An open-source civilization is a concept rooted in the principles of the open-source movement, which originally began in the realm of software development. Open source in software refers to programs whose source code is made available to the public, allowing anyone to look at, modify, and distribute the software freely. When applied to the notion of civilization, it means the free sharing of knowledge, tools, technologies, and methodologies to collectively build and improve upon societal structures. Here’s a more detailed look:
1. Access to Knowledge:
In an open-source civilization, knowledge isn’t hoarded or gatekept by a few. Whether it’s educational content, scientific research, or technological advancements, information is shared freely. This democratizes learning and innovation.
2. Collaborative Design:
Just as open-source software benefits from many developers contributing, cities, communities, and systems in an open-source civilization are designed through collaborative efforts. People from diverse backgrounds can offer insights and skills to create more holistic and inclusive solutions.
3. Decentralization:
Centralized systems, whether in governance or production, can lead to bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and power imbalances. An open-source approach leans towards decentralization, distributing power and resources across networks of participants.
4. Transparency:
A hallmark of open source is transparency. When applied to civilization, this means governance processes, decision-making, and societal operations are open to scrutiny, allowing for accountability and trust.
5. Iterative Development:
Open-source projects, like software, are often in a state of continuous improvement. Similarly, societal systems and structures in an open-source civilization are always evolving. Feedback loops are integral, ensuring that inefficiencies are addressed and systems are refined.
6. Resilience through Diversity:
Just as biodiversity is crucial for ecological resilience, an open-source civilization encourages diverse solutions and approaches. Multiple solutions can coexist, ensuring that there isn’t a single point of failure.
7. Redefining Value:
In an open-source world, value isn’t just monetary. Contribution to the community, sharing knowledge, and collaborative spirit are as (if not more) valuable than fiscal wealth.
8. Adaptability:
As new challenges arise, the open-source nature of the civilization allows for swift adaptation. Solutions can be crowdsourced, tested, refined, and implemented rapidly.
Challenges:
Like any model, an open-source civilization would face challenges. Balancing individual rights with collective benefits, ensuring equitable participation, and avoiding the tragedy of the commons (where shared resources can be overused) are issues that would need addressing.
In essence, an open-source civilization extrapolates the principles of open-source software to every aspect of society, creating a world that is more collaborative, transparent, and adaptable. This doesn’t mean it’s a panacea for all societal challenges, but it does offer a different paradigm for how societies can operate and evolve.
Interesting share
Something I’m very glad has happened is: we live in the best time possible to make collaborative work than ever.
The problem that many horizontal societies have experienced in history is their lack of technology to defend themselves. But in the world where there is internet to share knowledge and appropriate techniques to construct green industries. Making the reality of abundance for everybody closer than ever. And everything thanks to, mostly, public and social knowledge.
We’re entering unprecedented times to be sure. You’re right to be concerned about defense, because the authoritarian hierarchies are more than willing to use violence to squash revolution. Many of the guides I posted here encourage a bugout plan. The overarching philosophy being that outwitting the opponent is better than a battle of attrition. I hope that this will become a sort of living idea, spreading from individual to individual and avoiding conflict through wit, maneuver, camouflage, and social networking. The capitalist overlords depend on property and ownership, but if the ideas can flow into members as needed and property can be abandoned at a moment’s notice, then any attempts to infiltrate or dismantle a murmuration will result in exposure to cooperative ideologies and supportive communities. Like Sun Tzu said, “Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.”
Resources?
I have a large stash of survival resources ready to be hosted, but anybody is free to create a repository and link it to any other person they feel would benefit.
You forget the need for an FSF style fringe to make such a community stable long term.
I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about.
if you look at the Open Source Software community, you’ll notice the FSF pulls the standard towards stability and publicly shames those who try to shift the standard towards proprietary.
but if you look at the Open Hardware community, you’ll notice that it is lacking a sizable FSF community and it is sliding back into proprietary silos (Aka it is slowly dying in terms of actual openness).
I’m no expert in the open source community, but shifts such as those you’re describing seem to be more of a cultural/political phenomenon related to the combined perspectives of the participants. Given the decentralized nature of Project Murmuration, I am sure that some groups will choose to isolate themselves and protect a portion of their accumulated knowledge. As each participant is an authority unto themselves, any member could decide that their larger flock is heading into danger and make their own adjustments, either by raising concern, forking the community, or joining a new one. It’s not only an option, it’s encouraged in order to diversify and expand the population.
indeed, the default open and cooperation requires what social scientists call a cultural subsidy which historically is contributed by zealots.
