completion of the Service Stage, the participants evaluate each other. Those directly affected by the service also evaluate them, and Parliament or its representatives (advisors, who accompany the Candidate Citizens in their service or at least regularly check in and available for consultation) does so as well. This is a formal process, which may be either anonymous or not. At the end of this Stage, each Candidate Citizen is either Passed or given a grade of Needs Review. If Needs Review is the result, they would have to repeat this Stage. If Passed, they would move on to the next stage.

    The next Stage, which might immediately follow the Service Stage or might be offered on a periodic basis, would be the Community Stage. This is by far the toughest Stage. Here, the Candidate Citizens are taken to live in primitive conditions for a period of time, perhaps a week, as a group. They are provided with minimal tools, clothing (or the means to make clothing), and the means to find or build shelter. Food is available, but may require significant gathering, preparation and even the figuring out of clues to find a stash or a source. Temperatures and precipitation may be challenging.

    In this stage,  the group would determine its own leaders and structure. It would determine if there were time only for survival activities or also some fun and games. (Possible games would be suggested by advisors.) There would be team building exercises, such as those on PSI 7, guided by the advisors, who would accompany the group. In quiet time, each participant would be expected to read and re-read the Charter until they had it memorized.

    If the people fail to cooperate, fail to work hard and long hours, or fail to uphold community principles, they will fail together. Some may become sick. On rare occasions, someone may die–though medical care and evacuation will be standing by. The point is that these people will experience, for once in their lives, the kinds of unremitting harsh conditions that many of our ancestors survived through backbreaking work, fear and pain. In so doing, they will learn their own characters and those of their neighbors at a depth and clarity not otherwise available. The point is that people who survive this test will be ready to accept the mantle of Citizenship, with all of its benefits, and also to cherish the duties that accompany the office.

    Also, a nation-state ruled by people who will never forget the hard lives of their ancestors is a nation-state that will never take for granted its own prosperity, ease of life, and celebration.

    At the end of the Community Stage, the survivors will evaluate each other. It may be private, public or both; a decision that Parliament will make and evolve. They will be asking themselves one question, ruthlessly: is this a person I would trust with my life, and the lives of my dear ones? They ask this of each fellow participant in turn, followed by asking it of themselves. The goal is to find objectivity through group process.

    Those who fail this stage will be invited to repeat it, after a suitable rest period. They may also be required to repeat the Service Stage, if there is a consensus that such would be important. The Citizen’s Rite of Passage is guided by this motto: Character is Destiny.

    The goal of all this is simple. When a group of Candidate Citizens stands together, dressed in their finery, palms upheld in front of a Supreme Court Justice or a member of the Royalty, that they will swear their Oath of Office together, without fear or hesitation–confident, joyous, eager, and prepared to be Citizens of a Celebration Society; proud to be pioneers of a new world.

    (An example of an abundance-based society that is missing such a Rite of Passage for Citizenship is The Mandalorian, Season 3, Episode 6. Aside: it shows robots displaying emotions that robots will almost certainly not feel. We need to remember that robots are and always will be dumb boxes, governed by essentially non-corporeal AIs.)

  • The Celebrationist Initiative Process

    The Celebrationist Initiative Process

    When the citizenry of a democratic nation loses control of its government, reforms are proposed. In the USA, multiple issues now enjoy supermajority (even 80%) citizen support yet are continually thwarted in Congress. One solution often discussed is a national initiative; similar to those available in states such as California and Colorado.

    US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) spearheaded such an effort, called the National Initiative for Democracy, or NI4D. The idea of NI4D is that “We the People” can adopt such a change to the government in a manner similar to how the original founding documents were adopted.

    Without debating the merits of such an approach, I do believe that in a Celebration Society an Initiative process should exist. No matter how well-crafted a structure of government may be, over time it can become dysfunctional. Indeed, as of 2012, the majority of the world’s democratic governments were dealing with gridlock.

    The Celebrationist Initiative process would be a “final defense” of the concept of government by, for and of the people. However, unlike existing democracies, the government would consist only of Citizens, and Citizen would be an office earned through an arduous process, not a birthright. Part of becoming a Citizen would be the demonstration of knowledge of how the government works; a requirement sadly lacking in many nations today.

    Citizens would be expected to know the Charter—the highest law of the land, without exception—and to be familiar with all laws of the land. While such a requirement might seem absurd in an existing nation such as the US, where the IRS code alone is thousands of pages thick, the Celebrationist system of government would rely heavily on nudges and other non-regulatory methods of stimulating appropriate behavior. Laws would be simple, and used only when societal values required them.

    While the actual mechanics of the Initiative process would be decided by the Citizens of a Celebration Society themselves, I would suggest the following as guidelines:

    1. Any Citizen could propose an Initiative for consideration. To force clarity and concision, it would be limited as to the number of words; perhaps 1,000.
    2. Upon some small threshold of Citizens, perhaps 5%, approving a proposed Initiative, it would be put to a vote by all Citizens. In the case of a change to law passed by Parliament, a simple majority exceeding 50% might suffice. For changes to the Charter, I would recommend a supermajority requirement.
    3. Voting on Initiatives might be limited to a quarterly or annual event. However, I would also advocate an “emergency” provision, whereby a Citizen could declare an “emergency” and get it considered and voted upon in a much faster timeframe.
    4. In order to prevent abuse of the process or excessive numbers of Initiative proposals clogging the system, I would advocate that each Citizen be limited to proposing one or two Initiatives per calendar year. Further, should a particular Citizen become known for proposing Initiatives others regarded as silly or otherwise inappropriate, one’s AI Butler could be instructed to flag all Initiatives proposed by such a person for an automatic “No” vote.
    5. Like changes to law made by Parliament, I would advocate that Initiatives have to be immediately reviewed by the Supreme Court for clarity, internal consistency, and word count. However, unlike laws passed by Parliament, which would be remanded to Parliament if nonconforming, Initiatives would be remanded to the Citizens as a whole. Further, to avert an obvious problem, I would advocate that Initiatives changing the Supreme Court be exempt from Court review.

    I believe that this is a sufficient start to discussing and designing an Initiative process. I would point out that the whole thing, like much of Celebrationist government (and as pioneered by Estonia), could function online. No physical meetings or papers would be required, though of course those could be used if preferred.

    I see the Initiative as being the original source of government. In my view, once we have a sufficient body of would-be residents, funding and agreements to take ownership of a body of land, the next step will be for those residents to convene and develop the following:

    1. The Charter for their society (and a bright line to separate Charter from other law)
    2. Specific processes for Initiatives (without a Supreme Court, initially)
    3. A process and set of requirements by which a resident may become a Citizen (I would advocate, at minimum, a Rite of Passage, a written exam, and an Oath of Office.)

    Once a body of Citizens has been created consistent with processes developed by the residents, it can in turn constitute the four branches of government and the system will evolve from there.

    Aside: Democracy would have a much more limited role in a Celebration Society than in existing democratic republics. Members of parliament would be selected by lottery, as would jurors. (While serving in Parliament, members would vote per rules established by Parliament itself.) One of the very few uses of direct democracy—perhaps the only one—would be the Initiative process.

    The purpose would not be to limit Citizen access to government, for Citizens would have access to all practicable aspects of the government. Rather, it would be to free Citizens from excessive need to attend to matters of government beyond their own interests. In effect, Citizens would delegate government to those fellow Citizens selected by lottery to serve, in the confidence that the Initiative process would protect them against any major mistakes.

  • A Purpose Driven Life

    A Purpose Driven Life

    I have here borrowed the title of a popular book; one I have not read. It is a title I love.

    George Bernard Shaw said,

    “This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

    I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can.

    I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no “brief candle” for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.”

    What is your purpose? As Peter Diamandis so beautifully put it, what is that for which you would gladly die? Live in service to that, and you are living a life that could change the world; a purpose-driven life.

    If joining with our growing community in creating the world’s first Celebration Society calls to your heart, and perhaps even your soul, welcome! But if your purpose is something else, please take the time to inquire deep within until you know it, whatever it is.

    A purposeful life can overcome many obstacles. To a purpose-driven person, challenges and losses that might crush someone else are simply stepping stones, and even opportunities to learn.

    I speak from experience. Back in 2014, I wondered if I would ever complete this book. I had been developing it for many years. Though I saw the vision clearly, and burned for its expression, I was paralyzed by fear. Acutely aware of myself as a flawed and limited person, I was afraid that others would ridicule me or—worse—think badly of the message because the messenger was inadequate.

    Then I had a great blessing. I contracted a severe infection, was in Intensive Care for 4 days and could have died. (This was a resistant strain of bacteria, and the hospital was powerless to deal with it until they flew in a special antibiotic from the CDC. That antibiotic was my last chance.) Outside the context of a purpose-driven life, I could have seen this as a curse and given up. Many do so.

    But I instead took it as a chance to learn a life lesson. I looked to see what might be there, and found three precious ones. First, by being forced to wear a catheter 24/7 for a month, unable to bend over and sometimes having accidents, I learned real compassion for disabled people. Second, by experiencing continuing excruciating pain, I learned to distinguish pain from suffering. Third, and most importantly, I was forced to face my mortality square on and look at my life in a larger context.

    Realizing that I might die at any time, if not from this illness then from something else, I considered how I would feel, looking back upon this life from another realm. I realized that, while I would miss many things and especially the dear ones in my life, I would most regret that I had the opportunity to bring forth this book and failed to do so. I was haunted by the phrase, “The saddest words of tongue or pen are these: it might have been.”

    That ate at my soul. I resolved in that hospital bed that, upon getting well, I would focus entirely on finishing the book. And so it happened. That, above all, is why I call the illness a great blessing. It gave me the motivation to serve my life’s purpose, regardless of the personal cost.

    What would you die for? Knowing that, what will you live to serve? I pray that you find a way to get clear on that, today, and that you don’t need a life-threatening illness to bring things into sharp relief so that you take the necessary action.

  • Addressing Our Needs: A Thought Experiment

    Addressing Our Needs: A Thought Experiment

    While job displacement from accelerating automation may be our most urgent problem, we have many others. The purpose of this thought experiment is to consider what kind of integrated solution might address the majority of these at once. Regarding the threat of worker displacement and social unrest posed by accelerating automation, I submit that in a pragmatic solution we will want to:

    • Allow existing economic engines to continue to function
    • Find a way to embrace rather than oppose or limit the fruits of technological progress
    • Meet the basic needs of everyone on the planet
    • Offer meaning, self-esteem and the chance for social recognition to people, regardless of whether they work or do not
    • Support the desires of the wealthy and powerful such that they do not oppose the solution

    In order to address other vital issues, we will also want the following in a solution:

    • Environmental restoration, preferably as a byproduct of economic growth rather than as a drag upon it
    • Effectively unlimited, sustainable sources of clean energy and raw materials
    • Effective and economical recycling using advanced technology
    • An effective way to provide for security and safety without sacrificing much liberty
    • Representative government that naturally avoids gridlock and partisanship, while protecting a codified set of common values
    • Education that prepares children for adult rights and responsibilities, including citizenship
    • Entertainment that is safe and provides the full range of exploration of interests and desires
    • Physical structures that enhance rather than detract from natural beauty
    • Institutions that serve to support and cultivate a finer quality of life
    • A way to protect the elderly, the young, and others unable to care for themselves
    • A means of minimizing disease transmission into the society
    • A method of supporting technological progress that captures the value while minimizing risks

    Further, I submit that to enhance feasibility any viable solution should be:

    • Straightforward to test and then to implement, requiring no new technology
    • Designed with the risk of failure contained and financially modest
    • To minimize cost and logistical challenges, preferably testable on a local basis and ideally via simulation before being physically tested.

    I close with the following questions:

    • Is this a complete statement of requirements?
    • If the above is what a desirable solution should accomplish, how can we accomplish this in an integrated manner?

    I have proposed one possible solution that I believe meets the above criteria. I invite you to consider these criteria and then agree, disagree or propose your own. Many of our problems need new thinking, and especially those problems associated with technological unemployment.

  • A Partial Celebrationist Experiment

    A Partial Celebrationist Experiment

    While I’d prefer that a Celebrationist experiment be tried because of pure enthusiasm, that’s rarely enough for groups of people to create great change. Great societal change seems to come on the heels of perceived necessity. Accelerating automation will soon provide this perception for people pretty much everywhere, and that’s the reason I expect a Celebrationist experiment to be tried in the near future.

    There are other circumstances that can cause this perception of necessity. Great instability in the physical environment is one of them. Consider Syria’s Kurds. Not to be confused with the Kurds located elsewhere, the Syrian Kurds have embarked upon a major social experiment with Celebrationist elements. They also happen to enjoy the proud distinction of having beaten back an attempted ISIS invasion in their city of Kobani, despite most of the world expecting another ISIS massacre.

    Since ISIS is a ruthless, well-armed invader with the courage of its convictions, this Kurdish city must have really had something worth fighting for. And they did.

    Says the Huffington Post: “The world watched in resignation. The lone superpower said it would not help. U.S. officials grimly predicted the city would fall. Yet the small band of Kurds held on for days, then weeks. The U.S.-led coalition against the self-described Islamic State began to help, first with a smattering of airstrikes then with daily assaults. And by January 2015, in a stunning turnabout that has been called a contemporary Stalingrad, the Kurds won.

    In succeeding, the Syrian Kurds defended not just a strategic outpost in the Middle East, but also a utopian idea of government they’re putting into practice — what they talk about as a space where decisions are made at the neighborhood level, where gender equity and ethnic inclusion are legally mandated, and where barter is becoming more important than currency.”

    Herein lies one of the wildest tales of social engineering I’ve heard. It starts with a man of Russian Jewish ancestry, who grew up believing in Marxism.

    The Syrian Kurds’ leader derived their philosophy from long engagement with Murray Bookchin, a self-described libertarian socialist. His vision was “… of a world where citizens’ assemblies supplant state bureaucracy and environmentalism is king.”

    “His passing sparked a celebration of his life in the Kurdish regions. And now, Syrian Kurds have — at the urging of Abdullah Ocalan, an imprisoned Kurdish icon — built a Bookchin-inspired society that is the antithesis of the Islamic State.

    The territory where the 1.5 million or so Syrian Kurds have launched this social experiment, carved out of the wreck of Bashar Assad’s police state, includes Kobani and two other small “cantons,” or regions. They call it all Rojava.”

    Bookchin grew up a communist, but … (later) set out to “rethink everything,” (He) began to dream of a future in which machines could replace most human effort and free individuals could develop themselves as they saw fit. But he believed that in the interim, social problems — the biggest among them the struggle between amoral corporate power and humanity’s best interests — would lay waste to the natural world. “The notion of progress, once regarded as faith in the evolution of greater human cooperation and care, is now identified with ever greater competition and reckless economic growth,”

    Bookchin said…. “I wrote about alternative technology, arguing that technology should be as humanly scaled as possible,” Bookchin recalled in the later interview. In Bookchin’s view, “utopia was no longer just an idle dream, but something that could happen,” according to his biographer and longtime companion, Janet Biehl.

    “Murray’s contribution to that was to figure what is going to be the institution,” she said. Bookchin proposed reshaping a capitalist world by setting up micro-level systems of local popular assemblies. Such a political structure would, he believed, marry the best of both the intellectual traditions he valued.

    While Rojava has its critics, it has successfully implemented a system in which local groups of citizens select representatives, apparently through consensus. Those representatives select higher-level representatives. All representatives are subject to recall. Ultimately, the whole society of 1.5 million people is represented by two co-presidents; always a man and a woman.

    We need the first Celebration Society to be successful. That means eliminating existential risk factors as much as possible. Rojava is unfortunately in a highly unstable part of the world, so I would not favor an early Celebrationist experiment happening there. However, once Celebrationism is widely recognized as a viable successor to capitalism, we might be able to co-create a Celebration Society in this most unlikely location.

    Rojava includes many brave men and women who are willing to go their own way, following principles they hold dear. That’s a great beginning to a eventual conversation with them about Celebrationism.

  • The Importance of Enrollment

    The Importance of Enrollment

    Many think that recruiting people to a vision or cause is a sales process. It isn’t. In this blog, I’ll distinguish sales from something that looks similar but yields different results. That something is enrollment.

    At least two organizations I am familiar with have used enrollment to attract over ½ million people to their programs. Those organizations are Landmark Education and PSI Seminars. In both cases, there is no advertising. Instead, people are approached by friends and colleagues who sincerely believe that the programs will benefit participants. This is a 100% volunteer effort, with structured support to assure that people are skilled at it. The same is generally true of religions, when they aren’t coercing people to join.

    Every time you participate in an internet meme, you’re in an enrollment conversation – first being enrolled by a friend, then enrolling your friends. Memes (infectious ideas) spread virally over the internet. Research shows that such ideas are most likely to spread if:

    • There is a benefit to the person who is spreading the meme
    • The message includes not only benefits but also a minor negative (this adds credibility)
    • The message is easy to understand
    • The message is new
    • There is a clear enrollment action.

    E-mail stands as an outstanding example of enrollment which has now saturated the planet; largely from viral sharing. People enrolled those they already had relationships with because they perceived that it would benefit both of them.

    We need to enroll people and ideally go viral if Celebrationism is to become more than an interesting idea. I have a few ideas in this regard that we can explore together, and welcome yours as well.

    One that I’ve already started: people who don’t have money to buy the book can join the Society (it’s free), write me and I’ll send them a free PDF copy. In return, they promise to read the book and, if they agree with the message, to enroll two other people into joining the Society. That’s a no-lose proposition that makes it easy for them to say yes. When they say yes, they’ve been enrolled into reading the book.

    To better understand enrollment, first consider sales/recruitment. In sales, the seller has something that they want the buyer to acquire. The seller expects to personally benefit from the transaction. At its highest, the seller sincerely believes that the transaction will benefit the buyer. However, in other cases the seller manipulates the buyer, heedless of whether she or he will benefit.

    Sales is, ultimately, a transaction. While many companies now spout the mantra “customers for life”, in reality the more expensive the item is, the more incentive the seller has to view the transaction as a short-term affair.

    Enrollment is not a transaction. It is a process of sharing something that the enroller believes can benefit the enrollee, period. No immediate personal gain is expected from enrollment—though a larger, dearly held vision or purpose may be served. At its most powerful, enrollment is a life-changing conversation that wins allies for change.

    Enrollment starts with the clear understanding that you have some activity, purchase, or vision that you wish to share with a particular person or persons. It then consists of an authentic inquiry into two questions:

    1. What does this person(s) deeply want?
    2. If this person(s) were to become enrolled, would that help them to realize what they deeply want?

    In the enrollment conversation, you are sharing yourself, but selectively. Only offer information about yourself when it creates empathy with the other person. (Good sales people also do this. They say, “My daughter is also in college.” They don’t say, “I think that [hobby of yours] is stupid.”) Ideally, you are vulnerable, willing to be wrong, and willing to admit what you don’t know.

    A friend of mine once said: people buy what they want and need from those whom they like and trust. Since we’re basically social creatures, we want connection. Like and trust come to those who keep their word, who take a sincere interest in the other person’s concerns, and who listen closely.

    As an enroller for a Celebration Society, I encourage you to stay focused on the question: can my vision of what I want to see happen in the world be aligned with the deep wants of the person I’m talking with, so each supports the other?

    There is nothing selfish on your side in the enrollment conversation. There is no hidden agenda; when the person asks questions you either answer forthrightly or tell them that you can’t or don’t feel comfortable answering. (For example, when people ask me about matters of religion, I respond that I don’t care what religion a person professes, nor do I much care what other words they say about their values. I care very much about their actions, because that’s where the truth shows up. I don’t get into my particular beliefs, because that’s unlikely to draw us closer and may needlessly drive us apart.)

    A conversation is an agreement; it is never harassment. Never push a point of view nor allow yourself to be harassed. Even if you believe that a Celebration Society could offer this person their dearest desires, they may not see it that way. Respect that. (A person who feels respected is more likely to respect you and your beliefs.)

    Another saying is, a person persuaded against their will is of the same opinion still. (Or: we decide based on emotion and justify our decisions with logic.) Research is finding that people ignore logic and facts contrary to what they want to be true. So, the only way to persuade a person and have it endure is to show them how the change you are proposing gives them what they WANT more than does the status quo.

    While a Celebration Society offers far more to humanity than a solution to technological unemployment, I have framed it that way because this is an issue of concern to most people. They WANT assurance that they will have an adequate income to meet their needs.

    It doesn’t matter why a person becomes a Celebrationist; only that they do so for reasons that matter deeply to them. Technological unemployment is a hook. While it’s a real and pressing problem, I’ll gladly discuss something else if that matters more to the person I’m enrolling. I’m always looking to see how a Celebration Society can serve them.

    An enrollment conversation concludes with one of the following results:

    (1) You perceive no likelihood that there will be a meeting of wants or visions, and you politely end the conversation or change the subject, or

    (2) You perceive a match, and share with them why you perceive this. You invite their response and, if you are correct, suggest a course of action they can take or you can take together. (Note: In all cases an enrollment conversation should end pleasantly. If not, you have shifted into a different kind of conversation.)

    I have enrolled people into all sorts of things. Probably, so have you. There’s nothing I can imagine that’s more exciting or important than enrolling people into this vision! I hope you feel the same way.