One planet, one human race, one invitation: Let us work together towards the world we want.

This is wonderful! We are in the same boat, Spaceship Earth. Clearly there are many challenges to getting along.

Thinking about a response I thought in terms of my--sometimes grating--habit of pointing to links. I had watched Paul Polak's video Out of Poverty: Paul Polak on Practical Problem Solving where he outlines 12 Steps. The third step is "Know the specific context." We all share humanity, but our contexts differ. We often assume our context is shared when it is not. Or conversely we fall prey to stereotypes when we try to imagine lives in different contexts.

Quite as an aside I'm sad that there are only about 7,500 views of Polak's video.

At the Huffington Post Magatte Wade has posted some really important posts of late. Her post yesterday about Jeffery Sachs points out how our stereotypes, instead of fostering clear inquiry, make us foolish.

In a post Beyond the Romance of Microfinance to a Love of Manufacturing she wrote:

My vision for Africa is one in which it becomes the first region of the world to create a socially and environmentally responsible manufacturing base.

The "My vision" part links to yet another post of hers. But I wanted to point to her point about development. Often we look at ways things have developed in one context; say for example telephones in the USA, and then conclude that the pattern of development will be the same in other contexts. But the rapid adoption of cell phones across Africa shows that such assumptions are not always helpful.

Schumacher used a term "intermediate technology" but the term appropriate technology became more widely adopted. From that link the definition of intermediate technology:

It refers specifically to tools and technology that are significantly more effective and expensive than traditional methods, but still an order of magnitude (10 times) cheaper than developed world technology.

One way of reading Magatte Wade's pieces is: Don't try to keep Africans in the Dark Ages! And probably part of the reason for Schumacher's term intermediate technology falling out of favor has to do with a patronizing attitude that the term seemed patronizing.

I was moved by Wade's vision because I believe the challenges to development in African contexts have a great deal to tell us about developing appropriate technology in the context I live. Eric Hersman writes and acts from the perspective If it works in Africa, it will work anywhere. I find it really inspiring. Sometimes intermediate technology is the most advance and appropriate solution.

Not thinking we are unique opens our eyes and hearts to see. But we must really look. So many of the great problems and challenges of our times are global--challenges to our great life raft Planet Earth. But the contexts in which we live our lives do differ and to effectively engage these challenges we must consider context. So we have to operate "thinking globally and acting locally." One without the other goes astray.

Ah, now I see where you are coming from, Michael.

Individually, we're not the only ones who matter, that's for sure. We are all uniquely individual; we are all special; but our individual uniqueness counts for nothing precisely because being unique is nothing special - since we are all unique.

However, I like your observation:

We're neither alone, nor unique in our efforts. We can no longer conduct ourselves as if we were.

Furthermore, I like the application of this to a wider social perspective:

This goes for persons, groups, organizations, institutions, and political entities.

But when you speak of making it "a species asset" I'm not sure I quite follow what you are saying.

Or maybe I think I follow, but am not too sure I quite like what you seem to be saying. I would subscribe to some kind of a human imperative when it comes to protecting our species, but would hope not to lose sight of the fact that, as Darwin observed, what get defined as species and what as varieties depends solely on our standpoint, and this will change from individual to individual and also over time.

So when you speak of a "species asset" I am hoping you are not claiming humans are in some very special sense either alone or unique in their efforts nor that they should always be treated in a way that is fundamentally different to the way other species - some biologically very similar to us - should be treated.

Perhaps I'm making heavy weather of this. The central point you seem to be making is the need for us to step aside from an individualistic perception of ourselves and to absorb fully how essential it is that we work with others. I can see the positive direction in which this approach can take us. Not least, because we are deluding ourselves if we think we can have any real idea of what kind of individual we are, without the social reference provided by other people's opinions, including their opinions of us.

Finally, while I fully share in your call for us to work together:

One planet, one human race, one invitation: Let us work together towards the world we want

do we all agree sufficiently about the nature of "the world we want" for us to be able to work together in a spirit of cooperation to create a world that we can all wholeheartedly accept?

Sorry to appear to ignore your post, John: the fact is I didn't see that you'd posted.

During the time it took me to put my words together, you managed to illuminate Michael's words in your own unique fashion ;) by speaking of intermediate or appropriate technology.

Now I seriously doubt that Schumacher was being patronising in using the word intermediate. I expect he thought he was referring to the adoption of simple but effective technologies as an intermediate step towards achieving equal access to all human technologies, including what we think of as the most advanced.

Had he used the phrase "appropriate technology", I have little doubt that by now others would have rejected this and replaced it with the phrase "intermediate technology", on the grounds that it was insulting and patronising to African people to suggest that it was "appropriate" for them to have less sophisticated tools than everyone else.

Is it not precisely our mistaken belief in the primacy of our own language values and our own individual perspective (not just as individuals, but as members of different cultures and different generations) that is at the root of the "Uniqueness" problem?

A lot to chew on. I might take it bite by bite or byte.

With the notion of species asset, I am not asserting anything in opposition to other life, but I am affirming our unity as species, and being in one boat together.

The affirmation of a "species asset" is an intent to overturn a species liability ... namely, when working with blinders on, when operating as if we (or our organization, or our website) are unique in our efforts we squander a good deal of species potential.

One "anti-pattern" (to borrow a term from the technologists) that I have long observed is a propensity for entities of similar purpose to almost act as if the others didn't exist .. .avoiding even mentioning them, let alone figuring out how best to work together.

Surely, one part of the frame leading to this behavior is a presupposition of scarcity... and many in the social benefit sector wind up modeling themselves on market behaviors not entirely appropriate to our sphere.

Another pattern that comes along with some of our well intentioned efforts (though I hesitate today to name it an anti-pattern) is the aim establishing "THE" (paramount) go-to site or resource or organization ... there is such a degree of bravado there, it almost seems silly when you hear that ambition proposed by any number of groups in their strategic retreats and then stated as an organizational goal.

Operating from a "species perspective" more consistent with some basic social facts (as not being unique nor alone in our efforts) we'd work towards a better ecology for each field of endeavor, as a new definition of excellence.

(I'll try and come back to other points later.)

John Powers said:

Not thinking we are unique opens our eyes and hearts to see. But we must really look. So many of the great problems and challenges of our times are global--challenges to our great life raft Planet Earth. But the contexts in which we live our lives do differ and to effectively engage these challenges we must consider context. So we have to operate "thinking globally and acting locally." One without the other goes astray.

I do like that statement.

To the points about appropriate technology, I strongly admire the efforts of the folks at appropedia - http://www.appropedia.org - they led the effort coordinating several events of the Open Sustainability Network.

Ah, I am slow . . . but I finally found the thread you referred to in Wael's thread.

Reading your materials you know I agree. It is not however the tendency of organizations with similar purpose to treat each other as competitors that concerns me so much as all the organizations of different purpose in a locality failing to recognize that each is addressing only a symptom of systemic problems. See existing organizations.

More to the point that we are all the same, I think that, in a basic way, we all want the same things: security and hope is how I have framed it.

The balance between uniqueness and "of one race" is like a fractal, where every element is different. It should spell chaos, but perhaps our common ground of humanity keeps us together.

I have been toying with a point that Chistina made in the CREDWISH thread, where she stood up for Kampala Kids League. She justified their desire to enhance their own standing, for their own players, giving them more, rather than spreading out their fortune, which is possibly what I was unhelpfully advocating.

Every family spends money on its children to the disadvantage of children in Africa. Every extra toy in the Christmas stocking, designed to make the smile broader, the heart warmer, deepens the gap between rich and poor.

I knew a boy a few years ago, who was the first-born of his family. However, his parents had decided to adopt other children, some older than him, some younger. Because of this he lost some "love", some "presents" at Christmas and I'm certain his family treated all equally, showing no favouritism. Maybe on occasion he resented this a little, since he and his smaller brother were the blood relatives, but he never showed it. What happened was he "valued" what he was given more.

The world would be a better place if large charities gave some of their wealth to small charities, just starting out. It's good use of their money, as long as it creates greater social impact, as I am suggesting it would for KJT.

The kind of haughty "we know everything, therefore we know how best to spend our money". Well actually it is the public's money, not Oxfam or Christian Aid or Practical Action. The public give the money to the cause, not the charity. I would not expect a conversation to extol the virtues of paying large salaries to the CEO of Cancer Research.

The same clearly does not hold true to large companies and small companies.......or does it? Would the world be a better place, if those small subsistence farmers in Uganda were assisted by those corn merchants in the USA?

Would it ever happen?

I was advocating Vodafone to add 1p to every call in Europe and the USA. No one would notice. This could fund one hour's free telephone calls for disadvantaged Africa per week, saving lives, creating greater efficiency through improved communication and much more. Instead, calls, if anything cost more, since Skype is unavailable etc.

I would suggest this kind of "One World" thinking is what is required. Cast away the "I earnt that money, I'm going to spend it, come what may" philosophy and genuinely everyone will benefit.

There are obvious risks involved - such as cultural "expectation" of aid - and these need to be tackled, but I still feel the concept holds true.

I probably spend way too much time online. Doing so however it seems like I've picked up on a number of people who seem particularly smart about online phenomena. Michael Maranda is on my short list.

As hard as it is for me to do, I want to stay on-topic. It turns out this topic is complex and nuanced.

One of the points of Ben's comment, as I see it, is to explore the relationship between part and whole. I'm afraid I'm like a broken record sometimes, but another person whose views about online stuff is Phil Jones. In one of Linda's threads on the BALLE Network I referenced a discussion at Phil's blog Composing. It's a political discussion about centralization and decentralization and in the comments Phil wondered about the "shape" of the middle ground between the extremes.

I liked the perspective that the perspective of wondering about the shape of the middle ground that Phil raised. I hadn't thought of it like that before. Ben's offering up:

The balance between uniqueness and "of one race" is like a fractal, where every element is different. It should spell chaos, but perhaps our common ground of humanity keeps us together.

also raises the issue from this "shape" metaphorical perspective.

Being repetitious I'll mention that I responded in the BALLE thread here and at Phil's place by raising Adrian Bejan's Constructal theory, in particular this bit:

The main principle of the constructal theory is that every system is destined to remain imperfect.

According to this, the best that can be done is to optimally distribute the imperfections of the system, and this optimal distribution of imperfection will generate the geometry or shape of the studied system.

When thinking carefully about systems I think metaphors can be quite tricky. Because the physical sciences have had so much success and developed maturity, scholars looking into social phenomena tend to emulate the physical sciences. And right now there's lots of discussion online to put a label on it I'll call "the new atheism." Part of what interest me about these discussions is scientists advocating strong materialism.

As it turns out I say I don't believe in God. For the most part the response to that is something along the lines of "Who cares what you believe!" Quite independently of any talk about atheism one of my long term interest has been the problem of conducting social science. Have mercy, I'm no scholar, nevertheless over the years my thinking has made me critical of too much reliance on physical metaphors in regards to social systems. This was highly influenced by discovering Gregory Bateson's "Steps to and Ecology of Mind" back in the seventies when I was flunking out of college. I think the fairest statement about why I was flunking out was that I had too many questions.

Bateson's book was a collection of essays over his career, but the introductory essay "The Science of Mind and Order" was first published in the book. In that essay Bateson points out people make a distinction between form and substance.

He uses the creation myth in Genesis and contrasts it with the Iatmul people's myth. In Genesis God creates order, in Itamul myth in the beginning the crocodile Kavwokmali muddied the water with his legs. A culture hero Kevembuangga killed Kavwokmali and the mud settled and that's how dry land was formed. Anyhow, Bateson's point is that even while the two stories are almost the precise converse of one another as far as the mechanics--the how--of "the problems of material creation and the problems of order and differentiation" both cultures assume there's a fundamental division between the two sets of problems.

Okay form/substance: When we're talking about "shapes" where talking about the forms of things. What are people? Well, we're mostly sacks of water for one thing. But telling what we're made of seems to say very little about what people are. The outlines of our “shape” our bodies rather delimit our doings. Still investigating our doings; say questions about consciousness, are very complicated.

The problem I have with "the new atheism" mostly boils down to how a commitment to materialism tends to apply thinking about cause and effect along very physical metaphors of cause and effect. As Bateson points out it one thing to predict what will happen when you kick a rock and quite another what will happen if you kick a dog. Bateson thought carefully about mental systems, but his ideas about "mind" aren't all that influential, however influential they are to me.

Ben mentions fractal shapes and I brought up constructal theory which really comes out of mechanical engineering. Even though we're talking about form rather than stuff, either are still metaphors about physical objects applied to metal systems and I think it's good to watch out for the pitfalls of metaphors.

Humberto Maturana who coined the term autopoiesis or self-organizing systems has warned about taking his observations and theories about individual organisms and applying them directly to sociology for example here. Heavens knows I can't claim to understand Niklas Luhmann--or Maturana for that matter-- but I worry a bit about establishing knowledge of boundaries and closure in such social systems as the economy. Still, I'm fairly convinced that systems theory is a promising approach to social research.

I'm way off on a tangent from Michael's post. What got me there may be a misreading of what Michael is saying. I took his observation about none of being unique as part of an orientation rooted in in “the simple facts of the species” that he was saying something academic and formal about who people are and the social systems we inhabit. And as is common “simple facts” often seem anything but simple to me.

An observation that Michael may be pointing to is how we are used to thinking in terms of hierarchical structures in society, but modern communications technologies are moving us more towards horizontal structures—Here comes everybody! Recently Dave Pollard posted an article about Google Wave at his blog. One insight he had about it is: “Google Wave is the wikification of conversation.” I like that. What comes to mind about wikis is how the unique experience and knowledge of individuals can be gathered together in collaboration. Or to put it another way, none of us have all the parts we need, but together they may be available to us. In wikis the status of contributors is horizontal. Perhaps part of what Michael means by unique is not so much our qualities but our status ranking? Michael also talks about uniqueness as a phase of “growing up” and “maturing.” I'm not so sure where we're headed, but my suspicion is that it's not such an organized process like a developing child. So Pollard's metaphor of GoogleWave wikifying communication rings truer to me. I'm hopeful about humanity, but am fairly sure we'll remain quite imperfect .

For anyone who reads all the way down through this jumble, thank you very much. I really admire Michael Maranda as a scholar of new ways of people organizing ourselves. I've tried to push back a little on the ideas in his post because I know he's created new knowledge and I'm eager to learn more.

There's also a small point I've tried to make in this post and that is we're far from knowing the answers to many pressing social problems and phenomena. I do think we've got better tools and approaches for finding answers today than we had in the past. But there's also some hubris that gets in the way. Scientists working from physical science perspectives are often merciless in their critiques of social scientists. In my estimation they underestimate the rigorous thinking in many of the fields and are way too confident that physical metaphors can be applied to social and communications systems.

John, I like your comment about remaining imperfect. I think a lot of advocates for change think in terms of a set of changes that solve the problem - when the problem is we are imperfect - or, I think more properly, 'in process'.

We think solving a particular problem will take us closer to perfect but, in an on going process, there is no predetermined or "perfect" end state. There is only the characteristic of the system as they exist now and how they will exist in the future. So part of the difficulty in reaching the "working together" that Michael seeks is how each of us sees the problem/solution. No one change will create the world we want because, as you say, the system is inherently 'imperfect'.

There are however, I think, ways of organizing (structures) that enhance the process of life and ways of organizing that restrict the process of life. (here I am talking about both living systems and conscious systems - ecosystems and socio-political-economic-systems).

When Ben talks about 'the public's' money, he is talking about the frustration with charity and philanthropy the way it is currently practiced. We want to make the world a better place and we support people who have an idea of how to solve particular problems. Many of us have a particular problem that is most important to us - and an approach that seems most sensible to us. Hence the difficulty in getting organizations to work together - they are all competing against each other for the dollars of the givers.

I think much of charity is compensating for limitations in the structure we employ - compensating for the way the structure we currently have limits the process of life. I don't hear a lot about changing the structure - maybe Grameen bank? - but that is still about access to the market. Anyway, the idea of complexity spirals is that we can add elements to the system to allow more of the process of life. It is not a solution to a problem, it is an adjustment to the structure that enhances process - it makes us less imperfect - or, perhaps, distributes the imperfections better.

I think that metaphors (and similes) are the only way that we can talk about abstractions. Being human and not very unique, we need to wrap our heads around something that we can see.

So, we take some abstract concept and try to find a physical process that works in a similar way.

I am currently reading about organizational culture. There is an abstraction. There is absolutely nothing to directly see or touch and yet it is there none the less. So we need to resort to metaphor to be able to talk about it and describe it...or at least we who are communicationally challenged do!

Regarding uniqueness, I guess at some level I disagree with Michael. At the fine grain, we and our groups are unique because we are a summation of the events and people around us. Certainly at a coarser grain we are not necessarily unique. And we should be able to at some level recognize that if for no other reason than the power it grants. An example is the concept that economics is off track and needs to be rethought. Many, and now maybe most, people believe that neo-classical economics has a bad model. Many, even maybe most, believe that more humanity needs to be injected into the model (why else would it be a social science?). Narrowing the focus a bit, there are groups of people who believe that morals and ethics need to be included in the model. And in some way, each of the religious organizations thinks it is unique in believing that morals needs to be considered leading to Buddhist Economics, Islamic Economics, Christian Economics, Jewish Economics, Protestant Economics, Catholic Economics etc ad nauseum. And every one believes they are unique and no one listens to the others because they are unique. The similarities are astounding. And talking together to find the similarities - the non-uniqueness - would offer them so much power to accomplish something.

"Man's" necessity to be unique will be "his" downfall.

This may just be a discussion of competition vs cooperation.

Brief reply to John Powers, without having finished my way down through other replies...

Maturana, Bateson, and a Joycean Here Comes Everybody -- all have influenced me.

Regarding Maturation... I accept it not being so linear - definitely --- but my point is more how far we've still got to go. I want us to collectively grow up a bit more .. but to do so we have to see the plain fact that we often behave with less maturity than we like to think.

Yes, competition and cooperation are very central contrasts, Linda.

I'm not really denying the uniqueness of each situation and context, nor the uniqueness of any snowflake.

In the more considered statement the words are: we are neither alone nor unique in our efforts. This is something calling us to wake up to common aims, not denying difference of perspective and circumstance, or personal history.

The following musing - a response to David's note on imperfection and complexity...

I certainly agree we are not in a perfect system, and I don't expect one. As has been said, we're always in process, and i view that positively. Yet can we not have a "better" system or situation than the current one? I'd have to say yes.

As to complexity: Spirals in this genre ... the Upward Spiral and our witness of various downward patterns, are all very important to consider.

But we should also consider this, and this may have been part of Linda's point with regard to simile and metaphor: language and framing ... we want to have a better picture of what is happening as well as what is possible. Certain models have certainly held sway and caused some damage (perhaps in being misapplied beyond their true utility). New models simplify certain factors in order to lead us to other matters that may at once be more complex than we previously appreciated and yet perhaps are also clearer to us as a result of these models... that's my hope in the project I am working on. The statement initiating this thread is but the first statement in the argument I am trying to advance.

I greatly appreciate the time all of you have taken thus far.

Reading John's response further --- thinking about the "imperfections" of the system, and the possibility of their being distributed differently ... this is an interesting take ... and perhaps in language it offers a different angle than I've been working, but something resonates with the larger model I have been playing with, namely considering the imperfections of a system ... if treated as a design question - how would contracts or relationships or roles be differently structured in light of the imperfections we've become aware of? Are there not patterns that would allow us a way past some of these imperfections or counter-productive tendencies?

In many of the situations we will need to come to awareness that the current behavior is not dictated by necessity (or even the market), and that other patterns are possible. We'd also have to appreciate the negative dimensions or results of the behavior, and have a desire for something better.

Ben, good to meet you here ...

As I re-read your post I was thinking about an aspiration I wish were more prevalent in the social benefit sector (and that is where I have been focusing this argument, if it was not apparent above).

The aspiration I suggest as appropriate to the bulk of the sector would be to orient ourselves appropriately to our fields, and to "try and work ourselves, our organizations out of a job" ... that is, to work towards transcending certain of the problems the species (and planet) has historically faced, many of which we've long had the knowledge, but not the will to eliminate or to dramatically reduce.

Such phrasing may be impolitic in a period of economic recession. It's not meant to make anyone upset wrt the uncertainty of the workforce, etc... and indeed -- to seriously address many of the problems we face I expect there would be initial increase in investment in order to achieve these aims. (Consider the value of a meaningful surge...)

All of this is meant to speak to our human dignity.

Let us solve the problems we can so that the human talent that has been held back (on two sides: those who have suffered with a problem, and those who are employed to deal with the problem (for each problem field we may think of)) ... can be brought to bear on the next problem or aspiration.

Some of the problems we face must be regarded as a shame upon the species that we have not yet risen to the challenge to resolve them meaningfully.

These are bracing words, I recognize. But they are offered with love, and with confidence in our potential.

I refer you to Star Trek:)

The issue of money is so peripheral. The idea of doing what is right is so central. People run restaurants, because they enjoy running them - no money changes hands. Where do they get supposedly acquire their ingredients? It doesn't matter. The ideal that people can do what they wish to, because cost is subsumed in some omnipotent self-income-generating "state", which supports itself. I guess they have a replication machine (which isn't around the corner), but still it's an interesting concept to explore.

I don't think your comment heartless at all. Progress seems to be allowed in some fields, but not in others, because it might threaten business in a home country or if too few of the citizens are affected by it (e.g. Malaria).

Perhaps we should be looking to put the mosquitoes out of business?

Also I think we should remember that people want to do what they want to do, not work in jobs, which provide them with money and nothing else.

The impact of reducing working hours has been very positive and generated much new industry in leisure, which did not exist before, so perhaps we remove one area and another more positive area springs up in its place...

Agreed that our quest is a more accurate model of system function. We are all on the continuum of human knowledge and this more accurate model can help the species move forward on that continuum.

perversely I prefer the opposite starting line- each of us is unique but nothing we do matters except in connection with others

Chris, can you clarify what you consider to be "in connection with others"?

Artistic expression for example is often a singular activity in which others may observe and relate to the work of art, but this is not exactly done "in connection" with the artist.

Or are you saying that singular works of art never matter?

I hope you will bare with me while I explore this thought about uniqueness - it may take a while to see the relevance to this thread:

They say that there are three colors of environmentalists:

• bright green - who see a bright future full of technological advances that will make it so that humans no longer pollute the environment.
• deep green - who see humans as the problem and who harbor an apocalyptic vision of the future in which the human population is drastically reduced.
• green washed - who incorporate their relatively benign impact on the environment as a part of their profit model.

and each set of beliefs is unique - but all three groups want the same thing - a pollution free environment.

Then there is the social justice people. Each social justice group has a preferred problem that they seek to solve and a preferred solution that they promote to funders. Each group is unique but they, and those of us who support their work, all want the same thing - a set of circumstances in which all the children and grandchildren of the world can thrive.

Then there are all the other 'special interest' groups - each group seeking a specific change in the way things work in order to address a particular problem with the way things work now. And in the end, even where a particular proposal would benefit only a few people, we all are seeking to fulfill a certain basic set of human needs.

We can continue to each focus on that issue that we believe to be most important, or we can begin to look at how one problem is related to another problem, how all these problems derive from systemic deficiencies in the way that we organize ourselves, and begin to look at new ways to organize the production and delivery of what we want in life. This change in point of view need not require assigning blame or coercion - we need only create new options for how people can participate in the production and delivery of what we want.

A shift in only a small portion of the resources now devoted to solving specific problems - toward experiments in systemic changes - might prove vastly more effective than what we do now.

Well said.. I think this also bears upon the points I raised in my slow reading of your work.. a fractal geometry of perception and interests...

Deeper points with regard to the Uniqueness question.. or more basic problem we may have gone past by virtue of our own connectedness... do you recall the joy you felt (and feel) in finding others sharing similar and related concerns to your own and who are working on them or inviting you to the work? Many people still waant for that connectedness, and many more assembled in groups have some degree of connectedness but would benefit from greater coordination among such groups.

It's very important to tmy model for us to consider the commonality of concerns and the relations among concerns, from both individual and group or organizational perspectives.

You might be interested in the work of Riane Eisler and her theory of dominator vs partnership models.