Systemic Transformation

I have been playing with this thought experiment recently - when our society and culture is viewed as a system and modeled with game theory, is there an action or event that can disrupt the system, trigger the transformation, or dissolution, of that system, without violence? One such trigger, which does cause violence, would be a revolution. But are there others? I can see that there are certain long term trends that classify under my stipulation - there have certainly been civilisations that have moved from one stage to the next without violence, but I sense for us, right now, we have not the luxury of centuries of evolving to our next stage. And a regrettable down-side of most revolutions is that the new system eventually resembles the old. So my inquiry is: Is there a way to disrupt the system such that a new order is established, without violence, and without the seeds from the old system latent and able to re-establish?

It is pretty deep, I have concluded, because one path I go down is that most people, if challenged about how it is today, agree it is far from utopia, and in broad strokes would want to see transformation with more equity for all. This is true for homeless people on the street to a VP at HP who is wealthy and running a division the size of a small country. Yet each feels trapped in their place, unable to affect any serious change. And I hear this rhetoric all the way up to the president of the US. I tentatively conclude that these people are either inauthentic in their desire for change, and wish it to remain as it is, or powerful though they are, do not wield real power. Given my tendency to be trusting and think the best of people, I assume they do want what they profess.

So then, is there, are there, people who do have power who are unable (unwilling?) to see that the current balance of things is unsustainable, and perpetuate the system to further their own agenda? (And is it possible that this agenda might actually be worthwhile? Wow, never thought of that one...)

Back to the game theory model - can all this be represented in the model, and then demonstrate the existence of these unseen powers? And secondarily (but for me the main point) how can this be disrupted?

Or am I just attributing my resistance to accepting that human nature is basically selfish and greedy, and projecting this onto phantom unseen powers? A convenient fixation for me to blame? Even more insidious, am I projecting my *own* resistance to giving up my comforts, because I, too, am of the opinion that I can not affect any serious change, and that any action *I* take is so insignificant as to be useless to even attempt, onto some unseen power to justify my inaction?

Fortunately, if the game model is accurate, it wouldn't matter which of these cases holds. It might show that the disruptive action might be, for instance, if a certain number of people at a given moment burned all their dollar bills (I am grabbing a completely arbitrary example with no basis or theory!) the disruption would cause the change we seek. If I had confidence in this model, then I would participate. I suspect it will boil down to enough people with the courage of their conviction taking a unified bold leap into the unknown, transformed future, pulling the unwashed masses along with them.

I would like to think I will be one of the ones taking that leap. If only I knew what it was...

Well, deep breath... back to your regularly scheduled thoughts.

Default futures.

Does the future exist? If so, how is it created? If not, what are we living onto?

I get lost when trying to unravel how creating a relationship (or creating anything) projects something into the future, calls it forth, so to speak, and how, or even if, a default future exists. Like is there an unintentional, uncreated, future? Do animals or unconscious people live into such default futures? Do I when I get resigned, despair, or am caught in the past? Or is the default future created by the cumulative creation of those who intentionally create? And if we could unlearn all the constraints of our culture and society, what could we create for relationships, wellbeing, sustainability, abundance...

I'm right, you're right.

I am amused that comparisons of the human condition against arbitrary other species is used to bolster the argument for or against any given assertion on human sexuality, behaviour, morality, psychology, etc. Seeking to justify a given position using such comparisons is ludicrous. Such studies are legitimate trying to understand why a species behaves a certain way, but can never be used to justify 'normal' or 'abnormal' in either species.

Just looking at relationships:

There are species that mate for life. There are species that deposit sperm and scamper. There are species that kill their mate after mating. There are species where the female abandons the offspring to the male. There are species that live in pairs. There are species that live in large groups. There are species where there is a strong female in control of the group. There are species where there is a strong male in control. There are species where the female hunts. And there are species where the male hunts.

And there are examples of individuals and groups in the human species doing all of these.

Pick a favorite hot button for you. Do a quick Google on it, find your juiciest comparative study that shows this behaviour in some other species (or even other human culture) and you have irrefutable evidence that your position is right, justified, and ought to be defended (to the death, in some cases).

Pretty pointless, you'll agree.