<![CDATA[The Humanity Framework - General Discussion]]>

<![CDATA[The Humanity Framework - General Discussion]]> https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/ Sat, 26 Sep 2026 22:51:46 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Varen's Feedback Thread]]> https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/showthread.php?tid=16 Thu, 29 Jan 2026 20:02:29 -0500 Varen]]> https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/showthread.php?tid=16

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]]>

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

Quote:On January 27, 2026, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its history. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board (SASB), which sets the Clock, called for urgent action to limit nuclear arsenals, create international guidelines on the use of AI, and form multilateral agreements to address global biological threats.

Sounds like not a great outlook, and i would even go as far to say they are being conservative on the seconds.]]> https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/#nav_menu

Quote:On January 27, 2026, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its history. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board (SASB), which sets the Clock, called for urgent action to limit nuclear arsenals, create international guidelines on the use of AI, and form multilateral agreements to address global biological threats.

Sounds like not a great outlook, and i would even go as far to say they are being conservative on the seconds.]]> <![CDATA[Reddit]]> https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/showthread.php?tid=13 Tue, 27 Jan 2026 14:38:52 -0500 SystematyK]]> https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/showthread.php?tid=13 latestagecapitalism (banned permanently) and socialism (banned permanently) for challenging absolutism in ideologies. I disagree that Marxism-Leninism or Communism is sacred, and those circles just do not allow divergence from the 'grand plan' as written. It's almost poetic how people seem hell bent on failure just by forcing to continue using political ideologies. The reality is that we cannot disrupt all of this if we are convinced the only battle to engage in is one we have already had before. We don't need the historic framing to carry forward if we want to actually fix things. Further to the point, from a leftist perspective, there is apparently no cohesion or 'common' thread, which makes any leftist position weak.

I don't pretend that i know it all or im incapable of making mistakes. I am human and i can, and do. What i can say is nothing should be absolute, nothing should be indefinitely indoctrinated, and NOTHING that human beings create, including themselves, are permanent - everything rots and must be rebuilt.]]> latestagecapitalism (banned permanently) and socialism (banned permanently) for challenging absolutism in ideologies. I disagree that Marxism-Leninism or Communism is sacred, and those circles just do not allow divergence from the 'grand plan' as written. It's almost poetic how people seem hell bent on failure just by forcing to continue using political ideologies. The reality is that we cannot disrupt all of this if we are convinced the only battle to engage in is one we have already had before. We don't need the historic framing to carry forward if we want to actually fix things. Further to the point, from a leftist perspective, there is apparently no cohesion or 'common' thread, which makes any leftist position weak.

I don't pretend that i know it all or im incapable of making mistakes. I am human and i can, and do. What i can say is nothing should be absolute, nothing should be indefinitely indoctrinated, and NOTHING that human beings create, including themselves, are permanent - everything rots and must be rebuilt.]]> <![CDATA['Other' Systems]]> https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/showthread.php?tid=9 Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:27:20 -0500 SystematyK]]> https://www.inyourbrains.com/Forums/showthread.php?tid=9
GFC - Essentially an upper layer of globalized control on top of all other types of control around the world

https://globalgovernanceframeworks.org/

https://www.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/comme...planetary/

KAOSnow - A 'second' layer of democracy. Core belief that a central database of opinion will force institutions to stay in line.
https://www.kaosnow.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/KAOSNOW/
https://substack.com/@kaosovercontrol

Senetai - An open-source cooperative platform that lets you:

Vote on actual legislation (bills, bylaws, laws that affect you)
Earn political capital (Policaps) for participating
Own your data collectively (you get paid when it's sold to researchers/journalists)
Build financial leverage (trust fund buys government bonds, gives you debt-holder influence)

https://senatai.ca/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Senatai/

To clarify, this post is NOT to mock or ridicule the work someone else has attempted, but more so exploration of what other ideas other human beings have surfaced.]]>
GFC - Essentially an upper layer of globalized control on top of all other types of control around the world

https://globalgovernanceframeworks.org/

Vote on actual legislation (bills, bylaws, laws that affect you)
Earn political capital (Policaps) for participating
Own your data collectively (you get paid when it's sold to researchers/journalists)
Build financial leverage (trust fund buys government bonds, gives you debt-holder influence)