Pillar One - The Individual
This is one of 3 articles to help introduce and explain the basic ideas and tenets of Sustainable Democracy. The Pillars follow a progression from smallest to largest. From the individual, to the community, to the society. This article will focus on the most basic part of society, the individual. Availability of resources is also based on that of an industrialized nation, the lack or absence of basic needs in developing or third world nations will be discussed in the article on society.
The Individual in Sustainable Democracy
We often think of the individual either as the rugged individual or as one unit of a more collective society. Very few nations (perhaps none) actually fall at these extremes; however, our thinking is generally controlled by these competing philosophies. Sustainable Democracy does not provide any radical alternative to these systems; it instead creates a radical synthesis of them.
No individual is a slave to society. We are not ants that need to be driven to provide and create so that the colony may survive and grow. At the same time we are not isolated islands or mountains that must hoard resources or seek power over everything around us in order to succeed. The outer edges of each extreme viewpoint can be cut off entirely. So now we know what the concept of the individual is not.
The new individual is a community member driven by his or her own passion to create. This individual is also largely free of the need to produce in order to meet the basic needs of survival. Consider:
There is likely no time in your life where the necessities for survival were absent. Food, water, shelter, and clothing are all in abundant supply. We have, however created a situation where unless the individual produces something that can be readily consumed, they may still lack access to these resources. While our ability to provide has been exponentially increased we have never changed the thought that individuals are in a zero-sum game for very scarce resources. The extreme energy put out to produce and consume as much as possible is counter to the ability to survive where competition over basic goods in entirely unnecessary.
In this way there needs to be a fundamental shift in what an individual produces. Rather than expending maximum effort to produce endless variations of consumer goods in order to shut competitors down, the focus must be on advancing community. Essentially, every individual should be in a competition of research.
Our ability to produce is well testified to. If we were to eliminate as many people from the act of production as possible and re-task them to improving and creating better operations or products we could perhaps enhance our ability to advance through technology tenfold. It should not be the effort of any society to produce more. It should be the focused effort of every individual to innovate in their area of expertise to produce the least quantity needed at the minimal effort required to produce the best results. Every individual should refine themselves in the same way. Why create more work if you can produce fewer, higher quality good or ideas in substantially less time.
Therefore the individual is striving to advance the community through the focused effort of their individual creativity and passion. This is an individual who is actively working to create their own optimum life and working toward fulfillment and self-actualization.
Please, tell me what you think. What problem do you see with this description? Do you think this is a functional view of the individual or not (and why)?
I will address any concerns and further elaborate these ideas in many more articles.
7 Responses to “Pillar One - The Individual”
By Carol on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
What you are saying here makes perfect sense - in an idealogical world. Today’s individuals are more concerned with the ‘me’ than the ‘we’ and are in need of instant gratification to keep them motivated.
It’s a good and workable theory and certainly something attainable if one can get passed their own self-centeredness.
Very thought provoking.
By Chris Schaffer on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
@ Carol - Thanks for your thoughts. The theory is indeed more ideal than current world. Over the next couple of months I will be putting forth some ideas for how to put this sort of view into practice. But the ideas are still in early development.
By Myku on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Good ideas regarding society/civilization are often contrary to the realities.
Just read the US Constitution and compare it to what was going on in the world at the time it was written. Totally idealistic and almost unfathomable ideas contained in that document!
Of course, it took a revolution to implement those ideas too….
By Chris Schaffer on Jan 23, 2008 | Reply
@ Myku - Good point. We often propose ideals that may not be realistic for approaching. I’m hoping that in later articles I can detail ways to get people and communities much closer to these ideals with even relatively minor changes.
Of course, I hope for rather major changes… But once again, reality versus ideal is always a problem.
By Lon Sarver on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I like this as an ideal. There are a few concerns, though:
First, it seems to me that there are a substantial number of people who, for lack of training or talent or temperment, would not produce well in an economy focused on ideas rather than goods. This is not meant to be a statement that most people are stupid, just that not everyone has the set of talents needed for creative labor.
Second, even if everyone who was being transfered out of goods production into idea production wanted to do it and was good at it, wouldn’t that just create an atmosphere of competition identical to what exists now? Workplace politics can be coutner-productive, no matter what it is that one is producing. And would there not be just as much unnecesary drek produced as consumer ideas as consumer goods?
Finally, I am curious as to transition. How do we move from where we are now to the ideal you are proposing? Adjusting attitudes isn’t enough, the whole economy, educational system, and political mindset would need to be overhauled. What about the displaced workers in this transition period? What do they do?
I love this site. Keep it up.
By Chris Schaffer on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
@ Lon Sarver - Excellent points!
First: I agree that there are many people who enjoy basic labor or do not have the capacity to be idea pushers (for lack of a better term). I don’t imagine things will ever do a total switch from production to ideas, but this is a valid concern. I think the biggest places we would still need general labor would be in agriculture and maintenance. I need to look into this more though.
Second: A very legitimate problem. I think placing more emphasis on collaborative projects and effort might counter this to some degree, but that seems like more of a personal hope than an actual plan.
Final point: Good question. Right now I have no answer for it. Even worse, not having an answer to that problem presents a very big wrench in the machine. Thanks for pointing it out!
I look forward to exploring these problems much more.