• 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0
  •     Cyberteams have a balanced mix of synchronous and asynchronous interaction. Decades ago I called this RT/DT  for RealTime/DelayedTime. Cyberteams have dense, synchronous, interaction between members, online (with as much “presence” as possible) and “Spatially Contiguous F2F” or “In The Same Room” (ITSR).  Some cyberteams will spend days to months living together, as On Expedition. However, cyberteams also have extensive asynchronous interaction with each other, but not all “exchanges”. Such DT interaction may include asynchronous, collaborative composing, constructing, editing, etc. “Barn-raising” in cyberspace.
  •     “Cyber” refers to the appropriate and intelligent use of computer scaffolding to mediate person-to-person and group interaction of cyberteam members. Even in ITSR F2F sessions, computer seafing and recording will be utilized.  As cyberteams proliferate the technology to seaf them will greatly improve. Details about cyberteams will be presented elsewhere, their features to be determined experimentally and in context with our best scientific knowledge. I have given some study of cyberteams, but it remains primitive.
  •         The technology in development for “Social Physics” (Alex Pentland) involving deep surveillance, analysis, and feedback for moment-to-moment team behavior will greatly improve team performance.
  •     Cyberteams will be the basic unit in the societal structure of an emergent nu humanity, and in the early uplift movement for survival/thrival.  Cyberteams will be intelligently networked, capable of advanced collaboration. The enhancement of persons within cyberteams, and the seafed collective activity, will make cyberteams much more competent than persons acting within even our contemporary best social situations.  Cyberteams employ OLLO strategies to continually uplift their personal and team competencies – in the context of whole system needs.


  • 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0
  •     Rationales and evidence supporting these propositions are not provided here.
  •     There is a very real probability that methane induced run-away climate change will devastate Gaia and humankind, including the possible extinction of mammals and the human species. The date for tipping-to-no-return is uncertain, but could be years. Emergency Action should have commenced yesterday.  In that we can’t accurately forecast the greatly enhanced competencies of humankind after a rapid uplifting of distributed competencies, we shouldn’t assume nothing could be done after run-away heating begins, even though it may seem impossible today.
  •     The fast/intuitive/emotional minds of individual humans appears to deny the above reality even when their slow/conceptual/rational minds fully accept this reality.  This holds for the author of this sem.
  •     Humankind, currently constituted, is doomed. Humankind has very real potentials to rapidly change its “constitution”; but those potentials lie in blindspot of almost everyone. There are many strategies for survival/thrival, but they will not be explored or implemented so long as individual persons are in intuitive/emotional denial and work in settings where the denial is reinforced. This includes myself and all activists about unnecessary Earth Changes.
  •     It is highly likely (my positive intuition) that cyberteams may be able to act, seafed by their OLLO scaffolding, in ways to mediate the negative influences of the fast/intuitive/emotional minds of team members. We can know the feasibility of cyberteams only by beginning using them.
  •     Some teams in practice approach what may be called early cyberteams. Their pioneering efforts must be studied, but we should not assume that cyberteams (as we need) are already in sufficient process of emergence that we can leave it to others to make it happen.  The same may be said for the various movements working towards “Collective Intelligence”, which may be seen as a primary attribute of cyberteams.


  • 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0
  •     I may be an exemplar of intuitive denial while conceptually accepting both the truly scary forecasts and viable remedies. My performance continues to conflict with what I know I should be doing.
  •     Yet, my behavior for the past few months may be interpreted as resulting from nuet’s subtle nudging Larry to inch his way to form a cyberteam and transcend his intuitive denial.
  •     My overwhelming inefficiency can be attributed to many factors, some from negative interference from my in-denial, intuitive mind keeping me from doing what nuet’s analysis would recommend.  But recently I have been avoiding many activities clearly essential to my personal future (both in terms of Larry’s health and well-being and his ability to further nuet’s emergence and sharing with others). SURVIVAL appears to be a deep attractor of my day to day activity. Writing this now, out of the blue, when there are so many other tasks demanding my attention, may be evidence. Yet, I also know that there are no documents I can compose and distribute that will catalyze the movements I envision. A different kind of activity for persons is needed: activity in cyberteams?
  •     It may be rationalization, but I sense caution.  For me (or anyone) to fully accept, intuitively/emotionally our survival challenge (until they are part of social activity aimed to effective and sufficient action) may drive one to madness and possible suicide – unless they come to this within a supportive cyberteam.


  • 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0
  •     My first writing on this was in 1996 in a proposal to present at a conference (reviewers rejected the proposal). I started using the term “cyberteam”  more recently.  In 2007 I submitted a grant to NIH for creating a “colab studio” envisioned as scaffolding for cyberteams.
  •     A proposal and actual movement to create/use cyberteams is no silver bullet to cure all our ills. To successfully change to survive/thrive requires a large set of interdependent innovative thinking/doing.
  •     We may attempt to sort them into two categories. First, those innovations needed to seaf each other in their interdependent emergence as a nu HUMANITY (NU) to eventually replace our dysfunctional humankind. The second category are innovations to study/influence our societal environments (existing humankind) where it may block or restrain activity in the first category.
  •     Each of these innovations may be NECESSARY for the success of the whole. But, none are, by themselves, SUFFICIENT. Indeed, competition between innovations may give temporary momentum to a “winner”, but may starve other necessary innovations.
  •     It is both “human” and “natural” that we focus our attention.  Focus is necessary, but not sufficient. We must periodically “look up” to assess the contexts from which our focus is embedded. Here again, cyberteams may be essential in performing in ways no individual human could do.
  •     To start generating a sufficient list of necessary innovations is a task I must commence. But the final list will require cyberteams to compile.

2 Responses

  • happyseaurchin

    Hmmm. I am buying a camper. Willing to travel. F2F prevails.

  1. CLIMATE CHANGE and HUMAN NATURE | Nuets Nodes  April 8, 2016


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *