the grid manifesto (clone of v1)
The GRID is nothing more than a concept. A concept for incremental evolution towards the harmonization of individuality and the human society understood as a collective. This concept takes the formulation of possibilities (like utopical visions) as pre-requisite for the reflection of the present in the context of a bigger picture. To achieve a level of richness of perspectives and to maintain the idea of human society as a whole, the valuing of diversity is a common sense for the GRID. An important ambition behind the GRID is to collaborate. Collaboration on promising ideas, on art, on possibly new products, on thoughts … that’s a very practical dimension of the GRID. We, the GRID collective, want to sponsor each other based on contribution, on sharing skills and perspectives. By doing so, we want to create a strong foundation for thinking and doing as well. The thinking dimension is focussed on present and future as well. Which problems do we have to overcome as global society? Which aspects determine the individual to unleash its full potential? The doing dimension is driven by the passion of experimenting, building and playing. We value the mindset of the engineer, the artist, the inventor. Doing and thinking are both connected to the spirit of change. We are deeply convinced of the idea that human society has to learn to become one global collective, which also integrates the individuality of each being. We believe that this is necessary not only for survival, but also to step finally step out of the circle of greed, pain and destruction. The articulation of bold visions, like utopical ideas, is necessary in a tim by which oldschool leaders infect the planet again with the ideas of nationalisms, elitarisms, greatness and a whole bunch of other shit. Human society came a long way to invent some good ideas like democracy, equality or environmental protection and to understand that our fate is interwinded, that our ressources are limited and that all life is valuable.
The mental model of the world has to shift into some big picture attitude. Let’s do a short experiment of thoughts…
If you project the human species in a point in time contradicting the present status quo. What are possible thoughts in here?
It is not that spectacular to think humanity without nations. It would not be extremely surprising that - in 1-2 thousands of years - we had to find ways to change our paradigms for energy production, for food production, for the search and mining and consumption of ressources, for the definition of work, for what a religion is, for technology we have to develop based on future challenges.
What do you think?
What is a minimal viable reality in a thousand years?
To be not the ultimate looser in a thousand years, what would be the consequence projected back into our present reality?
Which parameters should be taken into the calculation here?
Some aspects are rather simple:
We will have problems with ressources sooner or later. If you extrapolate the growth rate of our species for a century (like a weather forecast let’s say) and if you add the ressource consumption of today into this calculation, then you don’t have to be a genius to come to the conclusion that there might be a problem one day. How do we normally act in such situations (use history books here)? Hmmm … pretty uncool, right? Which alternative realities could be provoked then, if we change variables in the near future? Which variables do we put to discussions, which are not to discuss? Then what will result?
Some aspects are rather complicated:
Like the Club of rome had some errors in extrapolation, most people will have errors in extrapolation towards a bigger picture. Because bigger pictures never are free from intention, because you always miss the unpredictable variable, because we are only smart in reviews. That’s perhaps our cognitive condition. But the bigger picture is not really about the accurate calculation, it is about the interpretation which adaption needs to be done, if this or that outcome shall be the preferred one. Compare this to the doomsday clock … (check it out here) Most of us think, doomsday is rather uncool - let’s not have it. That’s why we measure ‘somehow on a qualitative scale’ what might be the threat causing doomsday to come. Then you can make up a system to measure against. In the beginning it was primarily related to atomic / nuclear risk. Today it is also taking other variables into the reflection, like climate change or disruptive technologies. This means - the symbol ‘doomsday’ works good enough for the projection, even more illustrated by the clock showing how near we are to that point. But the variables which might have impact on speeding up or slowing down the transition process towards a ‘really bad point in reality’ have to be updated. Also these relations has to be weighted in regards to the possible effects. All in all - it is not math, it is discussion. This is not weakining the validity of the statement, but the reference system is not built upon facts, but speculations. The matter of doomsday as a symbol for the ultimate problem would not change here.
Let’s now assume that it is not finally of any value that a mental model is built on math, but on a relational systems connecting root causes, effects, things we want or we deny. Then, it is more about where or how or under which conditions we want to be our kind to life in a future. If - and only if - we have empathy with all the unborn of us, then this would create a set of paradigms for our existence.
The bigger picture shall be connected to anything not only connected with us right now. The small picture shall be what works for us, but not for the guys after us. A construct like the ‘Doomsday’ is sort of putting most of us into the status of being innocent, as it is coming from somewhere, caused by something external. But if you take this differently into conception, then the more objective symbol would be connected to an ‘us’ deciding that there are no future version of ‘us’, right? We are never innocent or only victims as a group. As individuals, perhaps.
…
The GRID is based on the belief, that it is as has to be of importance, what each of us is doing and what we want to achieve over time. Individuality is super great. NOT the neglection of other beings after or besides one of us. Not thinking ahead is monstrous and can be compared to ultimate war crimes related to potential effects.
We have to improve ourselves to stay compatible to laws of the present!
The targets of the GRID (articulated out of a present perspective) are deeply connected to what was already introduced. To pin it down to more measurable statements, let’s take a look at a list of these:
As the initial GRID CORE we share or accumulate certain values. To identify a few of them let’s list some thoughts …
On the individual level we value:
Explicitly, we do not think that there is a huge value in conformity or normative behaviour. But compatibility to a set of values is important, even tough each value can be challenged at any time based on arguments. The different experiences of a human beings, the conclusions and insights collected, the opinions one can have - these are important sources of information for any bigger picture related discussion. Determining the diversity does not make any sense at all, when it’s about conceptual work and social reality. That’s why the GRID is really open for differencies, but a minimal buy-in for the values articulated is important.