02-12-2026, 10:01 AM
I found a new one https://auravana.org/
"What is the simplest overview of the project?
The Auravana.org Project proposes a new configuration of society specifically representational of “community”. The Project proposes a new configuration of society directed and oriented toward community, and documented on our website and in a set of comprehensive socio-technical standards. Through a working group structure, the Project produces a highly researched and detailed set of unified standards to construct, transition to, and to operate community at the societal scale. This set of standards (actually, one unified standard) describes and explains the need of a community-type configuration of society where human needs are globally met and the ecology may be gradually restored. We have designed the concept of operation of such a society, through first understanding that every type of society may be separated at a core level into a set of fundamental systems. Every type of society may be separated at an axiomatic level into a set of axiomatic sub-systems. This Project has been 10 years in the making and contains a significant amount research and data behind it. It is always good to connect with others who understand the crises present in our world and seek workable solutions."
I have to say, this one is different. No Ai slop that i can tell, but it is seemingly built around theoretic academics. There is not a lot of 'boots on the ground'. They overdo vin diagrams into the ground, actually just all the diagrams are overdone. Example, they have a 'standards' book that is 130 pages long. From page 86 through 130 is all diagrams, and prior to page 86 - about every 3rd page is another diagram.
With all that said, it is relatively close to my framework in their 'theory'. They offer some 'not new' circular village concepts called Auracurve. Honestly, im surprised they dont have a TM on the end of that lol. A lot of 'branding' and what sounds to me like egotistical certainty "because we mapped it in vin diagrams". I think my biggest problem with this one is that its written for someone that understands systems. If you were truly trying to design something for people to redesign humanity with, why write it that way? Seems like you are academically gatekeeping people from finding the material accessible or comprehensible. If i take this down the street and give it to some random person, they aren't going to take the time to read it, or look at the myriad of repetitious diagrams. The other issue i find here is that if you disagree or 'dont get it', then you just don't understand it is essentially what they outline.
Very academic, very thorough, very theory heavy.
"What is the simplest overview of the project?
The Auravana.org Project proposes a new configuration of society specifically representational of “community”. The Project proposes a new configuration of society directed and oriented toward community, and documented on our website and in a set of comprehensive socio-technical standards. Through a working group structure, the Project produces a highly researched and detailed set of unified standards to construct, transition to, and to operate community at the societal scale. This set of standards (actually, one unified standard) describes and explains the need of a community-type configuration of society where human needs are globally met and the ecology may be gradually restored. We have designed the concept of operation of such a society, through first understanding that every type of society may be separated at a core level into a set of fundamental systems. Every type of society may be separated at an axiomatic level into a set of axiomatic sub-systems. This Project has been 10 years in the making and contains a significant amount research and data behind it. It is always good to connect with others who understand the crises present in our world and seek workable solutions."
I have to say, this one is different. No Ai slop that i can tell, but it is seemingly built around theoretic academics. There is not a lot of 'boots on the ground'. They overdo vin diagrams into the ground, actually just all the diagrams are overdone. Example, they have a 'standards' book that is 130 pages long. From page 86 through 130 is all diagrams, and prior to page 86 - about every 3rd page is another diagram.
With all that said, it is relatively close to my framework in their 'theory'. They offer some 'not new' circular village concepts called Auracurve. Honestly, im surprised they dont have a TM on the end of that lol. A lot of 'branding' and what sounds to me like egotistical certainty "because we mapped it in vin diagrams". I think my biggest problem with this one is that its written for someone that understands systems. If you were truly trying to design something for people to redesign humanity with, why write it that way? Seems like you are academically gatekeeping people from finding the material accessible or comprehensible. If i take this down the street and give it to some random person, they aren't going to take the time to read it, or look at the myriad of repetitious diagrams. The other issue i find here is that if you disagree or 'dont get it', then you just don't understand it is essentially what they outline.
Very academic, very thorough, very theory heavy.