Giver Culture

Once, in an online discussion, I was told that the idea of a Giver Culture sounds wonderful, but how would we survive if we gave everything away for free?  For some people give and give until they are in debt, which isn’t a very sustainable way to be, and definitely could not support a whole culture.

But the core idea of the Giver Culture  is not to simply give more than you have the means to give (which would surely put you into debt), but to change our behaviors from a material consuming culture to an open information-skill consuming culture, and to share what we have learned with others.

If you even spent an hour a week teaching a subject at a community college to a class of 15, you would be a Giver. This is more valuable than a material gift in many ways. Passing on knowledge/skills is the type of gift that keeps on giving. Maybe teaching 15 people is no big deal, but what if we had a culture where this was considered normal? Where the majority of people did this from time to time? Surely teaching a single class a week would not put you into debt, but you would be a Giver. In such a culture having knowledge and skills to pass on might be more of a mark of prestige than having money. And, besides deliberating illness, how could anyone take away such wealth? There is also the famous maxim ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you teach him for a lifetime.’

Gifts that keep on giving are like seeds. A seed might grow a fruit tree, which is valuable in of itself, but it also grows viable seeds within the fruits that can grow other fruit trees. Once we start thinking along these terms, we start truly giving.

Also, I tend to think that this type of behavior might slowly ease us off money. Why? Because first, such behavior once adopted by more and more of the human race will lower the population. Many countries that are developed now have a negative population rate. It has also been shown that in places, such as Bangladesh, where micro-loans have been given out with the condition that the borrowers attend weekly educational seminars, population rates have dropped drastically. Advanced education seems to have the effect of reducing the population. Especially when and if education is freely available to women.

With a lowering population, but an existing infrastructure and knowledge base, there will be more for everyone.

Also, with a culture that highly values creation and discovery, we would be creating solutions that would reduce our material needs. Cheaper energy, cheaper goods, cheaper communication etc. This would slowly ease us off money. In some ways this is already happening. Facebook provides a lot of value for its users, but I barely pay anything but my internet connection for it (which is becoming faster and/or cheaper every year). There are plenty of free things available, digitally.

Of course material costs are expensive, but with many advances into nanotechnology and quantum computing, there will be a time (and there are plenty of recent advances in this field) that atomic structures will be as easy to manipulate as computer data. Then we will be able to replicate and copy at will, using any source of matter as our base. In a Giver Culture, this knowledge/technology would be made available freely (or at least cheaply). It would be like Linux, or Firefox. It would be Open Source.

The problem is, in a consumer culture, is that we have come to value having many material possessions. We don’t currently value creating, discovering, sharing or cooperation. So our current lifestyle costs us a lot. It costs us a lot in that it demands much of the world around us and it doesn’t share. It doesn’t give back.

Of course there are individuals who give and share, create and cooperate, discover and create value that wasn’t there before. But those are usually individuals or small groups stuck in a consumer based culture. If those individuals and small groups connected with other like minded givers around the world, they would soon form a culture. This culture would help each other out, grow and become stronger in their giver-oriented values. Then this would have an effect of swaying the entire world.

Such a culture would advance rapidly. It would be obvious that they would have wealth and riches beyond the average of the ordinary population. Being in a culture is vital, since it is an ecosystem in which benefits all. Silicon Valley is such an example for the technology world. There is a whole ecosystem in place for start-ups and existing tech companies to not only survive but thrive.

Money (aka survival) is important. But we should never take our eye off the prize. What we wish to contribute to the world, our own personal vision statement is far more important. Many people want to contribute and make a difference, but are afraid of doing so because of fear of not surviving the current, difficult demands of a consumer based, highly conditional culture.

I feel the solution is very simple, actually. Find something that you feel you wish to contribute. Find a way to do so and partner with others who wish to make a difference. Keep learning and honing your skills and share what you know with others. The beauty of a Giver Culture is the promise of a  large community aligned in the hope to do just that. To make a difference, simply and practically.

 

  

The open source movement is starting to take baby steps out of the digital primordial soup onto the more deadly, and arid land of physical materiality.  First of the primordial contenders is Open Cola.  What had started as a simple demonstration of open-source principles has turned into a number or commercially sold beverages.  Although the recipe is shared freely, the cola can still be sold for a profit, and to date, two companies have done so.  The First was the originator, a software company in Toronto, Canada who pioneered the Open Cola as a marketing strategy to help promote their brand and to educate their clients that open source, although free to copy and distribute, can still generate profits.  In fact, during this marketing campaign 150,000 cans of Open Cola were sold. In Central Bristol, UK, a small cinema, Cube Microplex Cinema, has used the freely available Open Cola recipe to create a cola to be sold to patrons and guests.  No sales data has been released, however in the venue of a more traditional business structure it may be that this use of open source cola may not fizzle out so prematurely.

A riskier, bolder venture has also started to emerge from the open source model.  The Open Source Car.  A number of ventures have been prominent, but none so much as OScar, which envisions to ‘reinvent mobility’ in a similar fashion to how Open Source Software is created and managed.    The originator and maintainer of the project, Markus Merz, originated the concept but has yet to take it from the conceptual stage.  Also on the radar is a hot, new design that the company is touting as a Open Source vehicle.  EDAG Light Car, is a high-tech, radical automotive design concept that was presented at the 2009 Geneva Motor Show.  Although it claims to be ‘Open Source’ it seems under further investigation of the company’s site that it uses this term very loosely.  Instead it seems that the company is ‘open’ to partnering with other companies to help with the technologies involved under a secure section of their website.  This is far from the true definition of Open Source.

 It seems that the third project is the charm.  A partnership between three universities in Holland, the bizarrely named and designed car, c,mm,n (pronounced ‘common’), has become the world’s first truly materialized open source car.  Although the aesthetics and phonemics may not be pleasing to all, the car incorporates some serious technology that can be used to help alleviate some of our common, dire environmental concerns, since it uses hydrogen, not fossil fuels, to power its engines.  And true to the actual spirit and meaning of Open Source, this project’s specs, blueprints and diagrams are all free for others to use, and even make money off, as long as the users release all improvements and further designs back to the community for free.  

Providing creative solutions and innovative discoveries for all to freely benefit is true to what this new Giver Culture is about.  These endeavors truly represent the beginning transition of moving from a culture of Takers (consumers) to a culture of Givers who freely give back to the world.  And best of all, design and scientific/technological breakthroughs are gifts that keep on giving, thus solidifying Giver Culture values even more. 

The question remains, when will material based open source endeavors will truly take off, creating a viable ecosystem for others to emulate?

 My guess is that they will.  The genie is out of the bottle and people will continue to experiment with and fund material-based open source projects until, like in the software economy, one will finally take off.

One Laptop Per Child is a supreme example of people from all walks of life coming together to complete a project for the good of humanity. The goal of the project is to produce a child-friendly laptop that can be priced at $100, and distributed en masse to children in developing nations. The laptop so far is a brilliant feat of engineering, with computer scientists, computer engineers, and other humanitarian-minded people coming together to design the computer.

The stated goal of the foundation (OLPC is a registered non-profit) is to provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment, and express themselves. To that end, OLPC is designing a laptop, educational software, manufacturing base, and distribution system to provide children outside of the first-world with otherwise unavailable technological learning opportunities.

OLPC espouses five core principles:

1. Child ownership
2. Low ages. The hardware and software are designed for elementary school children aged 6-12.
3. Saturation
4. Connection
5. Free and open source

Also, the laptop is being designed with the environment in mind. Though the production of computers is often associated with environmental and health hazard, OLPC has committed itself to an aim of being as environmentally friendly as it can. The battery (LiFeP) contains no toxic heavy metals. The screen backlight uses LEDs, and the plastic parts of the computer are color-coded for recycling. It has a Gold rating by EPEAT for environmental performance.

When the CTO Mary Lou Jepson recently left with the stated purpose of developing a competing project with the aim of producing a $75 computer, Chairman Nicholas Negroponte stated that the goal of the OLPC was to make laptops accessible to all children. Anyone who can make progress towards that aim has his blessing.

The current price of $200 is too much for many developing nations, who also have trouble developing the information infrastructure necessary to support computer use. So OLPC solved the problem with a fundraising event, Get 1 Give 1, where people would contribute $399, receive a laptop and sponsor an additional laptop to be sent to a child on their behalf. 167,000 laptops were distributed through this event, of 602,000 total laptops for OLPC.

The aim of the project, to produce affordable technology with the goal of educating under-privileged children, is an admirable one. The way many talented individuals came together to make this goal a reality shows the progress being made in society. Altogether a prime example of the mentality of giving.

For more about One Laptop Per Child, see the project website at <www.laptop.org>

Or read about it on wikipedia at <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC

In the 60′s it was a call to ride on the Peace Train, but today University of California Santa Cruz Students, together with partners from Cabrillo College, have been working on a solar-powered train ever since the 90′s. Now, with a working prototype, these students are calling on local residents to ride on the Sol-Train that can send up to 20 passengers per car, down an ordinary railway track.Dubbing themselves as the ” lowest cost per seat of any self-propelled commuter rail system”, this team of students hopes to get funding to take this prototype out of the concept stage and into usable production. With photoelectric panels installed on the roofs of each car and at each station, the train has ample power to currently carry passengers at 20 miles per hour. The students hope to get the train up to speeds of 50 miles per hour in the near future.A solar-powered train, with the additional surface area of a train, plus the possibilities of using each station as a place to quick-charge the train, could develop into a very inexpensive way of transporting Givers to and fro from the Giver Communities.The R&D put into this project could also benefit the development of a solar cable-car which, through being suspended, would be even less of an environmental impact and would be guaranteed sunlight being out of the tree-tops.There are a ton of ideas out there. All that is needed is for a single group/nation/culture to start adopting them.

“Like Shel Silverstein’s concept of “The Giving Tree” there are aspects of culture that are dedicated to giving rather than exploiting or acquiring power. Imagine an entire culture emerging from within thebelly of our narcissistic capitalism. This culture is a culture of giving, of selfless compassion and helping, not because we are of any religion or law, but just because it is who we are. “

The quote above is a gift to this article, which is apt since this idea, itself, begins with a gift. Since this gift is a new culture for humanity—a Culture of Givers, this gift also contains the concept of a gift within itself. Just as the seeds of life contain the ability to eventually create their own seeds of life. This culture is also a gift to Life, and since you are a being infused with the essence life, it is a gift to you.

Like all gifts you may accept or reject it; it is your decision. Your have the right to decline it, or to receive it, to disbelieve it, to believe it. It is your choice—your freedom. Do with it what you will.

As this work is published, this Giver Culture already exists amongst us. Yet for now, we are small and fragile. It may be too early for our idea, just as democracy seemed premature in the fifth and sixth centuries when appeared in ancient Greece and India. Even so, those early democracies paved the way forward for more mature democracies, with checks and balances, universal suffrage, racial and gender equality and other enabling features allowing human beings to enjoy the greatest amount of freedom since the dawn of civilization.

Like any new idea, our early culture of Givers holds the potential to be a seed that grows into a new way for humanity and life to interact. It offers the promise of undoing the damage that has been done to the Earth, of finding a new respectful relationship with the life on this planet, and as a way of creating, for ourselves, a world that is exciting, rewarding, new, beautiful and full of richness and freedom. This new culture exists, in part, to displace, but not replace, the Culture of Consumers that is currently dominating the planet; our goal is to cooperate with them, yet to limit the destruction that they are causing to the Earth. It proposes the eventual transformation of society—from a majority of takers to a majority of givers.

What is the Giver Culture?

One of the simplest explanations of a culture could be stated as a shared way of living. The Giver Culture is simply a framework for a way of living that heavily supports creativity and discovery. Composed of creators and seekers who share and give their creations and discoveries freely amongst others, our new culture celebrates our creativity, freely shares our discoveries, and wishes for our gifts to spread onwards. This sharing, of knowledge, art, inspiration and discovery, is an enabling force for all members of our culture, pushing the limits of what we can do and what we can know. Since it is an open culture, we allow and encourage all beings to join regardless of what is currently seen as gender, race, class or beliefs.

As regards to beliefs, each member is encouraged to seek and create a customized belief and personal subculture, to try it and test it and alter it if necessary. This is ultimately a culture, not an ideology or a religion, and even more than most cultures, we are able to support a variety of ideas and beliefs—and even encourage and celebrate this diversity.As members of the Giver Culture, we are more interested in expanding our knowledge and experience than acquiring material goods. Material goods are not shunned, but used simply for what they are and are shared whenever the opportunity arises. We come together, in centralized locations to learn and share knowledge. We seek knowledge anywhere we can, whether from their own members, or from members and institutions of the Consumer Culture, from direct experience, or from the dwindling populations of Hunter-Gatherer societies that still exist.

Our culture is also rooted in the laws of cooperation. It considers, as recent mathematics suggest, that generally cooperation is often a superior, more stable strategy to competition, especially in the long-term. Cooperation is encouraged, amongst ourselves, amongst other cultures and amongst life itself.Givers wish to create more than they consume. Whether we create stories, paintings, ideas, music, poems, sculptures, connections, meditations, dances, teachings, structures, jokes, families, communities or many other forms, we create and share with whom we can. With members of the Consumer Culture, we do as members of the Consumer Culture already do, trading our creations for currency. In turn, we use currency to help better the world. Our finances are used to create films, books, games, software, scientific research, inventions, crafts, art, music and creative corporate entities to help produce goods, that contain low material costs, to be sold for a profit to consumers. Our profits are used to help buy and protect wildlife reserves that are given freely to the collective life on Earth.

The Giver Culture, through our sharing of resources, respect for other living things and cooperative spirit, tends to leave a small footprint on the Earth. We organize ourselves together to pool and share resources that do not need to be purchased by each individual. By doing so, we can use our time and money more wisely furthering our communities and ourselves. Since we use less of the Earth’s resources, the Giver lifestyle helps to lessen environmental destruction. It also allows for the possibility of more free time for each individual.

Members of the Giver Culture can opt to work less to live well and spend the rest of our time creating, discovering, learning new skills and experiencing the beauty and richness of life.

In a more primordial, unorganized form, a Giver Culture is starting to emerge amongst some scientists, artists and engineers of this world. The scientific world is full of cases, in which great, valuable discoveries or inventions are given back to the world community. There have been many scientific breakthroughs, shared freely by those that made the discoveries that have resulted in many advances and technologies used daily. If counted, the sum of the riches that these advances have given us would be immeasurable.

The inventions and discoveries of scientists are often ones that shape us the most, and although corporations privately hold many discoveries, there are many others that are freely given to the academic world.

In the world of computer software, members of the Open Source Software Movement echo many of the key tenants of the Giver Culture. In this movement, programmers, testers, web designers, and artists, work together, cooperating to create software that is given to the world for free. From doing so, they gain experience, knowledge, friendships, connections, esteem and many other benefits. Even with such, non-monetary rewards, it is often found that their true calling is to create, to collaborate, to discover, to step up to new challenges and have fun in the process.

Likewise, this is a calling that we adamantly share in.

Although there is no clear, compelling evidence that life, or the human experience, is endowed with any special purpose beyond simple survival, we, as creators and seekers, cannot idly accept this to be the final verdict. We, as creators, can give life a purpose: to seek and create ad infinity. It is not that we assert that this is life’s true purpose, we assume that, unless revealed, life may not have a purpose, yet we do not suppose that we are prevented from endowing life with our own created purpose. Since we continuously seek and discover, we are not prevented from discovering any possible purpose, if it truly exists. Even if a grand purpose to life does hold to be true, we would try to test and seek the entire depths of what that might mean to us.

For more on this subject, please read part 2, “Why a Giver Culture?”

This is a continuation of ideas presented in part 1, “The Giver Culture“.

In this time in history, a number of dividing opinions exist regarding whether humanity is progressing towards an improved world or whether we are dooming ourselves (and countless other species).

Answering the question, “Are we doomed?” is a little more complex than offering a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

One group of people might suppose that we, as humanity, are fine. Why add more complexity and divisions by creating yet another cultural branch of humanity? This group may argue that science and technology will help solve our problems, that we are living in a Golden Age of humanity, and as we progress, current problems will be rendered meaningless, as some of our old problems were rendered meaningless by current advances.

Another ultra-positive viewpoint heard in some circles—is the belief that humanity is on the brink of a spiritual revolution and that we will become collectively enlightened. (I’m personally hoping for this one, however I feel that we have much more progress to make before this happens.)

Yet these are others who tend to think that we on the verge of extinction due to an imminent and devastating environmental catastrophe. They point out that our way of life is based on growth and consumerism—that this lifestyle the majority of us live is destroying the Earth.

Often technology is blamed. Sometimes human nature is blamed. Either way, I seldom hear truly practical solutions presented.

A few solutions, such as the New Tribal movements, wish to turn the clock back to our pre-civilized past arguing that was the only time that human beings fit naturally into the circle of life. It would take all of humanity, simultaneously in alignment to return to a Hunter-Gathering society—and it is obvious that is not going to happen any time soon, if ever.

So are we doomed to extinction or will we somehow transcend these problems?

When I was in my early twenties, I read an excellent book by Daniel Quinn that echoed some thoughts I had been having about the problems that civilized culture was facing. Before I read this book, had been doing some science fiction story writing at the time and wrote a short story that hinted at two cultures of humanity that ended up living amongst the stars. One culture was based from Earth, one was based from the colonists of Mars.

Each had opposing viewpoints on how to colonize the Galaxy. The Terrans, having discovered faster-than-light travel before the Martians, were the first to discover planets with life outside our solar system. They colonized these life-rich worlds. The Martians, having created a life-rich world on the previously dead planet of Mars, skipped the life-filled worlds and gave life to dead worlds with potential. In hindsight, the Terrans of my story were part of a Consumer Culture, based on the one that is dominant on Earth today.

The Martians were a Giver Culture, one that is just appearing on Earth now.(This was just a subtle background for a story, in which the Terrans finally face a sentient species. These aliens viewed the Terran world snatching as sacrilegious—thus wordlessly declared war on them.)

Daniel Quinn’s book, Ishmael, allowed me to put this little science fiction back-story into a truer perspective. It seemed to me that the Consumer Culture that Daniel Quinn talked about in this book (he calls it the Taker Culture), was truly a cultural anomaly, believing in unlimited growth and consumption, that would and could truly bring humanity and countless other species to the brink of extinction. This book also widened my perspective by showing that, since we seem to view history as only existing when civilization appeared, we often forget that we existed for far longer without civilization. Countless other cultures preceded the rise of our Consumer Culture . The Consumer Culture was not the only way humanity could live. Ishmael never truly gave any solution besides stepping outside the Consumer/Taker culture to try to find a way to live.

With my imagined Martian society, I realized that there could be another way for humanity to live. I expanded the idea of the Giver culture, somewhat, for a science fiction novel that I had planned to write. Eventually, however, I started to think that this culture should not be regulated to simply one of countless ideas in the world of speculative fiction, but should, instead, become a real way for humanity to live.

One thing I noted, after reading Ishmael, and thinking about these questions further, is that the Consumer/Taker Culture simply had to appear. Take a time machine, for example, armed with a powerful ray gun. Go back in time, and blast the initial Consumer/Taker cultural anomaly out of existence—before it had a chance to spread.

Would this solve the problem? Is this cultural mess-up simply a one-chance wonder, or would it have appeared in a different form, at some other time, regardless?

I place a strong bet in the latter.

This brings me to branch of mathematics called Game Theory. Many people have seen the movie or read the book, A Beautiful Mind, about a Nobel Prize winning game theorist, John Nash. Many students of sociology and psychology are given a peek at Game Theory, by playing one of its most well known examples, Prisoner’s Dilemma. Without going into many details (although some of the details in Game Theory are fascinating) Game Theory often deals with what is called Evolutionary Stable Strategies.

An Evolutionary Stable Strategy is a strategy, if adopted by a population, which prevents invasion from an alternate, competing strategy. In Ishmael, Danniel Quinn’s two major branches of human cultures are, the Takers (what I term as Consumers) and the Leavers, which are tribal, hunter-gathering oriented societies. He shows that the early Leaver societies dominated human culture on Earth until some indeterminate point of time roughly around ten thousand years ago when the first Taker cultures appeared. The Taker culture then systematically drove the neighboring Leaver societies into extinction, either by absorbing them, or by destroying them by waging wars for local resources. The reason the Taker lifestyle was more successful, at first, is that they waged war with any competing species to increase their food supply. With an increased food supply, their population increased, forcing them to step up resource gathering—including more vigilant attempts to cut off any competition for their growing demands of food.

Eventually, in the present day, you can only find a handful of Leaver cultures. Most humans live in Taker cultures, and we are nearing our limitations of this type of lifestyle. The Taker Culture, in comparison to the Leaver Culture seems to be an Evolutionary Stable Strategy, at least until our resources run out.

The fact that the Taker Culture can only be a superior strategy when there are newly available resources, strongly hints that it is not a true Evolutionary Stable Strategy. It is just simply one that has not run its full course. And if it is not, what alternate type of strategy could truly be a more stable solution? Would this new idea of a Giver culture be closer to a true Evolutionary Stable Strategy?

Evidence exists that it might be so.

Richard Dawkins, the famed evolutionary biologist and science popular writer, wrote a chapter, in his critically acclaimed book, The Selfish Gene, titled ‘Nice Guys Finish First’. He pointed out that game theorists have often shown that cooperative strategies beat out competitive or purely selfish strategies in the long term. Although the Consumer/Taker Culture may seem, at first glance, to have strong elements of cooperation, it also has a very marked history of competition, especially when resources dwindle. Much evidence suggests that we are nearing a major problem, as the population explosion on Earth is accelerating, and resources are becoming increasingly harder to find.

This is where a Giver Culture may be a more stable strategy in the long term. A Giver Culture, would have the technical know-how to create solutions to our problems. Food could be grown with the most limited of resources using cutting-edge scientific knowledge. Having high levels of education, especially amongst women, would slow down population growth. To ensure that the Giver Culture grows in numbers, families would become larger partially through adoption. As members of the Consumer/Taker culture grow beyond their ability to feed themselves, many of their children may be abandoned, just as what happens in famine stricken areas today. The Giver Culture, a compassionate culture rooted in spirit of cooperation, would be a natural place for these abandoned children to turn.

A Giver Culture could also lessen the Consumer Culture’s resource thirst, by weaning them off the purchase of material goods somewhat, by the consumption of virtual entertainment and goods in their stead. As energy costs spike, in response to global oil shortages, people will be unable to travel as often. Improved virtual worlds, evolved from today’s video games, combined with generations of new consumers, who are increasingly more computer-savvy, will help generate a large market for such goods. Their social standings in these virtual worlds may slowly surpass their social standings in the real world (this is already happening). A Giver Culture may take advantage of this by being the creators of the most premier content—since it is a culture where creativity is practically worshiped. The profits of such creative endeavors can help to secure land that is protected against the machinations of the consumer lifestyle.

So do we need a Giver Culture to survive? Unfortunately the answer to that question is uncertain. It has a good chance, however, of increasing our likelihood, as there is evidence that such a culture may be closer to a true Evolutionary Stable Strategy.

In the beginning of this article, I divided the question of whether humanity survives or thrives into two possible answers—‘yes’ or ‘no’.

But is that the most important question, whether we, as a species, survive? Is life only about survival?

For many members of the Consumer/Taker society, it seems so. The pinnacle of the consumer society is a comfortable existence. In this modern age, we surely have almost mastered this goal, yet for most it is a very unsatisfying way to live. In modern countries, where most people live a fairly comfortable existence, people are often left wondering whether there is anything more to life. Many members of modern society are increasingly finding themselves to be depressed, lonely, anxious and with deep feelings of despair. To choose a Giver Culture simply on survival, so that we may lessen our chances for extinction, is a choice based on fear. Fear of extinction feels like an extension of the individual’s fear of death. Living a life centered upon the fear of death is often a very poor choice. Human beings grow and thrive on risk and experience, none of which can be had if the fear of death is too strong. Likewise, the Giver Culture does not simply exist so that we may stave of our own extinction.

The Giver Culture is necessary for humanity to raise the bar, for us to start living more authentically. It exists for us to find out exactly what are the limits to what we can know, experience, create, love, find, make. What are humanity’s limits? How can we find out what they are? A creative culture, such as the Giver Culture, would seek out the limits of these questions. By exploring the inner and outer universe, we can find out what it truly means to exist. This reason alone is why we need a Giver Culture.For more on this subject, please read part 2, “Foundations of a Giver Culture“

One of the most difficult questions, with any social movement, is the question, ‘How to begin?’ It is hard enough to be able to step far enough outside of the box to see what is amiss with modern consumer society, harder yet to visualize what could be done to set it right. To be able to put together a plan to create a new way of living, when human beings have only discovered two other lifestyles (Takers & Leavers) in the hundreds of thousands of years we have existed here on Earth, is a daunting task. Yet, this is what this article will attempt to address: a practical solution to start coalescing the Giver Culture into something much more tangible than its current form.

One basic premise of this article is the claim that the beginnings of the Giver Culture already exist. Yet these beginnings currently exist only in a proto-cultural state. To spot such individuals and groups, one needs only to determine the core values of the Giver Culture. The Giver Culture is a culture of people that highly value creation, discovery and the sharing of their knowledge and creations with others. Where can we find such groups and individuals? In actuality such people are becoming more prolific, and finding them, due to the increasing interconnectedness of society, is becoming easier. Many of these proto-Giver groups have a marked presence on the Internet, and have made significant contributions to society.

One of the most colorful examples lies in a radical expression of creative culture, The Burning Man Festival. This eight day long festival in the Black Rock Desert of Nevada asks all members to become active participants, exploring the limits of their creativity and sharing everything, from food to art, freely with others. Gifting is one of the core guiding principles of the festival, and is encouraged to be completely unconditional. Another core principle is creative cooperation, supporting any type of expression that brings about creativity in a free communal setting. The participants of this event often suffer culture shock when returning back to regular society after such an event and find ways to connect with other Burning Man participants when they return home. This shared culture, even though it lasts for only eight days in a year in one specific spot on Earth, is close to holding many of the same fundamental values of the Giver Culture. Although there are only thousands of participants, it is a growing phenomenon, and many other festivals have arisen, worldwide, to capture some of its spirit. These participants are experiencing a proto-Giver lifestyle.

Another recent example of a lifestyle that is very close to the culture of Givers is the hacker culture. With this term, I do not refer to the type of criminal activity that breaks into computer systems to obtain data for nefarious uses, but the type of activity that tinkers, hacks into systems to learn, and creates solutions to problems. (For a more detailed explanation of this culture, please refer to the linked article, How to be a Hacker)
Often hackers are part of what is known as the Open Source Software Movement. Open Source Software is a type of computer software that is given freely to all users, and in addition, users can opt to modify and share any improvements back to the community of programmers. Linux, Java (to an extent), the Python programming language, Open Office, the PHP web programming language, Apache Web Servers and other backbones of the internet/computer industry are all free, open software packages that anyone can view and alter for their own use. Countless hours of difficult programming go into these projects and are given, freely, for the entire world to utilize. Many of these projects could be valued at millions or billions of dollars in terms of how useful they have been for the technology industry in the last decade. Open Software is a gift created by a networked group of individuals, who, in the process of creation, discover unique solutions for many difficult problems, and share their creations and discoveries freely with the world, at no charge. They support each other in their endeavors to learn, and often mentor and teach those with skills below their own, especially since they value any additional manpower they can get on the projects. Many programmers have learned extremely valuable programming practices by working on such projects, since many individuals, who are master programmers in their respective fields, give their knowledge openly and freely. This is practically identical to the values of the Giver Culture. It may not be as visibly exciting as the Burning Man festival, but it strikes much closer to what form the Giver Culture will start to take.

There are plenty of other examples: the scientific community, academia, NGOs, NPOs, charities, web-communities (such as Zaadz), web-sites (expertvillage.com, wikipedia.org, wikibooks.org etc.). These are all examples of groups of people who spend time sharing their knowledge, discovery and creativity with others. Instead of simply consuming, they are creating and sharing, often quite actively. As time passes, it seems that these types of organizations and groups are increasing in numbers. These people are forming a proto-Giver culture. As with many other cultures, it is often easier to interact with people who share a similar culture. People of similar cultures tend to clump together; again this is what seems to be occurring. A festival, such as the Burning Man, tends to attract people, such as scientists, artists, spiritual seekers, computer/hardware hackers, for they are starting to share a common culture—a culture of Giving. It is similar here in the community of Zaadz.

With large groups of likeminded people available, who are steps away from forming a true Giver Culture, what are the steps necessary to truly seed the beginnings of a culture that can help balance the uncontrolled growth of the Consumer/Taker culture? How can this culture be robust enough to survive harsh disasters, manmade or otherwise? I maintain that the simple acknowledgement of such a culture is possible an important step, for it would allow those who are Giver-spirited to identify with a cultural movement and seek others who are similar. Once the knowledge spreads, however, additional steps must be taken to solidify the culture, and to enable the members.

Since the Open Source Software movement is quite similar to the Giver Culture, it can be used as an example to find out what holds such a culture together. This software movement has gathered up a large enough group of likeminded individuals, and has remained stable enough to thrive and to continue enabling its members. Often the nature of working on a project together helps cement social bonds, especially after successful completion. A successfully completed project also serves to advertise to other potential members who may have been previously indecisive fence sitters.
So, following in the example of the Open Source Software movement, some of the key steps needed are as follows: A) Attract likeminded individuals, B) Immediately have these new members work on a project together, C) Repeat (hopefully on a larger scale).

So the first question should be, ‘How to attract proto-Givers?’ One method, is here on the internet, other methods could be by spreading the knowledge, word-of-mouth, or via pamphlet, flyer, booklet or presentation at Giver-like events such as Burning Man, or an Open Source Software project, at a university, at a fund-raising event as well as many others. New ideas and old ideas to spread knowledge could be explored. Newly declared members of the Giver Culture could write their own blog posts, and generate enough of a presence to warrant an entry by wikipedia, and possibly an article by a small magazine or newspaper. Virtual communities, such as Second Life, could also include a Giver Culture presence. There are countless ways to spread the knowledge far enough to attract those who are almost already Givers.

After a sizable number of Givers have been attracted our next question should be, “What kind of project do we have in mind?” I have two example projects in mind that I will share in this article. One is a completely hands-on project which requires a physical presence for all members. The other is a little closer to an Open Source Software project, with a physical presence only required for a few members. Both projects would be good for a burgeoning Giver Culture with only a limited membership roster to start with.

I will start with the more physical project; one method of solidifying a community of creative people who thirst after knowledge and discovery is to help build a place where creativity and learning can take place. Gathering up resources to build a center of learning could be a way of bringing together various members of the Giver culture. One idea I have had in mind, is to have various members learn alternative building methods, or to find an existing Giver who already knows an alternative building method (cob, adobe, strawbale etc), and who is willing to teach other Givers for free. Collectively purchase a property, and build a series of structures, as part of a lesson, on the premises. These structures can be used as a center of learning for Givers to meet, teach and learn. Givers can take turn sharing their knowledge with each other on various subjects (electricity, plumbing, carpentry, outdoor survival, pottery, physics, chemistry, Chinese etc). Those who take courses in construction, who may eventually teach or help teach such courses, can expand buildings, as they are needed. Such centers can be valuable places for Giver members to congregate, hold meetings and plan events. These centers can be temples to creativity and learning, holding the community together just as churches and temples hold religions together.

The second project would be a more ambitious project in scope, yet it holds more promise to expand the Giver Culture’s membership and influence. Like the first project, it has a heavy emphasis on education. Yet, unlike the first project, which is geared for Giver members only, this helps the Giver Culture to gain possible revenue, to be used for additional projects, as well as creating new members in countries around the world. This project would be educational software, but not the kind of educational software that we are currently familiar with, but a new, group-oriented software that teaches in an entirely new way. In today’s world, scientific education is increasingly important, yet in some developed countries, such as the United States, scientific studies are on a decline. Ironically, this lack of interest comes at a time when many scientific discoveries are being made, and our models and theories are becoming more accurate and detailed. At the very least, computer software can give people a general overview in the sciences, to rekindle interest, and to stimulate imaginations while simultaneously grounding people in practical knowledge.

With computer animation, we could give an eight year old (or even an eighty year old) an engaging interactive tour of the general basics of scientific knowledge in the span of a half-hour lesson. Starting, for example, at the Big-Bang, the animation could show the user a vision of the universe starting at the very large right down to the very small components of energy and matter. This could widen perspectives and whet appetites for discovering more about science. Too often, elementary scientific texts forget to give the student a wide perspective that allows all of the different faucets of scientific knowledge to make sense. In this design, the software would offer a very general, wide perspective, and proceed to fill in the various details afterwards. After each fifteen to thirty minute lesson, a multiplayer game would be presented, to teach some of the knowledge interactively, in a group setting. This software would not be for individuals, sitting at private terminals at home or in a computer lab. This software would be designed for a classroom setting, using a laptop and a projector ( I am currently creating some prototype lessons and games using this method, interested parties please email me for more details).

This software could start at an elementary level, and slowly work up into high-school and then undergraduate level software. The teacher/instructor would be able to control the software in real time, to realistically gauge the actual situation at hand. The software would not need to be limited to science, but could cover many topics, such as language, mathematics, history and others, eventually including all classes. Instructional videos and animated demonstrations would be followed up by fast, fun mini-games that reviewed the concepts at hand. (Match chemicals with their symbols, catch the correct falling equations, properly create a working electrical circuit to stop the ticking time bomb etc.) This software could measure a student’s progress and would tend to review/test on an individual level automatically tailored to each student.

This software would be sold to schools. Schools that use such software would have advantages over schools that did not, which would create a demand for schools with this software. Since the Giver Culture would collectively own such software, it could be used, internally for members to freely learn any subject we create. Another aspect of this project that could help expand membership, and help create new Givers, is to use such software to help educate people in impoverished areas. A volunteer Giver teacher, given a projector and a laptop, could go into impoverished areas, teaching people whatever useful lessons available. These people could be empowered by software that taught basic science and mathematics. Lessons geared towards survival techniques, health and hygiene and simple economics would also be helpful. Hopefully these people, after lifting themselves out of poverty, would become Givers, instead of new members of the Consumer Culture. Since education tends to lower birthrate, especially when women are educated, this may also help offset population growth rates in poor, developing nations.

Hopefully both projects could be created simultaneously, since any Giver center of learning could highly benefit from such software, and by having a center of learning, teachers could be found to provide the content for the software. Either of these options would help gather various Giver peoples from around the globe. By working on such projects, a greater camaraderie and shared culture would emerge. These projects would increase the visibility and capabilities of the Giver people. Givers would discover and create new artistic visions and scientific knowledge. This would help to empower our people even further, allowing our culture to thrive. Unlike the currently dominating Consumer/Taker culture, we would not be interested in consuming physical goods, but would instead be interested in consuming knowledge, and using such knowledge to make further discoveries, and create more wondrous visions. More projects would arise, and the Giver community would strengthen.

So, how to begin? We have already begun, and if any of you, reading this article, feel that you are, in spirit, a Giver, please let me know and we can find practical solutions to start bringing this culture together.

Our new evolution starts now.

Occasionally I am asked if I believe in God. Yet I find this is a tricky question. I am tempted to give one of three answers: yes, no or ‘kinda’. All three of them, however, do not seem to ring true, so I am often hesitant to give an answer. Often it depends on what the questioner is truly asking and that is often difficult to ascertain.

Unfortunately the word “God” is a very loaded word in our culture. It can mean many things to nearly every individual. People have colored this word in a myriad of different ways. It means something different to each religion, and even within each religion there are probably a number of differing interpretations depending on the individual. It is easy to see why this is so. In my earlier article “The Grand Unified Theos”, I wrote “God, Buddha, the Tao, or any other commonly sought archetype is the highest conceptual archetype ever realized.” Human beings, unable to imagine the infinite All, tend to partition such an archetype into a limited yet understandable idea of what God is. Since the infinite can be infinitely divided, one can clearly see how we have come up with so many conflicting understandings of God through such means.

I now maintain that I simply do not know what God is. I think that we are free to approach the question openly if we honestly acknowledge that our understanding of God is light years from any of our current conceptualizations. With an open mind and heart, we can begin the search earnestly without any prior projections to get tangled in. When we assume we know the answer, or even a part of it, we tend to stop progressing. This is very true in science, for example. In antiquity, by holding on to certain beliefs about the physical world, such as its flatness or its central position in the heavens, we were hindered in our progress. It was only when we approached the question with an open mind, without assuming we knew anything certain, were we able to make some enlightening discoveries. Could this same approach of honestly seeking with an open mind bring us closer to God? I think that it is a question that is, at the very least, something worth pursuing.

It can also be pursued by anyone. Unlike Science, which has progressed to such a state that new discoveries are hard (although not impossible) for the layman, this area is mostly new ground. Since it is such a monumental task, it would possibly be the best interests of our collective understanding that it was done by a large number of people. These people could seek their own path, finding out their own insights and matching these insights with other likeminded seekers. With open minds, they could come together for progressive discussions, instead of the classic bickering that is often associated with religious debate.

Being a seeker (and sharer) of truth is a core value of the Giver Culture. If most or all of humanity could become true seekers, we might uncover the mysteries of existence and beyond. If we could be free of relying on the rare and brave individual who comes along once every lifetime or so, perhaps humanity would become collectively enlightened, the understandings we would then have would be well beyond the limits of what we can currently imagine. Perhaps even, we would uncover a truer and more honest understanding of what God is.

The Age of Reason

“Soon after I had published the pamphlet, Common Sense, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion,”

Thomas Paine -The Age of Reason

One may argue that the Age of Enlightenment is not yet complete, for although the institutions of science, government, and economics have shaken of their pre-medieval structures, the institute of religion has not undergone any similar revolution. Since the beginnings of the Age of Enlightenment, science, government and economics have looked deeply within, and have been changed and improved by their self-introspection. It is easily imagined that if citizens were taken from the era of feudalism into the modern world, they would scarcely be able to understand how society operates and would be utterly bewildered by the workings of science. In all likelihood, they might easily find comfort in the fact that religion has been scarcely altered in the centuries following the Scientific Revolution. The question that this article presents is as follows: Is it possible for religion to undergo an equally transformational change?

It may be said that religion has evolved with the times and has made much progress. Clearly, religion has been forced to change to maintain its position in the modern world, but the changes are often the bare minimum. Unlike the changes that have befallen science, government and economics, the changes that individual religions made to survive did not generally promote unity. Science, government and economics have increasingly moved towards universal acceptance, and although they have not entirely succeeded, each decade that passes brings forth a tendency towards unification. Science is identical in every nation, governments are increasingly democratic and economics have largely developed a practical global organization based on the universal systems of supply and demand. By evolving through careful introspection, these institutes have allowed increased capabilities for its human citizens.

If religion could successfully undergo a revolution that sought out fundamental truths in a united, globally acceptable system we might find that the human experience would improve in ways that are simply unimaginable to the people of our times. Just as Nicolaus Copernicus could not have foreseen the epistemological revolution his theories helped to ignite, we would not be able to conceive of the eventual benefits of a spiritual revolution.

The Rise of Science

Of all of the changes that have swept over the planet, ones resulting from the so-called Scientific Revolution have had the greatest range and influence. The sweeping changes that this revolution brought allowed the people of the world to imagine that all human institutions could likewise reform. With these ideas in mind, bold attempts of transforming society have been in affect, changing the ways that groups, and individuals experience the world. Through the application of systematic doubt and empirical verification, the universe slowly revealed its secrets.

Before the application of empirical reason, science was more akin to religion; it was steeped in dogma, superstitions and absolute acceptance of Aristotelian thought. Once the scientific method was developed, systematic testing revealed the fallacy of prior world views.

The scientific method can be, at most, simplified into three parts:

1. Observation of Phenomenon: The experimenter views phenomenon, either directly or indirectly.

2. Hypothesis and Prediction: The experimenter finds a reason for this phenomenon and tries to find reasonable methods of predicting results based upon this hypothesis.

3. Experimentation and Repetition: The experimenter devises methods of making the predictions practical through experimentation. The experiment is repeated as often as possible thus proving or disproving the results.

Now this simplified method has many complex facets, not covered in this article, but the results of of the scientific method is clear. We live in a transformed world. Discoveries have shown us to the very beginnings of the universe, the fundamentals of matter and energy and the workings of life itself.

In the last few decades, physicists have been working hard at discovering a Grand Unified Theory in physics. This theory would help explain all physical phenomenon, and would have ramifications that would bleed into all other areas of science. It would represent the culmination of one of the greatest human adventures that has ever been attempted: the unraveling of the cosmos.

The Search for Truth

One aspect of science, that many are clearly aware of, is that science never contains the entire truth. Each discovery made helps to simultaneously clarify and abolish various tenets of scientific knowledge. The search for truth seems like an infinite quest from a reductionist standpoint. It is in this very dilemma that religion trumps science, for spiritual knowledge tends to come from a holistic view of nature.

God, Buddha, the Tao, or any other commonly sought archetype represents the highest conceptual archetype that humans have ever attempted to realize. The fact that many religions have developed throughout human history is a testament to the sheer difficulty of the human mind to completely fathom it. Each religion imagines their own understanding of the infinite and uses faith to bridge the gap. If faith could be replaced by using a system similar to the scientific method, would religion be transformed with the same level of success? Consider the following example of applying the scientific method to a religious question:

1. Observation of Phenomenon: We are complex creatures with intelligence, living in an infinitely complex universe. We, a part of the universe, have intelligence, awareness and consciousness, and therefore the universe has laws that govern the pattern of intelligence.

2. Hypothesis and Prediction: Our minds, also a part of the universe, are created by connections. Neurons communicate in an immensely complex pattern and the sum of that communication is our mind. The universe is also governed by connections. Particles (and perhaps superstrings) communicate in a likewise complex pattern, much of which is governed by laws and dimensions we do not currently understand. The sum of the universe is aware at a super-intelligent level. This is what we have called God. Our minds, the microcosm of the mind of God, are governed by laws of pattern. If we discover these laws that govern the pattern of intelligence we may find a similar set of laws in fundamental physics. This would highly suggest that the universe has intelligence, and would point to the existence of God.

3. Experimentation and Repetition: Create a workable artificial intelligence and compare its pattern of operation to the human mind. Compare patterns, and the laws that govern them, to the cutting-edge laws of physics to see whether there is any correlation.

Putting such a theory into practice would be extremely difficult, and it is uncertain whether such a theory would be successful. The challenge should not discourage any attempt, for discovering truths has seldom been easy and disproving such a theory is, in itself, valuable knowledge. It is not difficult to imagine that, if successfully proven, such a hypothesis would transform the spiritual quest of humanity. Such a discovery, or others like it, could develop into a unifying spiritual search, and may extend beyond humanity if we were to discover or create other intelligences. Would our traditional human religions be compatible with other minds in the universe? It is unlikely that such homo-centric religions would. A scientifically minded search that discovered the nature of mind, and of God would seem more compatible. Perhaps the culmination of such discoveries would be a great, universally accepted understanding of God: a Grand Unified Theos.