Archive for the 'Abundance' Category

Page 4 of 6

Friend-to-Friend Commerce (F2F)

I was talking with Taj of the Denver Abundance League on Saturday about how we can make the league more meaningful on a day-to-day basis. Imagine what it would be like to experience the mutually-supportive environment we create at monthly meetings, but on a daily basis.

This lead me to the concept of Friend-to-Friend commerce. Instead of putting your stuff on Craigslist or eBay and selling to a stranger, why not sell to a friend? I mean think about it, most people never even let their friends know they’re selling something on a C2C site. That’s weird. Why not let your friends know first? Why not give them first dibs. Or even better, just give the item to a friend, someone that you love, trust, and want to help. And what if all your friends did the same thing? And what if listings went beyond stuff and included all kinds of support? F2F commerce might be a way to experience extraordinary generosity every day.

This idea may represent a gigantic cultural lacuna. There’s only one result that comes back from a google search on the exact term “friend-to-friend commerce” or the same without dashes. And that result is in reference to marijuana sales networks in the law enforcement domain. In a way, that shows the power of the corporate controlled marketplace – we do not see our friends as sources of material sustenance. We search vertically to get our needs met, not horizontally. That’s radically undemocratic. Conversely, Friend-to-Friend Commerce is radically democratic.

  • Share/Bookmark

Quote of the Moment

Here’s a great quote I found in the chapter on DIY in Chris Carlsson’s new book Nowtopia:

“As long as I’ve been involved in this “punk” culture, I’ve been inundated with the idea of DO IT YOURSELF. And it makes sense that fixing your own bike will save you money, but I couldn’t really see how these little things made that big a difference. One of the things that frustrated me was that it is difficult to “do it yourself” when you don’t know how and there is no one to teach you…The more we network, the more we can really step away from consumer culture. I figure that the more I can do for myself, the more I can do for someone else too. I can fix bikes, someone else can garden, or plumb, or build stuff…I keep reading more about these communities that are becoming more self-sufficient, and don’t have to rely upon grocery and department story chains, and that’s where I really see the benefit in DIY.”

-Matte Resist

  • Share/Bookmark

Ridesharing Site Under Fire from Bus Company


Red, Green and Blue reports that a bus company is challenging a ridesharing service called PickupPal in a regulatory battle in Canada saying PickupPal represents unfair competition. Read more here.

In reading further on PickuPal’s blog, I find that Ontario has incredibly restrictive carpooling regulations. Carpooling regulations!? Who knew carpooling was regulated, I mean like anywhere. In these regulations, it seems you’re only allowed to carpool to work, can’t cross municipal boundaries, and more seeming nonsense.

Wow, these regulations have really cut off citizen’s ability to serve themselves. Well, PickupPal is trying to change the regulations, though there’s undoubtedly another side to this story.

For instance, if ridesharing displaced enough business to cause the bus system to fail, then what about the folks who rely on regular bus service to get to and from work and have no affordable alternatives? I wonder if ridesharing could provide enough regularity to serve bus dependent folks for their work-related transportation needs.

While I support citizens creating, protecting, and responsibly using commons of all sorts, this may not be a cut and dried issue. Both systems represent a sort of commons. The issue would be more clear to me if one these companies was owned and democratically controlled by citizens through a cooperative. I would support the citizen effort as long as it worked well.

As it is, both companies appear to be privately owned. It would be easy to criticize the bus company for what appears to be a dubious claim of “unfair competition” against a popular effort by PickupPal. But let’s not ignore the fact that PickupPal is a private company that seeks to exploit the labor of ordinary citizens to create a valuable commons which it will own exclusively.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Benefits of Dematerializing the World – Alex Steffen at PopTech 2006

  • Share/Bookmark

Money Can Make You Happy…If You Give It Away

New research by Havard Business School shows that spending on someone else, either on a friend or a cause, can lead to increased well-being:

“Our findings suggest that very minor alterations in spending allocations—as little as $5 in our final study—may be sufficient to produce non-trivial gains in happiness on a given day.”

The cool thing is that it isn’t how much you give away that influences increases in happiness, it’s the percentage of your income you spend on others that matters. Apparently, this phenomenon works on a sliding scale. The higher the percentage of your giving, the more the gains. Those able to give thousands or millions of dollars do not have an advantage here.

An interesting backdrop on this recent research is the well-known finding that there’s a big lift in happiness once someone moves out of poverty into the lower-middle class, but further increases in income do not lead to increases in happiness.

The implication here is that to continue getting happiness gains relative to income, you have to begin to give when you have just enough to give and increase the percentage of your giving as you’re able.

The other interesting comment in the article indicates the importance of intention:

“Intentional activities—practices in which people actively and effortfully choose to engage—may represent a promising route to lasting happiness. Supporting this premise, our work demonstrates that how people choose to spend their money is at least as important as how much money they make,” the researchers explain.

This is really interesting. While governments have arguably had mixed results in promoting social justice by redistributing wealth using mandatory taxes, it seems that individuals have a built-in psychological incentive to redistribute on their own once they have enough. What if we created a society that leveraged this opportunity in human nature? For instance, bigger tax breaks for charitable giving, an efficient market in philanthropy, and a robust culture of generosity.

In any case, I think intention and choice really matter when it comes to how we contribute to the common good. I’m inclined to believe that the most good is done on both the giving and receiving side of the equation “when the giver actively and effortfully engages.” Our gifts have more power when they’re voluntary and aligned with our passions. And this way of giving is more personally satisfying.

Any comments on these ideas?

  • Share/Bookmark

The Short History of Consumer Culture

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74cO9X4NMb4&hl=en]

A recent Orion article is the best little primer on the origin of consumer culture I’ve read. “The Gospel of Consumption” highlights the key individuals, groups, documents, and events that shaped the culture we live in today.

The protagonists in this article – manufacturers and conservatives – sought to change the underlying assumptions about what constitutes the good life in order to create a more business friendly environment. In their self-serving view, the good life meant consuming as much as possible (so that they could keep their factories busy) within a free market society (so that they could unburden themselves of any responsibility to citizens and country). They used a tidal wave of commercial advertising, brilliant public relations, and relentless political propaganda to do this.

A classic example is the 1939 World’s Fair, which the video above promoted. This massive public relations effort helped define the good life in seductive terms that served manufacturers and articulated the cornerstone of conservative economic thinking. As the article says, it laid the ideological groundwork for postwar consumer society.

What strikes me about the fair are the lengths the promoters went to physically manifest this vision. The fair was something you could walk through, touch, and experience directly with your friends and family. It engaged all the senses. It expressed an ideology that was consistent with American values yet interpreted them in a new way that cast business as the hero in an narrative about liberation. It’s a vision packaged with the care and skill of a P&G marketer. The completeness and scale of the effort persuades by itself. It’s a testament to the determination and long-term thinking of the business elite of the time. There is much to learn here, but I’d be careful to borrow their strategy wholesale.

A key architect of this spectacle was Edward Bernays, one of the fathers of public relations, and not coincidentally, Sigmund Freud’s nephew.

It took business interests less than 50 years to change the mind of a nation. They have been spectacularly successful. So lopsided is their victory that it comes at the expense of almost everything else – our environment, our health, our happiness, our freedom, and in increasing numbers, our livelihoods.

This Babbitopia we live in has got to be one most soulless dreams come true in history. More than that, it’s vision so potent that it could destroy the earth’s ability to support human life. Nevertheless, our society is nowhere near coming to terms with it’s destructiveness. It’s the elephant in the room no one even knows is there. But that’s natural. It’s at the root of our problems. Symptoms are so much easier to identify with. Save the Whales.

What might be new in the Orion account is that it tells of a viable and saner alternative available at the birth of consumer culture – almost brought to you by Kellogg! Seriously, the founder of the famous cereal company was a social visionary. He offered employees high hourly wages and short work weeks (30 hours). His goal was to hire more people in the company town of Battle Creek who’d have more time for the pursuit of happiness. This seemed to work for everybody. Happy employees were more productive. Employees loved it because they could spend more time on things they loved. This helped create a successful company, and an environment where the citizens of Battle Creek had the time to cultivate mind, body, family, and community.

Unfortunately for employees, the company was sold after WWII. The new owners tried to abolish Kellogg’s visionary policies by offering incentives. The changes were widely resisted, though management was determined and eventually won out. However, they couldn’t claim complete victory until the mid-eighties when the last of the holdout departments succumbed to the 40 hour work week.

What encourages me about this story is that a happy, sustainable society is not bad for business, as the Kellogg example shows demonstrated 50 years ago. And that if consumer culture was consciously created, then something more wholesome can be created in its place to serve us and the planet better. It won’t be easy, but as this history demonstrates, it’s definitely possible to change the mind of a nation.

And it might be easier to do now now that each of us can be a TV station, a newspaper, and an community organizer in our spare time at no cost – thanks to the Internet. Being able to easily create and broadcast media and organize ourselves means that we can deliberately create culture. We can change the underlying assumptions about what the good life means and organize ourselves accordingly. This is not only possible right now, it’s absolutely necessary right now.

  • Share/Bookmark

Common Wealth: The #1 Idea That Can Change the World

Time magazine’s March issue listed the idea of “common wealth” as the number one idea that is changing the world.

Here is a key passage of their write up on common wealth:

“That’s why the idea that has the greatest potential to change the world is simply this: by overcoming cynicism, ending our misguided view of the world as an enduring struggle of “us” vs. “them” and instead seeking global solutions, we actually have the power to save the world for all, today and in the future. Whether we end up fighting one another or whether we work together to confront common threats—our fate, our common wealth, is in our hands.”

And get this, it’s written by Jeffrey Sachs, AN ECONOMIST! I can hardly believe it.

If the significance of this fails to register, just consider that economics is referred to as the dismal science and studies the allocation – and they do not traditionally mean sharing – of scarce resources.

And that the for the last few decades or so, those economists espousing unchecked competition as the path to freedom and prosperity – the free market camp – have ruled the discipline. This camp includes Sachs who is famous for helping developing countries move toward competitive, free-market economies.

And that it was these free marketers who provided the intellectual underpinning of the conservative movement, whose success has lead to the systematic plundering of the American people’s common wealth for over 20 years through an indiscriminate and extreme level of privatization and deregulation (I should know, I helped as an employee of a trade association in DC) and may yet bankrupt the US Government through war.

So for an economist, and a famous free marketer like Sachs, to see common wealth as the idea that has greatest potential to change the world, and for him to write something as visionary, and just plain damn hopeful as the above, is nothing short of a miracle. Nothing dismal about it.

In any case, I’m all for a free market with the infrastructure to share my stuff with whomever I want and so that others can do the same. And that allows me to allocate my resources – without mediation – to the projects that I think will do the most for the common good. Call it a free market. Call it common wealth. I don’t care. In the end, it’s common sense.

  • Share/Bookmark

Abundance League Chapters

There are Abundance League chapters in San Francisco (founded in 2005) Harbin Hot Springs (2007) and Denver (2008). If you’d like to attend a meeting, please contact the following folks:

San Francisco, California – Neal Gorenflo (gorenflo at gmail dot com) or check this blog for meeting announcements. We usually hold meetings third Thursdays. Meeting announcements are posted the week prior.

Harbin Hot Springs, California – Russell Gonzaga (events at harbin dot org) or check their site.

Denver, Colorado – Taj Moore, e-mail tajomoore at gmail dot com or check their site.

If you’d like to start a chapter, just hold a meeting each month following the format in this post and contact me (Neal, see above) to let me know you’ve started holding meetings. I’ll list your chapter on this site. And feel free to contact me for more information about starting your own chapter. I highly recommend holding meetings. It’s fun and an amazing learning experience.

  • Share/Bookmark

Founders

Neal Gorenflo and Scott Levkoff founded Abundance League in April of 2005 after a months-long dialog that Neal initiated.

Maritza Schafer and Polly Whitaker became co-founders shortly thereafter adding their wisdom and energy to the creation of Abundance League.

After a few months, Scott and Polly decided to branch off on a similar but separate project called Beauty Engine.

Maritza and Neal have been co-hosting San Francisco Abundance League monthly meetings since then.

In 2007, Russell Gonzago formed a chapter in Harbin Hot Springs in Sonoma County California. In 2008, Taj Moore and Susan Coates formed a chapter in Denver, Colorado.

  • Share/Bookmark

Abundance League Manifesto

We believe that abundance flows from helping each other. That mutual aid, collaboration, and interdependence lead to abundance in all it’s forms – health, wealth, happiness, friendship, know how, great experiences, and more.

That scarcity is created by anything that keeps us from helping each other. That anything blocking increasing levels of cooperation cheats humanity of its full potential. That beliefs, behaviors, and social divisions that keep us from helping each other lead to poverty and violence.

That the purpose of our lives is to be of service to each other. That it is our responsibility to understand our unique abilities and passions, design a life of service that uses these for our own fulfillment and to the best advantage of others, and to find like-minded collaborators to advance our service projects. That this is not only our responsibility, but also one of the most powerful sources of purpose, meaning, and joy to do the work we were meant to do.

That it is our responsibility to improve the quality of our lives and others. That we should not expect someone else to do this for us. A better world is our responsibility and counts on our every action. That creating a better world is actually easy, counts on many little actions in our daily lives, and is something we can do now starting with those right around us.

That we have everything we need to create a better life and world within and around us. That when we act on our most deeply held dreams for humanity with humility, inclusiveness, determination, faith, generosity, honesty, and good intention, that we will be aided by those around us in the time and measure needed. That simple actions added up will not only result in a more satisfying life for ourselves, but a positive shift in world affairs.

  • Share/Bookmark