Can we get beyond the one-state vs. the two-state solution?   Fear and confusion are not leading toward any agreement.  We must find other pathways.  

Can Israel be a “Jewish State” even if they only have a minority of the population?  Yes.  We seem unable to think beyond the words “majority” and “minority”.  The concept of majority comes from a time when actual fighting could be avoided when one side had an obvious advantage in numbers.   Yet many democracies have leaders chosen by a plurality, not a majority.  Leaders may become afraid of a majority, yet in reality, it is the leaders of various groups who decide what constitutes a government.  They decide what is written into a constitution. 

Even if Jews constitute a minority, the responsibility for the military could be given to Jewish secular leaders.  This might make sense in light of the number of wars that Israel has had with its Arab neighbors.   Other groups might take responsibility for other parts of the government.  

Grassroots citizens generally want public administrators who are fair and constructive.  They want an environment that is stable and predictable so that they can do their work and get on with their lives.  Toward that end, there should be referenda that allow for removal of any public administrator or politician by 80% of a minority of people who live in a region, or 60% of the general population of that region. Such an arrangement would benefit greatly from third party observers who can travel anywhere, talk to anyone, and help set up referenda if necessary.   Third party observers might come from the United Nations or other individual states. 

The modern nation-state came into being at the end of the Thirty Years War when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed by 109 signatories.  Negotiations took place over six years and in two separate locations.  It was the structure that allowed the various warring parties to come to an agreement. 

Political scientist Hans Morgenthau stressed the need for balance rather than domination.  Creating balance can be done with feedback and accountability mechanisms written into the structure by leaders at the start, or created by other groups at a later date.  This concept can be further developed to include voting on specific issues by groups that are “naturally balanced”.   E.g. Everyone who has a birthday in March can use their extra and special vote for Issue X.  

Church (religion) v. State power battles have gone on for centuries.  The role of the State is to set boundaries and rules of what people cannot do.  The role of religion, on the other hand, is to prescribe what people should do, to help find purpose and center for their lives.  Mixing these roles leads to corruption. 

From the Jewish perspective, it all started on October 7.  From a Palestinian perspective however, they (Palestinians) have been brutalized for decades,  and yet  there are many Jews and Palestinians who do not hate each other.  They look for ways to get along.  This could be a starting point in forming mixed enclaves around the country and provide some extra measure of security with hybrid communities.   Diaspora Jews, scattered around in a world that is now aligning against Israel, will also likely be safer from retribution.  

It is possible then to create one state with multiple minorities including Jews, Palestinians, Non-Palestinian Arabs, and Christians.  

Summary

1. Secular Jews head up the military.  This can be written into the constitution. 
2. Referenda can be done to remove any politician by 80% of a minority or 60% general vote in any region.  
3. Third party observers must be allowed to talk to anyone and help to set up referenda.  These observers might come from the UN or individual states. 
4. Tear down the walls around Gaza and allow anyone to live anywhere.  

Jo Suter

March 2024                                                                                       

A Different and Dynamic Democracy for Israel-Palestine (DDIP)

 ABSTRACT:  4 Main points

  1.    Minority (Jews) can still control military and for now, police. 

2.   60% General vote and 80% Minority vote can remove a politician or change a policy with a referendum in any region. 

3.   Third party observers can go anywhere, talk too anyone, and help set up referenda if needed.   

4.   Settlements must accept equal numbers of “outsiders” or dismantle. 

The power of democracy is related to feedback and accountability from the voters on a regular basis. This feedback can be more dynamic however, allowing for a variety of responsibilities by different groups.  Israel fears being in a minority, especially when surrounded by Arab states.  One-person-one-vote may not work well in this situation since non-Jews could take control of top seats in government.

This requires a change in the structure of democracy to allow all minority groups to have a specific function.  Israel can keep control of the military and police, though the police function could change later. The key part is that other minorities in any region can call for referendum or removal from office any politician or any decision-maker by 80% of minority or 60% of a general vote of that region.  This will induce politicians to think more about the fairness and feasibility of their decisions. 

A dynamic democracy will depend on active participation by an outside third party, at least to start.  Third parties, whether they be from the United Nations or neighboring states, can help communication and formulation of feedback referenda.  Feedback from leaders to the voters can also evolve.  Third party participants must have access to any and all areas and be able to talk to anyone.

Settlements must change and may be safer from attack if they accept “outsiders”.

Since the march last week to support a ceasefire, the war is widening.  The governments of Israel and the US are ignoring the International Court of Justice and ignoring the will of the majority of the people.  On Democracy Now, Ha’aretz journalist Gideon Levy reports that Israeli media are mostly not covering the suffering of Palestinians, despite the fact that there is no censorship.  Media editors must simply believe that their readers do not want to hear the other side of the conflict and so their readers will never see and understand what people in Gaza are suffering.   

Here in the US too, people do not want to think or talk about Gaza.  It may be because they lack the tools for talking and have no way to discuss difficult issues without getting into verbal battles with their neighbors.  This could be one of our tasks – to create places and ways to talk, think, and maybe act.  Start at the local restaurants, including the more expensive ones.  Call or write to the restaurant owner and ask them to close their restaurant one day a week and post a sign that they will remain closed on that day until there is a Ceasefire in Gaza.  They might add on the sign that they support both Israel and Palestine.  But in any case, the fighting must cease.  

The response from the owner might be agreement, disagreement, or simply ignoring the request.  A follow-up request can be more to the point, indicating that we may arrive and hand out pamphlets to their patrons, though not supporting any one side but simply indicating where they might get better information than they will get on mainstream media.  As uncomfortable as this might be, it is the start of a wider conversation.  It moves beyond preaching to the choir and creates places for people to meet and talk on many issues.  There is a possibility that the community may still support that restaurant and make up for lost business.  

If God is present with us, then we are contributing to The Story with our daily decisions and actions. 

To sit and hear the reading of the Torah is both humbling and exciting, realizing that this is what our ancestors nearly 2.500 years ago were doing in almost exactly the same way and using the same words.  It fills one with awe.  Yet, we are a different people in many ways.

With the War in Gaza, Israel has lost its innocence.  No longer can Jews be the perpetual victim.  The Holocaust really happened, but that was during the time of our parents and grandparents.  That was their challenge.  We cannot be expected to fight the same fights that they did.  Our enemies are not even the same. 

Jews must not carry the burden of fears and hatreds of their fathers nor want to pass on these same fears and hatreds to our children.  To throw off the burdens of our fathers, we must forgive them for expecting us carry their burdens.  The cycle of life and death must allow each generation to start anew in some way or another, while still carrying the culture forward.  We cannot do to others what was done to us.  Otherwise we become the thing that we hate.

  December 15, 2023

   By Josuter 

It seems that people the world over have struggled for centuries to be heard.  A new form of government was hammered out over those centuries with many battles, but it proved to be a better form of government in most situations.  The basis of this new government structure was one-person-one-vote.  Sounds simple enough, and it sounds fair.  Whoever gets a majority wins.  

This is unsettling for Israel.  If they allow Palestinians a vote, then in the places where the Palestinians outnumber the Jews, the Palestinians might take top positions in government.  That could be fatal for the vision of Israel as a Jewish state.

The concept of majority is about the feeling of fairness, primarily the feeling of fairness in the people with pitchforks and weapons ready to fight.  If the opponent has more people than we do, maybe we should just go home and call it a day.  

That was Democracy 101.  A type of one-state solution may be better than a two-state solution in the short run, allowing Palestinians to live freely in Israel but not allow Palestinians to carry any arms.  They could not form a military.  They might have their own police in some areas, but not in all areas.  What do the Palestinians get in return?  An 80% vote by Palestinians can remove any politician from office at any time.  (or by 60% of the general public).  The goal here is to get politicians to be real leaders of all the people – or they are out.  This could be written into the constitution in the same way that 2/3 majority is written in for specific situations.  

The Right of Return by Palestinians to their homes that are now occupied by settlers is a difficult issue, but it too can be handled with a new structure.  Half of the settlers could remain in half the houses of any one settlement.  The other half would be Palestinians, Christians, or other outsiders.  If there is any significant level of fighting then all will be removed, and the homes given to someone else. Democracy 202 pushes people to talk and solve problems together.  

Democracy 202 is an establishment of better feedback and better structures to govern all people.  People generally have a good sense of leadership if they have good information.  First amendment rights will be essential.  A change in structure of this kind would require help from outside countries or maybe the UN to enforce it in an efficient and effective way.  But it is time to take democracy to a new level. 

  Taiwan the Bride   –   A Case for Interlocking Squares ( ISQ )    –    November 2023            

       by josuter                     

With all the attention that the US and China are giving Taiwan, one might think that Taiwan is a bride with two suitors.  This metaphor can be useful, reflecting real power in Taiwan’s position to open up new and creative options in the geopolitical sphere. 

The Taiwanese are very close ethnically and linguistically to the Chinese.  If Taiwan voted to join China – for whatever reason – would the US allow them to make such a move?  Whatever benefits there might be to joining China must be weighed against what happened to Hong Kong.  Taiwan still has a choice but it cannot wait too long to start the process.   

One option is ISQ or Interlocking Squares, in which Taiwan would pick 3 or more countries to each have a small military base at least a square mile within Taiwan but along the coast where access to that base from the ocean side is unrestricted.  This square is much smaller than Guantanamo which is 45 square miles.  This is Taiwan’s choice and by invitation only.

This type of structure could allow the Taiwanese to invite China to help with administrative and cultural events but not allow them to take over the police or military.

Significant differences between the Guantanamo and ISQ structures keep Taiwan in the driver’s seat. Taiwan would have significant protection from those 3 or more countries.  Besides the difference in size there are more nations involved and personnel might interact with the locals in a way that is impossible at Gitmo.  An ISQ might participate in the local economy as a way to offset the cost.  And of course each Square must have a soccer team.

What is the alternative?  If Taiwan takes no initiative in creating a new security structure, they run the risk of being crushed in a war between China and the US.  Millions of Taiwanese may die and destruction of the country could follow.

Priorities and Problems of an ISQ structure

Communication must be a high priority, not simply between the foreign military Squares but among the Taiwanese themselves if they are to resist single-minded bureaucrats.  We may not be able to make all countries into democracies, but we can make them listen to each other.  Each ISQ can facilitate this communication with radio and internet communications throughout the whole of Taiwan, or by face-to-face meetings.

When important decisions are made the question will arise “Who’s the boss?”  Is it Taiwan or the total ISQ?   Disciplinary problems of foreign personnel might be made by the collective ISQ.   Other decisions might be made by a mix of Taiwan and one or several ISQ’s.   If there are bureaucrats who seem to be engaged in a mission-creep of slowly taking over the government or police, as the Chinese did in Hong Kong, they might be identified by either Taiwan or any of the Squares.  Other questions that arise could be made into a referendum and put to a vote by local or larger groups. 

Questions or comments welcome.

jsuter@sbcglobal.net

                

For many people, democracy is the highest form of social organization and has done wondrous things for many people.  Yet there are dark clouds on the horizon for democracy as the BRICs countries seem to be on the rise.  What happened?  How did democracy lose its power?  

One of the main problems is that the feedback structure has been lost or is becoming dysfunctional.  Sure, we can vote every 2-4 years, but that kind of feedback may not be enough for a complex society.  Any well functioning system must have good feedback loops, not only for internal regulation, but also to be able to respond to external changes.  Good feedback can be defined here as useful information from the right place and at the right time.  A system that cannot provide accurate and useful ideas to the right places has become corrupt.  ( “corrupt” in the technical sense of not functioning the way it should).  

So we have decreased feedback to and from our leaders, but also to each other.   We all make decisions as individuals but gather and filter information as groups. Mainstream media that had previously provided this feedback are now owned by big business and generally unaware of their loss of credibility.  

Democracy 101 was designed to prevent the re-accumulation of power in a monarchy.   The designers did this by creating a distribution of power balance in the 3 branches of government, something that dictators do not have. 

It can be useful to examine the 3 main types of power: P1- Coercive Force of Arms, as described by Max Weber in the 19^th Century (a.k.a. Barrel of a Gun), P2- Economic and financial power, and P3- Useful Information.  Feedback falls into this last type.

The task of Democracy 202 then, is to reconnect the channels of communication and accountability between leaders, citizens, and the outside world.  We all have a bias, but we can set up a structure to balance the bias by creating small groups to provide useful feedback with an Information Gathering Process (IGP).  The small groups can be a dozen people randomly mixed into teams of players and a panel of judges.  Start with a specific Discussion Question (DQ), divide into teams and have the judges pick the best ideas.  The DQ is chosen by sponsors or by the players.

In order to get real change, one must engage people outside your own circle.  The prize can be useful to bring in other people.  Find a few people outside your usual group and mix them into the process.  Show them how to do the IGP.  We must push others to make decisions, even small decisions to start.  Give them time to think, but also give them something to think about.  Let’s use our natural desire for competition to challenge each other.

Results must be seen as useful by leaders and decision makers.  If not, they can repeat the process with another small group.  This is not the same as focus groups.  This is real competition with winners and losers.  

Outsiders will try to grab the type 1 and 2 Power Rings and so will meet a lot of resistance, including misinformation, slander, and personal attacks.  The 3^rd Power ring of Useful Information will continue to be essential for the working of the system however, and can be key to creating change when needed. 

Some leaders may not want more feedback and may continue to jail whistleblowers who give out too much information.  People in power and those who surround them often feel they do not have to listen to outsiders.  They will use talking heads to tell stories, sometimes powerful stories.  Talking heads will always be talking heads, even after replacement by AI.  The question is “Will listeners believe and act on it?”

The IGP structure can provide deniability for individuals while still finding and moving useful information forward.  The process must be efficient.  Like any game, half an hour up to two hours is best, so multiple rounds can be done within 24 hours.  Longer, more complex questions can be addressed by giving out the DQ, choosing teams, then recess for a day or two for players to find more info, then re-convene to play the game.  The organizer should not pick a DQ that is too far ahead of the experience and understanding of the players but still challenge them.

The same IGP structure can be use to:

1. Develop Better Questions

2. Push the results up the social ladder to leaders

3. Test results from other groups

4. Grow the groups

5. Start new IGP groups on other issues

6. Push to increase the number of people involved

An example of an issue that could be addressed with IGP is waste in government – a big issue but starting small it can advance rapidly. 

If we get through the Gaza War safely, Israel and Palestinians must still decide on a one-state v two-state structure.  IGP and Feedback can be used in either case and written into the constitution.  e.g. People born in the month of January can be remove Politician X from office by a 2/3 vote.  It is not necessary to have everyone vote on every issue to make it fair and balanced.  This IGP structure looks a lot like a sandlot baseball game and somewhat artificial, but useful way to create a division of labor for gathering and filtering information.  Like all sports, it is a temporary structure.  The prize money can come from sponsors or, to make it self-sustaining, from the players themselves.

by jo suter September 2023

In “Tyranny, Inc.” Sohrab Amari makes astute  observations and analyses about the surveillance and coercion used by private corporations, including mainstream media now mostly owned by big business and big tech.  He admits it will require more than political or legal solutions, yet he falls into the same pattern and ends with a chapter “In Defense of Politics”.  Maybe these are the tools he knows.  

Amari expands on Galbraith’s idea from the 1950’s of “countervailing power” to describe the balancing of business power by various consumer organizations at the time.  That balance of power has now tipped away from citizens who make up most of the work force.  What changed?  The new information technology that should be flattening the playing field seems to be working in favor of those at the top.  

The same information technology has also decreased the time of interaction with real people.  Voice mail and email are easy to put on the back burner or simply not answer at all.  It’s a bit of power used by managers and their assistants at each level of the social hierarchy and manifested often on social media platforms.  

The driver of surveillance and coercion comes from fear, either real or imagined, about the expectations of the boss or others around who might want surveillance or coercion of someone who is not getting with the program.  It’s easy enough to do and carries little consequence in an era of instant disconnect.  

Grass roots people who make up much of middle management are often asked to make decisions on inadequate information.  Yet these same people, as individuals, still have valid points of view if they stop to reflect – or if anyone might ask them.   So they do what they believe is expected of them. 

Find, Filter, and Move Useful Information

What would a new “countervailing power” look like in this era?  Politics and legislation will still be needed and used, but now the emphasis is on communication.  We need a structure and process for small groups to efficiently find and filter useful information that can also be used as feedback to the right places.  This feedback might go to an individual, other small groups, decision makers, and politicians.  It can be private, but more likely to be made public if the feedback is ignored. 

Feedback loops that move useful information to the right time and right place can be filtered by small groups who do the work to make it useful.  We currently operate on what might be called Democracy 101 that uses feedback from voters every 2 to 4 years.  Democracy 202 could be a better system that uses feedback on a timely basis with specific information and ideas that could be useful to decision makers.  Leaders need useful information, not simply petitions from special interest groups.

Small mixed groups, acting as sensors in the feedback loop, use private group meetings alternating with public team presentations.  This process can be repeated to find useful information without fear of the individual standing up in front of a group like public speaking.  This is a widespread fear that is often paralyzing.  It’s pretty human.  

Small groups with the right process can lead to discovery and development of new ideas.   It can offer new ways of looking at the same stubborn problems.  And it can be started by anyone at any level.  Groups that try to use this method for their own ends will receive feedback from other small groups.  

Hire and Higher 

Small groups can be used as a structural unit of employment.  A group of people are hired (or fired) together, leading them to pull together and watch out for each other. Such a method could be instituted either by an employer or by a group of employees who want to divided one job position among several workers.  The employees will then decide who works on what days, giving them more flexibility.  

Higher education too can admit small groups of students rather than make decisions about admission on an individual basis.  Some percent of slots filled by admission of a small group decreases the emphasis on admission test scores but puts more of the burden on that group of students who must pull together and help support each other.  If any of them drops out, they must all drop out.  They are helping each other climb the mountain as a team.  The question of being fair is not the pivotal question here.  This process does not preclude admission at a later date.  

Follow the AI?

With censorship and surveillance on the rise, it may be impossible to know who is calling the shots.   AI will likely make this worse.   People in your own circle will become even more distant.  Decision makers will tend to accept only from insiders and ignore what they do not want to hear.  Bubbles of ignorance start here.   

Additional forms of non-high tech communication can be developed easily at the local level with simple mediums such as a sheet of paper for those physically close.  This does not replace high tech but augments it.   Pushing communication tools forward concurrently with other issues can allow other small groups to use it also.  

Grassroots citizens are smart enough but often live in a smaller world.  Their fear or imagined fear of what others might think can come from any direction.  Their fear is that of being an outcast – a dangerous position in all social groups.  But grassroots citizens do have other advantages – they have knowledge and pay attention to what is happening locally.  They know and care about others.  And they like to play games.  Small group feedback does not have to be tedious.  It can be challenging and playful.   

Hiding Behind the Hyphenated-Justice                       July 2023

   by josuter                                                           

Justice

Hyphenated or not, “Justice” has become attached to many political and social movements.  It’s everywhere: Climate Justice, Social Justice, Racial Justice, Gender Justice, or Economic Justice.  But does the association with “Justice” have the desired effect?  Is there any way to enforce it?  Justice implies going into a court of law where each side makes their argument followed by a decision from someone else.  Courts are notoriously slow.  Get in line.    

When we talk justice, are we seeking revenge, or trying to gain some advantage? Certainly justice and legislation are important, but insufficient to move toward needed changes.  Now many new climate groups use the word “justice”.   So, wake up!  Get woke!  Is that an over-reaction?  Many of the issues raised by woke people are serious issues.

Decreasing carbon in the atmosphere is the key goal – or should be.  Are we meeting it?  No.  If everyone cuts back on their carbon use by half it would help . . . but it will not be enough.  Not now.  We need quantitative leaps, maybe changes in social structure if necessary.  We may need to re-org our lives.   We can make it a challenge rather than an obligation. 

Power  

We cry for justice when we should cry for power.  But people do not ask to be empowered, maybe because those with power make decisions and we feel ill prepared.  Maybe we will be challenged by others around us and attacked from any direction.  People fear public speaking for some of the same reasons.   Company boards that meet behind closed doors have privacy and deniability for the individual and the small group.  These are important in finding solutions.  Yet there must be a way to maintain integrity of the process and find the best ideas.  It’s not automatic.

The term “power” mostly means the kind of leverage exerted by governments with their military and police forces.  We can empower ourselves if we expand the definition of power to include “getting things done” or “slowing momentum of things already in motion”.  Both of these require finding and moving useful information, because useful information is power too. 

Social media gives the feeling of power, especially when it can focus many people on a few decision makers.  But does it have real power to change things?   Sometimes it divides people who should be natural allies.  Social media can certainly be powerful if there are common goals with exchange of ideas and information.  Social media in the political realm is mostly about asking  “Are you on my side?”   Simply getting angry at people you don’t like is not power.  Talking with, and making decisions with people you don’t know very well or don’t like?  That’s power.  Get an action started?  Power.

There is power in creating organization.  This may be the real force behind business success and capitalism – at least until the business decisions run into the question of morality – a morality defined as that which leads to the survival of the group.

A leader on international climate issues, Christina Figueres, recently admitted that fossil fuel companies have been pouring their profits back into drilling for more oil rather than investing in sustainable low carbon technologies.  Even if corporations are concerned with their own survival they may be unable to make moral decisions because of structural reasons.  With no attachment to a specific social and moral group, and without direct feedback, it may be difficult for corporations to change.

Does organizing always require money?  Given a goal and some incentive or tension, some organizing will happen automatically.  Finding the right process and structure to engage people in problem solving will tend to automatically engage their search for useful ideas and information – at least for short periods of time.  Short periods of time may be all that is needed to move the ball forward. It sounds like a sports game, maybe a sandlot game of baseball, not professional, and not academic game theory.

The business model is one of organization, powered by flow of wages and salaries from the top.  Democracy and capitalism (DC) together gets things done.  It is also the most efficient way of depleting Earth’s resources while dividing the spoils in a fair way of course.  Is there an alternative to democracy?  Some people seem to think so, but details on how to get there are missing. 

The related question is “Does democracy have the bandwidth to deal with climate?” Yes, if we create the tools and create a division of labor for finding and filtering useful information.  Such is the purpose of FMUI Games that can make this effort much more efficient. 

Stories and Information

None of us, as individuals, can see very far.  We tend to have a herd mentality and lose sight of the larger goals.  So we use stories to share information and ideas.

Stories and metaphors that touch reality at some point will have power.  Stories can store information and ideas about food supplies, shelter, and how to survive.  Some people are acquainted with the technical concepts of heat, temperature, energy, and kilowatts.  These are all stories, some more useful than others. 

As frameworks for thinking, mental models and metaphors are everywhere.  The mental models of heat absorption in a microwave is very much like the heat absorption of carbon in the atmosphere.  A metaphor about mountain climbing points out a foothold for the next person.  How do you know if you are going the right way?  You check your senses.  You ask questions.  You seek new information, maybe from more than one source.  You get feedback and give it too. 

Feedback is information that is essential for any system to function properly.  One can provide feedback to one’s own group or to outside groups. Feedback is not automatically accurate and can be misleading. Lack of good feedback can lead to corruption.  So we might think of using the FMUI Process-Structure for getting and giving better feedback.  It should be noted that face-to-face feedback has advantages in many situations. 

Economist William Nordhaus apparently thinks that the difference between a zero and one degree increase in average temperature is the same as three to four degrees.  He’s a linear guy.  But is this really the same?  Many processes in nature are non-linear.  Listening to the sound of a gas tank being filled up, it is apparent that near the top the sound accelerates rapidly in a non-linear fashion.  Time to stop.  When we see and feel the effects of climate change we are getting too close to the tipping points.  There seems to be a large gap between those who understand the difference between linear processes and those that don’t, even among the educated. The oil companies cited by Christina Figueres may think they are winning but they are short sighted, and they too will lose it all if they stay on their current path.  

Artificial Intelligence may give us useful information but will also be judged as good or bad depending on whether or not it increases or decreases human social interaction, already at a new low in political problem solving.  “Artificial Interaction” such as games and FMUI might be a first step in the right direction. 

Games to Find and Move Useful Information (G-FMUI)

FMUI Game structure is a process for gathering useful information and for practical problem solving.  It is power.  It is a tool for self-education and education of others.  It can also be used to find or develop better questions.  If we don’t ask the questions that come to fill our brains, then politicians, preachers, or the media will. 

Military commanders talk about OODA Loops (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), but they have a specific task and tools to test information.  We don’t have military power and may not even know what our task should be, so finding the right question, or least a good question, can be done with the same Game process.  That’s power too. 

FMUI starts with a Discussion Question (DQ), followed by private meetings of small teams of 2-5 people on each team.  Judges pick the best team answer to the DQ.  After each round, players and judges are remixed.  Games can last an hour, a day, or even a week for more complex issues.  A game around an issue is an Issue Question and one that addresses some aspect of the rules or process is a Process Question.   A series of games might lead to solving some real problem.  Power.

When climate groups obstruct traffic or disrupt some event, most people in their audience view them as simply another demonstration. . . “what is so important about 2 Degrees?  Just the other day we had a 20 degree change during the day.” Activists should follow up their action with education of the audience or help create tools for self-education such as FMUI. 

How do you know that I am not just a solar panel salesman trying to make money?

How do you know . . . anything?  Kids poke at things to see if it’s real.  Adults, who deal with more abstract ideas, must debate with other people in order to make some decision about reality, information, ideas, and applications.   It’s all information.  

We should try to love everyone, though we can’t love people we don’t know, really.  But we can help set up a system to empower everyone.  Still, much of nature is about competition.  Grassroots are the biggest sports fans and always fighting or teasing about one thing or another.  We can learn to use this friendly competition for FMUI.

Real power comes from Pushing others Up Hill (PUH)

Outside information in the form of feedback can be invaluable, whether it comes from a parent, teacher, friend, our counselor.  Outside feedback may be rejected but it can also be tested by the target audience with a similar process. 

When Martin Luther King gave his mountain top speech he also said, “I may not get there with you”.  He was implying that we need to keep climbing and pushing or pulling others up the hill.   Pushing others uphill is in contrast to the Old Testament struggles where vanquishing the other tribe was a sign that God was on our side.  We have reached a number of limits however, and so must find other options.   Pushing other communities uphill may be the only way out. 

There is power in making decisions and pushing others to make decisions.  We must push other communities toward Sustainability on Low Carbon (SLC) and maybe help with other issues too.  Pushing from the outside can help to bypass much of the natural resistance that arises within one’s own community.  So we are pushing them uphill and making a game of it.

Apps for FMUI Games:

1. Pushing Others Uphill

Push decision-making on sustainability on low carbon, education, and health care. 

2. NFW – NoFlyWednesday

Most religious leaders would agree that we are the caretakers of God’s earth, right?  How do we express that belief?  NFW is a good start, discouraging commercial flying every Wednesday, a sacred day of the week for the Earth.  The goal is to engage more of the flying public in real problem solving and bringing down carbon levels.    

3. Cop City

Near Atlanta, GA, there is a new police-military facility that appears to be a statement of political and government power.  But is it really?  Maybe in a totalitarian country.  But here it may be a sign of loss of control or maybe a sign of intense lobbying.  It is certainly divisive.  We should rather turn to city neighborhoods to choose their own police or, if corruption is too rampant, at least have each neighborhood be a filter to screen applicants.  This would be another type of feedback, but probably more effective than Cop City. 

4. K1

With the right tools, Indigenous people can lead the way against oil companies that continue to spend on drilling rather than alternate forms of energy.   K1 (1000:1) means that one thousand Indigenous people could play a Game and focus their efforts on 3 executives in the oil industry, helping them in a nice way to find jobs somewhere else, maybe in a green industry. They can do it without anger or hatred.  One dollar from each of the thousand creates a nice prize for competition among three teams of 3 people on each team and a panel of judges – about a dozen people. Focus many on a few.  It can be an entirely self-contained process with no outside help.  Multiple rounds will be needed.  The first round will focus on picking 3 executives. Our choice, not theirs. The second round will find other jobs for these executives.  The third round can focus on contacting the executives in a gentle but persistent way.   Each round can be with a different mix of players with prize money only for the winners.

5-8.  Metaphors can be explored to find ones that make the concepts of climate change more real.  Education can be improved, especially after lost time from covid.  Health Care can be optimized by starting with local communities and finding the right questions to ask.  Waste in the military and government can be minimized using a FMUI process.  It can even be funded privately. 

SUMMARY

What do we do with the increasing anger and anxiety that come with times of change?  We can use it to move forward.  Our individual horizon is limited, but stories and metaphors that connect to reality at some point can be a powerful aid.  Using games and small groups can expand our efforts. 

Good leaders do not simply make promises but ask something of their followers.  Then they also give them the tools to do the job.  If change is going to be fundamental, then there must be efforts to create ways to think, listen, plan the next steps, and move useful information.  There are answers and pieces of the puzzle from people in all directions.