David’s email of 9/21/2015 with Larry’s inserts

You feel the need to spend time in a sterile and toxic environment :-)?

Where have I ever said this? Human created environments need not be sterile or toxic. You are projecting on my statements. Philosophically, everything humans do is “natural” as we are part of “nature”. Even without humans there have been serious Gaian disasters, not all due to asteroid collisions or tectonic activity. New viruses can decimate whole species.Why do you suppose that living in a garden would not allow for heating and cooling?

A garden world would allow for heating and cooling of habitats, but not necessarily for human activities that require concentrations of energy. They are building server complexes in the polar regions. Garden sources of energy will not be sufficient at all times and locations, especially if we have severe climate change.You ask:

“how [do] you envision your system integrating with other systems”

We are, already, a part of a pattern of interactions that involves everything we experience. That is the whole system. It is currently running down when it has the potential to be building resources into itself. “My system” is designed to add the components that are missing, that which is allowing resources to be depleted. “My system” is not about giving up anything. It is about adding complexity to the pattern.

Please go beyond generalisms. Are you talking about today and the next decade or about some far future “utopia”? How does your “system” inform as to the type of learning/organizing process we have? Or for governance and security? How does your system determine components that are missing? What if there must be adjustment to your initial system to permit adding a new subsystem (more than a new component to your existing system)?I have a deep caution that our reality can be comprehended and “managed” by a single system. I don’t wish to replace our econo-centric system with a flow/closedloop-centric system or any other -centric system. I am more and more aware that “system” may be limiting.

It is not just about producing food. The things that humans need to thrive are food, clothing, shelter, education and health care. It is entirely possible to produce all of those things in an integrated closed loop production system. Further, these are the things that we wish to be abundant. The market cannot produce that kind of abundance because the market is a scarcity based system. In the market system currently, 4.3 billion people living on less than $5 a day and most of the world’s species have no market value. In an integrated system the incentive is to produce enough of what is needed and the resources to produce those things already exist in the 7 billion people on the planet who are living a less than satisfactory life and the many species that our industrial processes seek to exclude.

“Markets” label a large tool chest of societal processes, many that can have Gaian positive application. It is when we have markets that are regulated to give preference to certain players (as is our current system, it is not unregulated – just it doesn’t have regulations favoring most of the people in the right ways {whatever they are}), that they become problematic. I expect that we will need “special regulations” for any “closed loop” system.Your system, to the best I comprehend it, is only validated “locally” – where the biome is more important than the whole of Gaia – and even down to the literal “real” environment of each organism. Human influences systems including other living systems can have a wide diversity. Animal muscle factories and single cell growth/harvesting systems are part of the same genre as your gardens. And, what are the variety of processes within living systems that can be applied for integrating “humans with nature”? A future humanity, fully at balance with other living systems, could – carefully and experimentally – transform the whole of Gaia. The term “uplift” was used by SciFi author David Brin for a trilogy of novels where other species were “uplifted” to higher cognitive functions at human levels. I debated with Brin (many decades ago) that species may be forbidden to colonize other planets; that only biospheres can interact with biospheres.

Flows and closed-loops are conceptual tools that we can attempt to apply in many domains. They must be validated as applicable for each domain. Flow systems can be represented by mathematical systems. The question remains open whether mathematics can be sufficiently generalized so as to claim ALL systems can have mathematical representation. Our current so-called mathematized flow systems (economics based on individual preference) are mathematically invalid. Human preferences is non-transitive, but the math works only with transitive preference. A person may prefer A over B, and B over C, but not A over C. Also, statistics works only if the numbers are from a ration scale. but the numbers in economics (and other societal systems) are not ration scales. Averages and standard deviations are invalid. This is recognized by top economists, who have created a side discipline for these concerns, and go on using invalid measures.

Remember, what you/we know about biological systems and any other systems is according to our current level of attention and comprehension. The rapidity of change in these knowledge domains should be a warning of more to come. My NU GENESIS speculations hints to major shifts to come. The difference between livng and non-living may be more significant than currently believed. “Life” on Earth cannot be generalized to cover all forming of “living processes”.

I have written about how the system works in many places summarized here:

Will read and comment independently.

Each of us as an individual has influence in the system. The more we understand about how the system functions the more influence we have. The process in all cases of development in the whole system is the creation or loss of individual interactions (bridges). “My system” is about helping individuals understand their power to influence the system by entering into new interactions. People do not realize they have this power. They are conditioned to believe that someone else is responsible for the condition of the world. That is a difficult paradigm to overcome but, I hope, not impossible. That is what I am trying to do when I say: “Every actor in the system is doing what they believe they must.”

David, some of your statement in the above paragraph relate to different – and important – aspects. ““My system” is about helping individuals understand their power to influence the system by entering into new interactions.” I need to know much more about this. My first reaction is that the QUANTITY of interactions should not be as important and the type and quality of interactions. I have not delved deeply into Network Theory, but my first impressions is that they are primarily about networks with only one type of relationship. But, there are many counter-intuitive aspects revealed in network analysis.One of our current difficulties is that individuals now have TOO MANY interactions. Some become addicted to be always connected.

But, David, these are all theoretical considerations. I still am waiting for some concrete, specific, down-to-earth scenarios and stratages applicable for real people today, in the mess we are living in.

I hope that helps. I think we are beginning to break through the talking past each other so I do not wish to go too far too fast. I look forward to your response on Academia to my previous response to your blog.

David, I agree we not go too far too fast. Indeed, I recommend we take a vacation from our dialog. In a similar dialog I am having with Bill Veltrop, we are experimenting with a process where we each attempt to describe what the other is proposing, as if to inform an audience what the other is thinking. I will need to compose a presentation of David’s system and I would request you, David, compose a presentation on Larry/nuet’s UPLIFT proposal (ignore Societal Metamorphosis for the time). Yet, I must confess I really am unable to compose such a presentation – my presentation would be more queries as to what David’s system really is.I am familiar with the 5 essays in your Living Systems Institute website. I find no guidance as what specifically to do in relation to these very general statements. I see no direct connection with this and your very concrete work with gardens and bees. Your system is not spreading exponentially in Colorado, and I am not aware of many seed ventures starting up elsewhere. What is your strategy to move your system from the abstract to our concrete real world? I can do this for UPLIFT spreading once BUS is created. But, attracting real nu interactions between myself and other re UPLIFT is proving a significant challenge. I have become aware that these needed interactions must transcend simple dialog (running conversation). We need collaborative interaction around collective weaving/constructing emerging semiotic cyber-worlds. We must learn to master RT/DT and OLLO, which are scaffolding to seaf nu SYSTEMS of interactions. I suddenly grok that SYSTEMS OF INTERACTIONS should be your primary focus and not INDIVIDUAL INTERACTIONS. Individual interactions gain their significance only within systems of interactions. Systems of interactions are not the simple sum of individual interactions. Each interaction is in the context of a network of prior interactions and a network of potential future interactions. This emerged over slow evolution at all levels in Gaia. They must be invented from scratch for human systems, although we can learn from nature – but maybe need to go beyond.