Thank you for sharing.

Just happened on the TED talk video in this URL - fits the bill IMHO.

www.ted.com/talks/

Talks Yochai Benkler: Open-source economics

So I commented on David Braden's discussion:

I like the idea of the self-help corporation, especially if it can be combined with a permaculture/organic gardening type venture. That would even bring exchangeable produce and help heal a larger circle...

David replied with the following, which I am copying here as he's got links to follow.

"I liked your blog a lot. Hopefully more and more of us will start thinking along these lines. The description of the self-help corporation that you reference is called the SHC short form outline. There is an earlier, more detailed version starting at SHC home page.

You might be interested in the ideas in the Biological Potential Project in regard to integrating human and natural systems."

Michael comments (by email):

I finally got to check this topic out. It looks to me like a modernized interpretation of tribal living. In fully functional tribe living and survival, each member is assigned jobs according to their skill, where both children and adults are educated in tasks determined by the needs of the tribe, which can operate self-sufficiently, by barter or a common means of exchange. The tribal unit (small corporation) takes on a name which each member identifies with as a member, it has a chief and other hierarchical members (CEO, etc), meetings of elders and other responsible parties that cover the tribe's involvement with its environment.

American Indian tribes were always noted for their highly efficient and waste-free environmental lifestyles, where they became experts at dealing with their environment expertly, using whatever was there with very little waste - everything was used by members who were trained in how to do it - 3D interfacing. It looks as though some similar groups have become so inept and disorganized at doing this over time that they can no longer support themselves, most likely because their traditional means for living in their environments is no longer viable, and if you went back to earlier group times those people came from, you would find a viable tribal system whose methods became antiquated and non-viable.

Reminds me again of the self-sufficient (due to their location they had to be) warring Easter Island communities who refused to change their aggressive traditions and ended up starving themselves and thus destroying their culture by destroying each other and their ecosystem that supported them through blindly following traditions that were causing the destruction rather than changing to adapt and thus survive. Had they properly 3D'd their situation, they would have survived.

As John Belushi would say, "But noooooo...!"

In particular, tyrannical, bullying, or self-centered looting-mentality leadership can do this, whether tribal, corporate, or national. Authentic responsible leadership requires real working knowledge and a culture-oriented conscience in decisions and actions for any viable society to survive well by nurturing its common wealth, and not just the wealth of a few, whether it's 30 people, or 300 million.

So, can what he's describing work? Just as historically, only as long as the human nature of the corporation he's describing keeps a strong sense of conscience and awareness about its well-being among its leadership, members, and their environment, which includes those external to it as well.

I think you guys are on the right track with the realization that scarcity is the primary cause for our social issues. Nobody is hoarding or fighting wars over abundant resources, like the air we breathe (yet).

But no communal solution will work as long as we have a monetary unit of any sort. Money and barter are outdated methods of rationing goods and services and are only required within a scarce environment. When things are abundant, no mode of transfer is necessary.

Our production capabilities are high enough to produce abundance. We already produce more than enough food to feed the world. Unfortunately capitalism requires scarcity, so the existing powers that be currently have no incentive to set up such sustainable production models for all products. But we do have the technology and resources.

The problem is that our monetary system soaks up so much of our purchasing power, that we do not have enough left over to produce at our highest capacity.

As long as you have money, you will owe all of the expenses required to support it: lawyers, accountants, bankers, advertisers, politicians, brokers, salesman... etc. For every dollar you spend, over 95 cents goes to supporting the monetary system itself!

Not only has money become a scarce resource that must be attained in order to survive in a world of actual abundance, it is also a horrible motivator. The only jobs that require monetary incentive are the ones that exist solely based on the existence of money in the first place, and contribute nothing tangible to society.

The professions that contribute to society are actually the ones where motivation comes from the desire to help one another, not money: scientists, teachers, humanitarians, doctors, engineers, artists, emergency responders, and sociologists.