Why The Future Depends On Hearts, not heads

It’s fine (and fun for some) to talk about future technologies, planned future mega-cities, energy systems, transportation systems, water producing systems and the like, when contemplating transitioning to the a better future.

But a better future requires primarily changing people, or at least facilitating that change in some way.

Technology is not going to make the transition happen.  Psychological change within a critical mass of humanity will.  In a The Young Turks interview, Peter Joseph talks about how the transition must take place within each person. He says “When you talk about [the transition] literally, it’s the change of the human being, the change of you and I”.  

Peter’s quote is interesting to me.  One, because he’s 100 percent correct.  It’s also interesting because few talk about doing what Peter says must happen.

Sure, there are lots of people encouraging ecovillages, community gardens and personal behavior changes.  But those approaches preach to the choir: The people participating in these projects are idealistic, interested in lifestyles and values aligned with such practices. They are not, in my opinion, representative of everyone else.

It’s ok to preach to the choir. One must start somewhere.  Fundamental change though requires reaching people with no interest in changing.  We’re going to have to reach people who are apathetic about themselves.  We also must reach people in denial about self-transformation.

Starting with the choir makes sense because even with social media’s tentacles spread everywhere, an evangelical army must fan out, help folks understand why change is necessary, and help them make the change however they can.

Change makes change worthwhile

The deep, personal changes, changes which cause an individual paradigm shift can ignite hope.  Hope can show people practical solutions to problems to intractable problems are available.

Without such awareness, none of the apathetic/in denial majority – the people who have to “see it to believe it” – will support a new idea.  It is a marketing problem. I think reaching people requires giving them hope.

I believe change must include facing one’s conditioning before hope is possible. Especially for those really stuck in the status quo.

It’s not easy sparking hope in a person. Maybe that’s why so many focus on future technologies instead of people. We believe technological advancement will take care of itself.

We focus on changing people’s perspectives. We use words and pictures and movies, but also demonstration projects where the difference between earning a living and Real Freedom can be seen, and more importantly, felt.

Feeling change is important

Here’s an interesting conversation that happened in our early demonstration projects. It shows how deep, personal changes, changes I call “psycho-emotional-social shifts” happen when participating in a project.

A participant enjoyed accommodations, a meal, hospitality all provided at no cost to her and her daughter while they traveled from Northern California on the way to Seattle. While enjoying what she received from her host, she offered bookkeeping expertise to the host. She felt it would be a good “trade” as part of the project, she, receiving hospitality and, in return, offering bookkeeping.

That’s not how Copiosis works though.  It isn’t a barter economy, where “trades” happen. It is a gift economy. The gift of housing and food the participant’s host provided came at NO COST to her.  No cost includes no obligation to give something in return for getting something at no cost.

The participant admitted feeling very uncomfortable about that. The word she used was feeling “pain” over it. Examining her discomfort, she realized she felt obligation, an obligation born of the belief – a belief created by capitalism – that nothing is free and that if someone does something for you YOU MUST GIVE SOMETHING IN RETURN.

In Copiosis, the role of the consumer is to gladly, lovingly, appreciatingly RECEIVE what the producer is lovingly, gladly, appreciatingly offering. There is no reciprocation. Reciprocation can happen. But it’s not obligatory.

In return for the producer’s generous act, the producer is rewarded by society (via the Copiosis Organization) with NBR.

Obligatory giving is not giving

What is fascinating is how ingrained this reciprocation conditioning is. Our conditioning teaches us to feel guilt and pain in receiving something for nothing, when, in fact, receiving things for nothing is the natural state of everything.

Have we forgotten what it’s like to lovingly receive? Who taught us receiving is bad, particularly if we don’t give back? Where is the freedom in that? Where is the love and cooperation?

Receiving doesn’t incur debt. Unless the giver is not giving freely. This is why real freedom underlies Copiosis. Here’s what real freedom sounds like:

There’s no need for obligatory giving. That’s not giving.

Many such examples show how our demonstration project model creates what Peter is talking about. Circumstances wherein people change. Change like that isn’t exclusive to demonstration project participation. It happens when people learn more about how Copiosis works.

However they happen, such changes are key. They will catalyze humanity’s shift from what we have to something better. Without this cultural, social, psychological, emotional shift among a critical mass of people, the kind of shift we want to see is just not possible.

Real change for the better starts first in people’s hearts. Technology can’t do that.