TED Conversations

William Holz

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The promised follow-up on the Co-opernation! (with a delightfully enjoyable read!)

Well, apparently all that science and documentation wasn't what everybody needed!

No, The Doctor is who we needed, because this is the sort of idea that everybody expects from him, isn't it? And I have to admit the time travel element really helped us illustrate some things better.

The idea:
1) To create corporation that's owned by all of us

2) Turn that corporation into our very own nation, to turn 'employment' into 'peaceful citizenship'

3) Offer up a variety of amazing sorts of 'life packages' that will only get better,

4) Hire EVERYBODY who can agree not to hurt anybody else in exchange for safety, support, health, and awesomeness, and

5) reset the world, making all other governments and corporations irrelevant and putting the innocent and gentle in charge.

I have no idea what comes after that, because then it'll be up to them. Who else would you trust with our future? It beats our current options, doesn't it?

We've got a google doc that we'll be updating as we get more questions. There's no problem that can't be resolved at this point, because you'll soon see that this is a FAR more plausible steady-state than anything we see in the real world.

Without further ado, here's a google .doc in which Doctor Who points out the obvious and shows us how to crowdsource a revolution.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f8y4rSoRO91gfXjsw6g6FN_AVGTMcHVqUtwJ3bGjYpE/edit?usp=sharing

Also, we posted it on Boingboing and already a couple of people are getting it! Love those guys!

http://bbs.boingboing.net/t/wherein-the-doctor-explains-how-to-save-us-from-ourselves/6911

And lastly, for those who want to see some origins, here's the thread that helped us along the path (Thanks Amanda for the reminder!)

http://www.ted.com/conversations/18110/could_a_few_of_us_get_some_hel.html

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 18 2013: Hi everyone, How does Co-opernation move forwards? Some time ago I did quite a bit of detailed research into how an alternative, parallel society might look more importantly, get started. I recorded a lot of this in a blog. www.cynapse1000.weebly.com . The development of the arguments is best read chronologically. My experiment there failed to reach critical mass and become self-sustaining. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps the time was wrong. Have a look and take what you need
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2013: Thanks!

      Honestly, we're all running into a similar problem, I think. Certainly just among the people who regularly hit TED we've got orders of magnitude more people than we need who'd enthusiastically do something like this, and while gleefully abusing the corporation isn't the only mechanism, it sure is an obvious one since it's such a powerful beast.

      Nobody seems to be getting the attention of people who have the resources or platform to get us organized, however . . . perhaps only those of us who don't are frustrated enough to look for more creative solutions? Because it's kind of obvious that if you give most of us something better to do and TAKE CARE OF US while we're doing it, then you're going to completely change the world. . . nobody can compete with that, the bar's set so very, very low.

      We were hoping this would be the place! But having read a bunch of other threads I'm not seeing much connecting of ideas with practical solutions that allow people to dedicate effort to them, just lots of amazing ideas that seem to kind of fade away.

      I suppose they say nothing important is easy, but this shouldn't be as hard as people are making it out to be. We shouldn't have to have put together a fraction of the work we did to kick something off. Heck, it should have happened without us, right? I mean, how do you not see half these TED talks and not see solutions rather than problems? Isn't that what this place is FOR?

      I'll extend this, just in case something useful comes, even if it's just a couple more of us that combine whatever last few elements people need for this to click.

      Already browsed some of your blog, going to camp there a bit now! :)
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2013: Hey, a quick follow-up!

      First, I LOVED the way you took the 'Imagine if there was no heaven' bit, I've been designing in a Teapot Agnostic way, because I think that's a very strong angle (because let's be honest, the line between 'what we can measure' and 'what we can't' isn't all that fuzzy, is it? And I like being able to say certain things are just none of anybody else's business), but yes. . . behaving as if . . . that has some power too.

      And then the question. . . with the basic concepts you have, what happens if you add the 'corporation as a nation' and 'hiring into citizenship' angles?
      • thumb
        Aug 19 2013: Hi William,

        Like you, as I watched more and more TED talks, I noticed connections and themes that appeared to show an emerging zeitgeist at odds with how the world is actually run. I started to investigate these themes in the blog.

        I think one of the issues that you have to beware of is that the analogy of a corporation brings with it all sorts of expectations, not the least that work done for it will be paid. That creates a very high bar to entry as the funds to achieve this have to be raised. Investors usually require a working prototype or proof of a business case. For this reason, you might want to start by looking at how open source projects can evolve into revenue earning entities over time. With open source, the entry bar is low and people can give as much or as little time as they want. You can demonstrate to investors that the network of people that you have assembled is effective, whilst growing the network. Humans learn by copying. Make something small and manageable that others can grow by copying. This will hopefully take some of the load that you feel away.
        • thumb
          Aug 19 2013: "I think one of the issues that you have to beware of is that the analogy of a corporation brings with it all sorts of expectations, not the least that work done for it will be paid. That creates a very high bar to entry as the funds to achieve this have to be raised. Investors usually require a working prototype or proof of a business case. "

          Yeah, part of that has to be somebody else's job, but there are lots of other people who can handle that. It's not like largely useless business aren't started up.

          However, I've got to point out that there's a context here that has to be broken. A corporation doesn't have to make a financial profit to survive, that's a point I'm trying to make. Once it has enough of a supply chain under it's wing it can pretty much ignore the rest of the world if it wants to (we're not going that route specifically, because we want o interface as we grow) . . .

          Does the idea of taking a Mondragon type operation and designing it to be able to hire people more freely work better for you then?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.