Hi David --
Overall, I really like where you are heading. I gather this is written for an audience that "gets it" and not one you are trying to persuade and that it is probably the precursor to something more definitive on a wider scale. So here are a few of my thoughts in no particular order other than what has hit me so far:
1) Having worked within the corporate system for years and then in marketing and advertising for years, I am keenly aware of a corporation's deep-seated drive to survive -- very similar to our drive to live as human beings...that means that when the time comes and the suicide economy is threatened by the living economy, they will not hesitate to fight back. Now it may come too late, but my guess is that will not be the case.
Corporations have already proven time and again that new systems of thinking (ie solar power, a free internet, free music) that threaten the suicide economy will see the full power of its ability unleashed on them...this means communications, legal, competitive, acquisitions, etc. Even today we are heading into a time when most industries will be governed by two to three players, the rest being consumed in a flurry of mergers, acquisitions and bankruptcies. Do you think your piece should address this at all.
Do you agree? I just worry about their fantastic ability to stomp out local initiatives of a collective of well-intentioned small business owners whose collective survival needs economically are a gnat to a corporation, but a bull elephant to that community. This would suggest that living economies can in no way be related or use any of the resources of the suicide economy and they must be set up in such a way that any attempt by the suicide economy to stomp them out will be ineffective or limited in terms of damage.
2)What this would suggest then for me at least is the inclusion of an example -- a concrete "living today" example of as extensive a living economy as you could include in the article. I know it would help me to envision the Type III system more easily.
3) Maybe I missed this or maybe it doesn't matter, but it seems to me that the way this is presented that the problem with biomimicry is that it ignores the higher levels of consciousness that human beings are capable of. As you stated, organisms are genetically programmed to live and fulfill a function in Type III.. Over long periods of time, these organisms either adapt those areas of their growth to fit the ecosystem they are living within or they will die out. Therefore, the plants all seem to perform at a relatively equal level of quality within the system, but human beings are conscious of their actions and making a living economy work requires trust and the ability to perform in a manner completely in synchronization with the other members of the community. Therefore there is an assumption that all the members of the living economy want the exact same thing (which seems to rarely be the case and seems to me to be the Achilles heel of this idea -- one which the suicide economy could exploit beautifully using wolves in sheep’s clothing). Is this true? I have seen so many of my friends struggling to succeed in this way only to be disappointed in the partnerships that are formed.
4) Education is a huge piece to the success of this "race" over the next 20 to thirty years, yet it is not mentioned. Do you believe it will just happen, but schools are a product and becoming more owned every day by the suicide economy. The cultural creative teachings are occurring at home and partly in schools but do you know of any place that is really doing it right? If so shouldn't the article address this as well?
So those are my first round of thoughts. I love where you are going and these are offered in a spirit of seeing this work advance and answer as many questions or objections as others might raise. This is a synthesis from so many areas -- AWESOME!
Charlie Kouns
Return to DIALOGUE
Posted July 23, 2001