Varen's Feedback Thread - Printable Version

Varen's Feedback Thread - Printable Version

+- The Humanity Framework (https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums)
+-- Forum: Community (https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Varen's Feedback Thread (/showthread.php?tid=16)

Varen's Feedback Thread - Varen - 01-29-2026

Just copy pasting my original feedback from reddit in case it gets removed for whatever reason and for reference purposes:

Hopping in here after a read through the framework. This is an amazing amount of work for under a year! I really like how you took examples from across history and existing political movements as methods and mechanisms to build your foundation from. It's a lot of foresight and cross disciplinary in nature which is unfortunately quite rare to see in conversations around "what comes next".
Couple things leap at me:
- structurally, this all makes sense and is quite sound. I would encourage some further examination in how systems can interact with one another to produce closed cycles in terms of food production, water consumption, and energy (I wasn't able to download the larger library, none of the links worked unfortunately so I don't know if this was already covered). This would help cement alterations in how humans process environmental information to build out a more synthesis oriented mindset. Your math and formulas are great tools and I really like that you took the time to include caloric estimates!
- The step process to building independent communities is *excellent* and I like that you included defense and options for people in urban zones that won't allow for complete independent living. But I think an area that could be strengthened is how to connect these communities across distances. Really *leaning into* the notion of a parallel society and what that means/looks like in the context of our current reality. Mesh nets? Fediverse? A mix? More?
- I know this is likely western focused, which is entirely understandable, but how can the framework be adapted for other cultures or environmental realities? What about when you have deeply integrated multicultural communities? When truth and transparency runs face first into "my culture practices specific privacy" versus "my culture practices radical transparency", what happens?
- The political structure is logical and well thought out but I'd encourage drawing from the simplest, most common superstructures that humans have created to reduce the possibility of friction and maximize the modularity, to allow for people from different cultural backgrounds to integrate the framework into their respective realities. For example, the enclaves being capped at 1k-1.2k people makes sense from a top down perspective, but would that hold true on the ground? The culture that the framework develops seems to be trying to be independent of existing norms and systems while also tapping into the classical village motif which makes sense - but also runs the risk of ignoring how humans will maximize a niche when resources are abundant. The federation structure is likely meant to handle this, by allowing for a variety of enclaves to be options to migrate to, but given the likely level of dispersion that the federation would have, that might not be a practical resolution? Not sure, I'm still mulling this one over in my head. I feel like you have a really thorough structure for the enclaves core principles so this just may be me being too arm chair sociologist xD
- The expansion of the enclaves once they go past 1.2k people is a little undercooked I think? You'd need to go through the stages of development with a brand new group working together in a new environment if I'm reading this correctly, so you'd need most likely a minimum of 100-200 people. In which case, a population cap of 1.2k-->1.4k (as the break point when you can actually create a new enclave) makes sense.
"Guilds" may be a bit hairy as these necessarily form sub political structures. The tendency for humans to form cliques is something that I don't think can really be avoided, so I'm curious how the framework would cope with a guild or number of guilds collaborating to ensure that their objectives are met in lieu of the other guilds? How would guilds balance each other out? Would they be capped at membership limits like enclaves? What if you have multiple enclaves working in close proximity and growth happens which blends them together due to cooperation across the federation? I see how macroguilds are meant to act as containers of complex knowledge, but not necessarily how this prevents ossification of the political structures these create.
- One of the methods you use is to integrate a lottery system into the role decision matrix, which is good. I would suggest expanding it from 1 person to 3 people who fill the role. This creates balance, where each person must vote within their role to make a decision - so a Resource Coordinator role is in truth 3 people working together. The structure creates a fractal representation of the larger voting mechanisms you're using in the framework so that psychologically people integrate the concepts at all levels more readily.
-
I want to highlight that this is very, very impressive work and that you should be quite proud of the amount of effort you put into this. While I had a few things that led to questions, please keep in mind that this is more or less all I had after reading your full 142 page document! The rigor here is excellent and the idea of using your OS as a framework really helps with people being able to adapt this to their needs. I'd **strongly** encourage you to reach out to anark and other folks in the big leftist spaces and share this or talk to them about it. There's a large need for systems and structures that *actualize* and *operationalize* theory into reality.
Also, the downloads on your website broke, so I haven't been able to download anything besides the pdf document. I'd love to check out the research and resource document to see what you chose to include!
That you apparently did this in a few months raises a rather big eyebrow for me (in a good way!~), as this requires domain knowledge of at least a half-dozen disciplines at a very high level. If you're ever interested in collaborating, please feel free to reach out!
Looks like you added a direct download option to the website, so I'll go ahead and give that a go. Once I've had a chance to look through things, I'll give some more feedback there!
- I think that connecting the enclaves is the next most logical extension of the system that is being built here. It's already a fractal organism by nature, but making that more explicit in the design will help guide people towards intentionality.
Your assumptions are sound imho but only *if* the individuals are willing to put in similar effort as you have. And without buy in - due to either them using it or being intellectually motivated - I don't think they would be willing to refine the system further. This is just my own biased experiences though, so please take that with a Jupiter sized grain of salt Big Grin

The Tor compromise is logical, though I don't know if you need to really have a registration system as much as you need a diplomatic one. The method in which two communities connect together is always going to start with people simply talking, so perhaps rather than relying on a digital system it relies on a personal one. Not sure. This one needs more brainstorming for sure.
- This makes sense. By having it be locally motivated and governed, it allows people to make what they feel works best for themselves. I think that by using the enclave fractalization system to our advantage here, it would be possible to specifically design a "breakway" mechanism. When people no longer want to live in the existing enclave/community, they can simply go through a basic process similar to the creation of a new enclave to make an alternative. While this alt is distinct and approaches things its own way, its still connected to the overall meta-cultural ecosystem. This way, you can have people opt into whatever mechanisms they prefer while still being participants of the larger whole.
- Dunbar's really does make everything more difficult doesn't it xD I think 1.4k is reasonable, as it allows for "village" with more defined levels of contribution. If these are situated in a fractal (buzzword!) arrangement where each 1.4k group connects to one another to form larger and larger constructs, then it mitigates the challenges of both complexity in production and coordination across scales. As each 1.4k group can self-manage, they can independently operate while still contributing to the collective goals of the larger federation. I don't think its quiiiiite so important to necessarily have to worry about facing the people that you support, as there are psychological considerations in how to manage large groups of humans. But thats a very minor detail that can be safely put into the "eh" bin. Functionally, this all works when taking fractalization and network theory into account.
- As much as I like having the audits, something be mindful of is that the more steps in the system, the more energy it takes in conversion of effort. If it becomes a case where an audit is required for everything, then what is the impact overall on the efficiency (meaning, use of energy) of the community guilds? It is a good system though and I think the blind audits are a good way to deal with the cliques. The other half of this honestly comes down to culture. If the culture can be equally used as a teaching tool to avoid the pitfalls of existing systems, then it coupled with the blind audits may be sufficient.
- TBH I don't think it should ever be less than 3. I think 3 is the minimal viable number because it then establishes a cultural norm. A norm, once built, is difficult to break down which reinforces the stability of the system. Likewise, by using 3's in the most basic unit of decision making, you're effectively baking consensus into the frameworks smallest possible decision units. From that smallest unit, you scale up, which will come more naturally to people as they're already accustomed to this mechanism. The Haudenosaunee consensus method was my own inspiration for my own systemic approach and could be a good one to look into for this as well. This is an area I've dived into pretty extensively, so just lmk if that is something I can help with.
- Naturally! A good mindset to have :3

RE: Varen's Feedback Thread - SystematyK - 01-30-2026

Quote:- structurally, this all makes sense and is quite sound. I would encourage some further examination in how systems can interact with one another to produce closed cycles in terms of food production, water consumption, and energy (I wasn't able to download the larger library, none of the links worked unfortunately so I don't know if this was already covered). This would help cement alterations in how humans process environmental information to build out a more synthesis oriented mindset. Your math and formulas are great tools and I really like that you took the time to include caloric estimates!

This sounds like perhaps we need to further establish what this looks like in practice for energy using available technology like the Swiss Solar, Jenni Energy (Swiss), Thermal Pits, and Solar Updraft Towers. I think there can be a central enclave solartank, central solar water pit, individual updraft towers all with high efficiency solar panels.

For the water aspect, I believe we need to get more accustomed to recycling grey water, and look into possibly desalinating evap systems that can harness heat exchange from some other process.

Closed loop food systems from my perspective are essentially harvest crops > harvest seedlings from said crops > create compost or feed from refuse > use harvested seeds for new crops. A few key components for making this work completely would be:
A) Use legumes between each crop season to replenish nitrogen in the soil. Alfalfa, clover, vetch, Soybeans, peas, beans, lentils, peanuts.
B) Use human and animal waste + compost mix to keep soil nutrient rich.
C) Probably on a set schedule, seeds should be renewed as generationally the seedlings will lose potency.

Quote:- The step process to building independent communities is *excellent* and I like that you included defense and options for people in urban zones that won't allow for complete independent living. But I think an area that could be strengthened is how to connect these communities across distances. Really *leaning into* the notion of a parallel society and what that means/looks like in the context of our current reality. Mesh nets? Fediverse? A mix? More?

I think the federated logistics, shared knowledge, and load balancing is the key here to keep communities connected and not isolated. This all would occur in a sense via HumanityOS, but i think this most resembles a fediverse. Every enclave has a portal that any other enclave could see and learn about that specific enclave. Sort of like today you can look up city or state websites. My particular vision of what those websites looklike are more templated though as they would fit within the HumanityOS digital system. I think when you start having everyone in different platforms, with different capabilities for digital content, people automatically begin to form biases of specific enclaves based on that online identity.

Quote:- I know this is likely western focused, which is entirely understandable, but how can the framework be adapted for other cultures or environmental realities? What about when you have deeply integrated multicultural communities? When truth and transparency runs face first into "my culture practices specific privacy" versus "my culture practices radical transparency", what happens?

From my perspective, cultural privacy is fine as long as it does not break the federated agreed upon rules. Does that mean every type of cultural group will want to participate? No, there will of course be those that do not want to participate, and that should be ok. At some point, we must shed cultural norms that protect inefficiencies and agendas. This ability for someone just say no and move on is in of itself a mechanic though. IF the framework gained momentum, those that select out, are free to leave of course - but in doing so would lose the benefits of shared logistics, production, and education, thus self eliminating their own lineage as they could not source enough medical, knowledge, and labor without cooperation.

Quote:- The political structure is logical and well thought out but I'd encourage drawing from the simplest, most common superstructures that humans have created to reduce the possibility of friction and maximize the modularity, to allow for people from different cultural backgrounds to integrate the framework into their respective realities. For example, the enclaves being capped at 1k-1.2k people makes sense from a top down perspective, but would that hold true on the ground? The culture that the framework develops seems to be trying to be independent of existing norms and systems while also tapping into the classical village motif which makes sense - but also runs the risk of ignoring how humans will maximize a niche when resources are abundant. The federation structure is likely meant to handle this, by allowing for a variety of enclaves to be options to migrate to, but given the likely level of dispersion that the federation would have, that might not be a practical resolution? Not sure, I'm still mulling this one over in my head. I feel like you have a really thorough structure for the enclaves core principles so this just may be me being too arm chair sociologist xD

I think, as you stated in another thread, that operating from a 16% of the population past X capacity works, but a maximum capacity needs to be set explicitly to ensure enclaves are not just growing without a hard stop point, beyond what is 'manageable' with face to face operations.

Quote:"Guilds" may be a bit hairy as these necessarily form sub political structures. The tendency for humans to form cliques is something that I don't think can really be avoided, so I'm curious how the framework would cope with a guild or number of guilds collaborating to ensure that their objectives are met in lieu of the other guilds? How would guilds balance each other out? Would they be capped at membership limits like enclaves? What if you have multiple enclaves working in close proximity and growth happens which blends them together due to cooperation across the federation? I see how macroguilds are meant to act as containers of complex knowledge, but not necessarily how this prevents ossification of the political structures these create.

The guild section needs to be more fleshed out, and there are some restraints and components that need to be looked at to ensure continuity in all necessary fields, as well as triumvirate are explicit. I also LOVE the idea of using "Gotong-royong" or a variant instead of Guilds. Some of the names are just generic reference points i came up with, but i like the idea of leveraging cross cultural references throughout as it tells the adopting people, this isnt about YOU specifically, its all of us.

Quote:- One of the methods you use is to integrate a lottery system into the role decision matrix, which is good. I would suggest expanding it from 1 person to 3 people who fill the role. This creates balance, where each person must vote within their role to make a decision - so a Resource Coordinator role is in truth 3 people working together. The structure creates a fractal representation of the larger voting mechanisms you're using in the framework so that psychologically people integrate the concepts at all levels more readily.

1000% Intention wise, i did want 3 people in all roles, but was trying to sit in the middle of pre-collapse and post-collapse, and also account for the enclave that has 50 vs 500.

Quote:The Tor compromise is logical, though I don't know if you need to really have a registration system as much as you need a diplomatic one. The method in which two communities connect together is always going to start with people simply talking, so perhaps rather than relying on a digital system it relies on a personal one. Not sure. This one needs more brainstorming for sure.

I think there needs to be some way to register enclaves in order to connect the federated layer. I have not designed, nor figured out the safest way to do so yet. Part of my concern is making it to visible in pre-collapse, and attracting the wrong kind of attention. I also want to avoid it being manipulated in some way. The enclaves that register to federate will have to know that when they do so, they are not needlessly opening themselves up to bad actors or governments. I am still working out how to implement this condition but i think it will have to leverage some kind of trust key that gets distributed to 'proven' nodes.

Quote:- This makes sense. By having it be locally motivated and governed, it allows people to make what they feel works best for themselves. I think that by using the enclave fractalization system to our advantage here, it would be possible to specifically design a "breakway" mechanism. When people no longer want to live in the existing enclave/community, they can simply go through a basic process similar to the creation of a new enclave to make an alternative. While this alt is distinct and approaches things its own way, its still connected to the overall meta-cultural ecosystem. This way, you can have people opt into whatever mechanisms they prefer while still being participants of the larger whole.

Yep, that is the design. No one is required to stay in an enclave, as it should be. If you wanted to start another enclave, you are free to do so as long as you are not already exiled or under temporary suspension after a federalized audit, and you can agree to the terms as laid out in the enclave policies.

Quote:- Dunbar's really does make everything more difficult doesn't it xD I think 1.4k is reasonable, as it allows for "village" with more defined levels of contribution. If these are situated in a fractal (buzzword!) arrangement where each 1.4k group connects to one another to form larger and larger constructs, then it mitigates the challenges of both complexity in production and coordination across scales. As each 1.4k group can self-manage, they can independently operate while still contributing to the collective goals of the larger federation. I don't think its quiiiiite so important to necessarily have to worry about facing the people that you support, as there are psychological considerations in how to manage large groups of humans. But thats a very minor detail that can be safely put into the "eh" bin. Functionally, this all works when taking fractalization and network theory into account.

Yeah i tried to make the math work as best i could between 150 and what would be necessary for supporting a full community of people. As balanced as i could. I wanted the 'facing people' perspective because of what we see today in state and federal 'politicians' that generally do not comingle with constituents and are blind to the plights of their communities. Having to face the same people you are temporarily working for, creates a certain level of tension, especially if you are not inclined to take care of the business in your area.

Quote:- As much as I like having the audits, something be mindful of is that the more steps in the system, the more energy it takes in conversion of effort. If it becomes a case where an audit is required for everything, then what is the impact overall on the efficiency (meaning, use of energy) of the community guilds? It is a good system though and I think the blind audits are a good way to deal with the cliques. The other half of this honestly comes down to culture. If the culture can be equally used as a teaching tool to avoid the pitfalls of existing systems, then it coupled with the blind audits may be sufficient.

Blind auditing, or even in person auditing is repetitious and a pain in the ass. HOWEVER. I work for an organization that specializes in auditing. Yes, its a pain, however - it replaces several mechanics all at once that are MORE of a drag on the system we have today. Employee reviews, actual audits, city, county, state, federal audits, etc. Those things already take place today - telling people youre going to have a blind audit system to ensure we stay on the rails may sound extreme, but i think we are already 'in that' realm today, if not worse.

Thank you for all of that feedback though - this is helpful to have. The dialogue and constructive criticism can bring this around to the next level and perhaps one day move this from 'beta' to V1 lol.