Introduction

For thousands of years, human beings have fought each other in all-out war, often led by those who either wished to become, or remain as, the controlling elite. Thankfully, nowadays, people who are willing to wreck havoc for their own selfish gain are recognised as sociopaths. They have an antisocial personality, a disorder characterised by selfishness and disregard for other people’s rights. Unfortunately, we have inherited a social infrastructure that is based upon their acquisitive and suppressive behaviour. This social structure was designed and developed for their benefit and, in order to guarantee income and control for the elite, over the centuries, layer upon layer of legislation has led to a system of unmanageable complexity.

Although we now live in the 21st century, 19th century elitist concepts, such as “the survival of the fittest” and man as conqueror of nature, still drive the complex systems that sustain society. These systems are dependent on non-sustainable resources, vulnerable supply chains and levels of competition that lead to the withholding of knowledge and result in international aggression when resources become scarce. Withholding knowledge is a key component in this social order, where a high percentage of the population is educated solely to fulfill basic work roles. As a result, attributes such as creativity, organising skills and the entrepreneurial spirit are quashed or merely put into service for the continuity of systems that are too complex to succeed.

However, the 21st century mentality is opening up to fresh concepts that are being fed by technologies which distribute information freely to all and encourage simpler systems that are decentralised, equitable and cooperative. These systems have proved successful and are thriving. It seems that the tide is turning; we are in phase transition. Society is evolving away from suppressive centralisation and into a more cooperative and enlightened era. A phase transition is an exciting time, full of potential but vulnerable to error. That is why attending to fundamentals is essential.

Fundamental

We must identify the fundamental basis of social order. As is so often the case, the answer is in the word itself: fundamental. This word means ‘the founding principle’ but its constituent parts tell the real story. ‘Fund’ comes from the Latin fundus and through to us from the middle English meaning foundation or basis. And, mental comes from the Latin mentalis meaning mind. This word is telling us that mind is the basis. That should not be a surprise, but we can go further and refer to pure consciousness. This reference will not be news to any natural philosopher or long-term meditator; the fact that pure consciousness is the basis of all creation becomes self-evident to those who practice subjective science. That claim opens up a vast subject that is handled elsewhere within my work but for the purpose of this piece, the social ramifications are relatively easy to show.

From the sports field to the boardroom; from the operating theatre to the dance floor, whether the demands of life are mental or physical, in every field, the fundamental is clarity of mind. Not only do you have to be conscious of what you are doing but you also need to be able to respond swiftly and correctly to anything that comes up. Mental ability is universally recognized as the key to success and mental ability depends upon clarity of mind. This clarity can support self-regulation for every individual in a spontaneous and flexible manner. The ultimate in clarity of mind is pure consciousness, the experience of which has been shown to increase empathy, the key to cooperation.ⁱ

This document offers a plan for social evolution in a range of interlinked, progressive changes which recognises that all evolutionary steps are developed and supported by clarity of mind.

The Challenge

In 2002, over 1,000 scientists signed The Amsterdam Convention. It stated that, “The Earth system behaves as a single, self-regulating system comprised of physical, chemical, biological and human components.” The challenge for humanity is to get its component working harmoniously with the Earth system. This requires a careful dismantling of the vast systems that humankind has erroneously developed that are based upon the survival of the fittest as a guiding philosophy and the conquering of nature as a goal. As noted, those who think and act in this way are dysfunctional, they lack the clarity of mind and the resultant empathy to be of service to the world. It is therefore no surprise that our systems are in disorder and need replacing. But what should come in their place?

1. Human Scale Organisation

A society is a collection of individuals and so there are two major aspects to a coherent social organisation: the coherence of the individual (internal) and the coherence of the group structure (external). The state of mind of each member of society is the most important element. The clarity of mind of every individual is the basis of coherence for society. If society is to evolve, its structures must support the clarity of mind that leads to right action.

Individual v Group

Regardless of what form of organization a society might take, to work well, it must be a human-scale organisation. That is, in the name of mental clarity, its structure should reflect human cognitive limits as regards successful relationships within groups, otherwise coherence breaks down. The structure must work to the advantage of both the individual and the group in a balanced manner. Therefore the organisation must facilitate the capacity of the group and any one member in a way that empowers both.

In that regard, there are two sayings that spring to mind: “Strength in numbers” and “Knowledge is power”. Regarding human scale society, these two sayings come together in the question, “How many people can the average individual know well?” There has been some research into this interesting question.

In 1992, British anthropologist Robin Dunbar studied stable social populations and their relationships in primate societies and then, theorising on cognitive limits and brain size, scaled up the figures in relation to the human brain. This work led researchers to estimate that humans can comfortably maintain between 100 and 230 stable social relationships. ‘Dunbar’s number’ was set at 150 and it soon became a popularized reference.ⁱⁱ However, in the 1980s, anthropologists including H. Russell Bernard and Peter Killworth had already done fieldwork within human communities in the USA.ⁱⁱⁱ They estimated 290 as the mean number of sustained social ties. As this research was done directly with humans rather than primates, the figures seem more credible than the lower, Dunbar number. Regarding the high end, I find it significant that the population of medieval villages rarely exceeded 300. Self sufficient settlements would be unlikely to breach the recognized workable numbers.

Bearing this in mind, I suggest that self-organising communities of between 200 and 300 individuals, including children, should be encouraged and that these should be the basis of local organisation and democracy. Small, self-organising communities will be able to empower individuals far more than big government and well-run communities will save national government huge sums of money. This savings potential is also reflected in the suggested basic income grant level suggested in chapter two.

Real Community

Being part of a real community can be both a challenge and a therapy; getting along requires friendliness, kindness, humility and flexibility. But the rewards are huge. A great deal of non-sense would be removed. This happens quickly when communities are open, honest and adaptable. Through harmonious living each of us can regain our inherent dignity and joy of life. Knowing all of your neighbours to the extent that any misunderstandings can be peacefully resolved is a powerful aid to social cohesion. Trust ensues. It reduces anxieties about the motives of others, security, and basic law and order issues. Also, knowledge of others’ needs and skills helps ensure that appropriate and timely assistance is available for all, as and when needed.

Crime rates will drop and health and education will improve as individuals act more responsibly in community. The development of empathy within human-scale community would also act as security against sociopathic schemes. Every community would see the benefit in training members the right skills to be of service. Training for high levels of service would also help inspire entrepreneurs, for every start-up thrives because of the quality of service it provides.

The essentials for life are food, water, homes, heat etc., and each community would equip itself with the required knowledge for those physical needs and beyond. Food growers, hydrologists, soil specialists, nutritionalists, ‘green’ builders, doctors, complementary practitioners, yoga/fitness coaches, counselors, midwifes, musicians, poets, artists, visionaries, legal advisors and more. All would be valuable to each community and knowledge sharing would quickly ease the pressure on these people.

Knowledge distribution would become equitable. For example, a community would not only ensure that it included members of the healing profession but also that these people trained the other members in health matters, particularly prevention. An emphasis on prevention of illness through education is long overdue.

Politics

Trust is essential in politics, otherwise the system breaks down. For reasons already explained, the basic political constituency should be based upon human scale community. Each local community would form the voting basis. The voters would be the adults amongst the 200 to 300 people. That is because the real nature of any prospective political candidate would already be known to the voters. There, politics would not be done through speeches, think-tanks and proclamations, it would be done simply by knowing, working with, and being a part of one’s own community. As a result, politicians would be people who are there to serve the public rather than have an allegiance to a political party and submit to the army of lobbyists whose aim is to seduce party members.

One thing is for sure about political parties, they do not serve democracy, they serve themselves. The vast majority of party politicians prioritise service to the party over service to the public. For without the party, they would have no platform and no ready made, mass-marketed, ideology. The future of society is far too important to have only two or three slightly different options available to the voter. But that is how party-based democracy has turned out.

Through the party system, corrupt politicians can easily be foisted upon an unknowing constituency. However, within a small community constituency, from the very earliest stage, politicians would be vetted by those who know them best. From then on, as the political infrastructure develops, it will be populated by trustworthy people. The funding, cronyism and ideological institutionalism of political parties would quickly be found to be unnecessary. Of course, power can corrupt and so the community would be wise to educate every member in the aims and processes of politics. They should also ensure that no single representative has a long tenure.

Of course, this scheme would add an additional level to national politics with grassroots politicians being further elected to join in regional and national administration. However, with clarity of mind guiding communities, fewer and fewer national laws would be required.

Elections

Voting at the community level would best be done as openly as possible, in person, by whatever non-digital means that the constituency decides. That is because a coherent society requires a level of openness and integrity that seeds debate and leads to understanding and trust.

In a human scale community it should be quite easy to gather all of the voters together for a series of meetings. They would listen to presentations and debates, and also have question and answer sessions with candidates. The final meeting of the series would close with the vote itself. The outcome could be known almost immediately, without the possibility of any external interference. Whatever the result, together, everyone in the community could celebrate a diligent and successful process.

Elections to the regional and national levels can be done through digital means. To check against cyber-fraud, the digital voting ‘click’ would be recorded on the government site and on the blockchain simultaneously (see chapter four).

Every adult should vote but beyond the official candidates’ names, every election form should also include fields for, 1) a written-in name. (This is for those who favour someone who is not an official candidate); 2) ‘None of the above’ (for where the voter has no faith in the candidates nor in any one else); and 3) ‘I am dissatisfied with the electoral process’, (for where the voter wants the system to be reviewed).

In modern democracies, political parties often to come to power when less than 50% of the electorate has voted for them. Indeed, there has been less than a 66% turnout in each of the three general elections that the UK has experienced in the 21st century.^iv Fortunately, the development of community constituencies with savvy voters will bring an end to this travesty. For notes on the creation of community constituencies, see the Appendix.

Let us now turn to changes that clear-headed governance could bring in and, if not, that local, self-organising communities could bring in for themselves.

2. Livelihood and Finance

I was born and raised in a town called Nantwich in Cheshire, England. People who are born there and continue to live there benefit from annual payments known as ‘the Beam Heath’. Beam Heath had been a large plot of land close to the town centre. It was a common amenity for the townsfolk, facilitating grazing, hunting, firewood, house-building materials and other resources. This plot was part of the millions of acres of land in Great Britain that had been a common resource for thousands of years, originally held under the stewardship of local tribes.

Feudalism and Enclosure

Over a long period, stewardship became formal ownership but not for the benefit of the majority. The process of ownership moved forward as a result of conflict. It was through conflict that the power of kings really arose. In order to be protected by a ruling and, largely, military elite, the population gave up many of their rights.

During the English feudal system (8th to 17thc.) kings appointed lords to oversee local resources and the general population was bonded to that lord. This was a modified form of slavery called serfdom where serfs pledged their labour to the lord in return for protection and for the administration of justice so that they could continue to live off the land. Later, these lands became known as ‘the commons’ and those who depended upon them were called ‘commoners’. Despite being controlled by members of the elite, these lands continued to be available as a resource for all.

As the feudal system declined, land was fenced and privatised in what was known as ‘the enclosure movement’. This movement began in the 12th century and continued for hundreds of years. The enclosures deprived the commoners of their livelihood and forced them to move to the towns and cities to find work in the newly emerging industries. This was a key factor in the industrial revolution.

3. Investment and Innovation

Investment objectives should be aligned with the long-term well-being of the community and the planet. This means investing in sustainable technologies, renewable energy, and local businesses that support the community.

Sharing and Stewardship

The concept of ownership should be replaced with the concept of stewardship. We are not owners of the Earth, but stewards. We have a responsibility to care for the planet and to leave it in a better condition for future generations.

Cognition and Stewardship

Our ability to be good stewards depends on our level of consciousness. The higher our level of consciousness, the more we are able to see the interconnectedness of all things and the more we are able to act in a way that is beneficial to all.

4. Legal and Financial Administration

The legal and financial systems should be simplified and made more transparent. This will reduce the power of the elite and make the systems more accessible to everyone.

Mesh Technology

Mesh technology can be used to create decentralised communication networks that are not controlled by any single entity. This will make it more difficult for governments and corporations to censor information and control the flow of information.

Decentralised Currencies

Decentralised currencies, such as Bitcoin, can be used to create a more just and equitable financial system. These currencies are not controlled by any single entity and are not subject to the whims of governments and central banks.

Blockchain Potential

Blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionise the legal and financial systems. It can be used to create a more transparent and secure way of recording transactions and managing assets.

Clarity

Clarity of mind is essential for creating a more just and equitable society. When we are clear-headed, we are able to see the truth and to act in a way that is beneficial to all.

5. Educating for Evolution

Education should be focused on developing the whole person, not just on preparing people for the workforce. This means teaching people about consciousness, empathy, and cooperation.

Transcendental Meditation

Transcendental Meditation is a simple and effective technique for developing consciousness. It has been shown to have a wide range of benefits, including reducing stress, improving health, and increasing creativity.

Mindfulness

Mindfulness is another effective technique for developing consciousness. It involves paying attention to the present moment without judgment. It has been shown to have many of the same benefits as Transcendental Meditation.

6. Other Governance Topics

Defence

A decentralised society would be more difficult to attack and conquer. This is because there would be no single point of failure. An attack on one community would not necessarily affect the other communities.

Law and Order

In a decentralised society, law and order would be maintained by the community. This would be more effective than the current system, which is based on punishment and retribution.

Food Security, Population and Health

A decentralised society would be more resilient to food shortages and other disruptions. This is because each community would be self-sufficient in terms of food production.

Demographic Transition

The demographic transition is the shift from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates. This transition is essential for creating a sustainable society.

More Efficiency Required

The current system is inefficient and wasteful. A decentralised society would be more efficient and less wasteful.

Health Benefits

A decentralised society would have many health benefits. These include reduced stress, improved mental health, and a stronger sense of community.

Conclusion

The transition to a decentralised society will not be easy, but it is essential for the survival of our species. We must act now to create a more just, equitable, and sustainable world.

Appendix

Constituency Software

Software can be used to help create and manage community constituencies. This software would allow people to connect with each other, share information, and make decisions collectively.

Toward a Human Scale Community

The first step toward creating a human scale community is to connect with your neighbours. Get to know them and start talking about the issues that are important to you.

The Software

The software would be open source and decentralised. It would be designed to be easy to use and accessible to everyone.

Beginning to Act in Community

Once you have connected with your neighbours, you can start to act in community. This could involve starting a community garden, organising a neighbourhood watch, or working together to solve local problems.