Towards a Sustainable, Self-Mediating, Prosperous Society
(Ramblings of an Idealistic College Student, written in 1996-97, revised 2001)
Copyright © 2006 Owen Emlen. All Rights Reserved.
This document proposes several alterations of societal values and rules. The benefits of such alterations would, nationally, (1) allow the federal government to support, encourage, and protect its citizens, (2) significantly alleviate the financial burden currently carried by the government, (3) foster the growth and practice of capitalism while also encouraging ethical business practice, (4) empower citizens by increasing individual freedom and responsibility, (5) address issues which cannot currently be resolved by majority approval, (6) empower families by creating sustainable, cohesive neighborhoods and communities, and (7) create a solid foundation for a society that can continue to grow and adapt to a changing world environment.
The benefits of such alterations would, internationally, (A) help improve international relations, (B) mend current negative US stereotypes, and (C) encourage peaceful interaction while still allowing for the necessary use of force.
Humanity has gathered the technology, wisdom, and intellect necessary for us to take the next step towards achieving a working, sustainable, peaceful, free society. These proposals suggest national, global, and individual change. These alterations of societal values and rules can be slowly introduced into our current social and legal system, only replacing pre-existing social and political practices when necessary.
These proposals were developed through observation of the natural world.
Principles
(1) Use natural laws of statistics and probability to help make informed decisions.
(2) Make use of our natural instincts whenever possible, reducing the number situations where individuals are asked to go against their natural instincts.
(3) Avoid moral judgment whenever possible. Eliminate the idea that individual actions can be judged as good, neutral, or bad. Instead, place emphasis on actions being helpful (or neutral) to society, or harmful to society.
(4) Insist that individuals are responsible for their actions; consequence for deviant action should counter the effect of the action, whenever possible.
(5) Help both the deviant citizens and the victims.
Assumptions
(1) Both governments and citizens make mistakes.
a. The threat of punishment, no matter how severe, cannot stop all individuals from making mistakes.
b. Mistakes can be learning opportunities.
c. We can focus on correcting each mistake as opposed to identifying and punishing those at fault.
d. Isolated, occasional, or small mistakes may not warrant corrective action.
(2) Even the best of citizens naturally push the boundaries at times.
a. It is appropriate to let these citizens know that their behavior was not okay by explaining why, and helping them correct any problems that arise.
b. The focus is on corrective action, not on punishment.
(3) Enforcing a host of strict, preventative rules in order to “protect our citizens and keep them out of trouble” inhibits healthy individual moral practice.
a. The natural consequences of pushing the boundaries are often more effective than preventative punishment.
b. Punishment before any problem occurs can stifle action-consequence learning, inhibiting individual moral development and natural problem-solving skills.
(4) There are exceptional situations when it is okay to break the rules.
a. Peers can use wise judgment to handle each exceptional situation in a constructive manner.
(5) “Problem” citizens will repeatedly push the boundaries.
a. Care should be taken to separate problem citizen until they can get help.
b. Problem citizens should receive help for underlying issues before any sort of punishment occurs.
c. It is only necessary to take extreme corrective action if the citizen is resistant to following the designated guidelines and prescribed corrective action.
d. It is important to make sure problem citizens know that their worth as a human being is not compromised by their inappropriate actions. It is important for society to forgive, and not hold past problems against a reformed “problem” citizen.
(6) Given time, both “Problem” citizens and “Victim” citizens will behave in ways that make their identification simple and obvious.
a. Multiple reports of problems by many of their peers, or serious behavior issues observed by others can help identify those who need help.
Goals
1. Encourage a society where federal government agencies are free to support, encourage, and protect its citizens, rather than spend their limited resources enforcing a growing number of laws.
Today, the government imposes a plethora of rules and laws upon its citizens.The philosophy behind each law is to protect or help someone in some way. Behind each law is a foundation in history and good intent. Even laws that seem primarily punitive may have been designed to help discourage and reduce behavior that someone perceived as dangerous at one time. Laws often describe fairly consistent consequences for each infraction. Laws can also be applied as patchwork to holes in an existing law.
Why a Society Based on Strict Rules is Unstable
Observation and research has demonstrated that families which impose inflexible, absolute rules tend to raise poorly-adjusted, mentally unhealthy, highly stressed children. These families are frequently punishment-oriented. In families with a set of absolute, inflexible rules: (1) it is nearly impossible for children and parents to follow all the rules all the time, (2) if a child were to take great care to follow every rule – imposed externally – the development of the child’s moral character may remain underdeveloped, and (3) being fearful of breaking the rules for any reason, children tend to turn towards lying and dishonesty to escape responsibility.
In a strict, rule-based family, when children exhibit defiant behavior for various (and often natural) reasons, parents must scramble to create a new rule, or else the behavior cannot be “justly punished”. In this way, the parents begin to give the rules a life of their own. The parents lose control of their own subjective, compassionate values, and the rules become the law. The law then does the parenting, leaving the parents in the role of law enforcer.
When this happens, the parents become less responsible for justifying their own actions and punishments, and more reliant on verbiage such as, “We’re punishing you because you broke the rules.” With each application of punishment, the ability to question the rules, by either the parents or children, slowly disappears.
Then there are the problem children who are clever and push the boundaries as far as they can be pushed, without quite breaking the rules. If discipline is based entirely on restricted and allowed action, upset parents then have no “just” way of dealing with the situation except tightening the rules. However, the end result of tightening the rules is over-punishing many good-hearted children who make a mistake or error of judgment.
Soon, parents may begin to spend their energy trying to enforce the rules “fairly” for all of their kids all of the time. When this happens, it is easy for children to develop a negative self-image, equating their rule-breaking (irregardless of situation) to punishment. Breaking a rule slowly becomes equated to “doing something wrong.” The human aspects of compassion and forgiveness are lost, and “right and wrong” become defined by the rules laid down by the parents. The child begins to base his or her self-worth on the rules they follow or have broken.
The biggest problem with rules being set in stone is that children begin to get the impression that if an action doesn’t directly break a rule, then it is acceptable. In other words, the rules dictate morality. The child has no reason to question his morals; he simply refers to the rule book to see if what he is doing is “right” or “wrong”. In this way, the proper development of morals, honesty, open-ness, and self-respect are sacrificed. Respect and understanding between the children and parents also is lost.
I would now like to draw a parallel to the government being a “parent” to millions of citizens. It is not an easy task. The number of law enforcement and monitoring agents the government must currently hire to “make sure the citizens follow the rules” is staggering. Up until this point, the government has done an acceptable job in keeping citizens alive and preventing severe deviance. But with the increase in education and growing availability of information in the last few decades, both the children and parents are quickly reaching maturity. Right now, the government has an overwhelming job on its hands, and it is time to start dealing with citizens in a way which both maximizes development of self-sufficiency and minimizes the need for punishment-oriented “parental” involvement.
An Alternative
With high self-esteem, mature individual family members are not morally threatened by problem behavior. The instinct to judge an individual diminishes when self-esteem is high. The parents’ role in the family is to decide consequences that keep the family intact, well-functioning, healthy, and nurturing, not to judge each family member as “right or wrong”, “good or bad”.
When judgment is replaced by consequence, compassion, and forgiveness, the fundamental attribution error (which states that individuals are quick to attribute others’ actions to the other’s personality, yet attribute their own actions to the situational details) diminishes. Family members with high self-esteem and who are not afraid to openly communicate can keep an open mind that problem behavior is probably not due to some fundamental character flaw, but due to circumstances and the perceived options of the individual at the time.
When an acute problem arises, such as a fight on the playground, teachers take action.The immediate behavior is corrected so as to alleviate any immediate danger. Then, what remains is not judgment and punishment (although punishment may be involved), but hints of an issue that needs to be addressed. The teachers may more closely monitor the bully, or they may send him to the school counselor or talk with his parents. Removal from school is only necessary if the bully is repeatedly endangering himself and others.
When there is high self-esteem, all members of a family can honestly talk to one another about what needs are not being addressed. If safe and appropriate, individuals can ask others about the reasons behind their actions without feeling threatened. Judgment and retribution play no part in this examination. With high self-esteem and open communication, anger can be felt and expressed, but it does not force immediate retaliation. Each family member is there to help each other, not to condemn the other or boost their own ego through blaming. Each family member is concerned about the other’s well-being and happiness, not only about his or her moral viewpoint, or “being right”. When problem behavior arises, the needs of each individual child are not predetermined. The consequence of “acting out” is seen in light of the situation, so while the child is still held responsible for the action, the parents make an effort to understand what might be needed to prevent future problems with the individual.
Punishment is then transformed into consequence. The needs of all parties are addressed and dealt with. Consequence is linked to a solution and a learning process. The focus turns away from how individuals were “wronged”, towards what can be done to correct the situation and prevent future problems. Grievance and anxiety are felt, but focus quickly returns from the past hurt others have caused (or future hardship that others may cause), to the present situation – and what can be done about it.
Applying the Alternative
(1) Encourage the development of problem-solving skills in citizens.
(2) Give individuals the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.
(3) Encourage citizens to make use of the judicial system only when necessary, helping alleviate the use of jails and prisons.
(4) Maintain a high level of personal and community freedom, while still addressing the concerns of citizens who need help with a problem.
(5) Forgive mistakes and errors of judgment when appropriate, while also identifying repeat “problem” individuals who require more attention.
(6) Identify and help repeated “victims”.
This framework will show how reasonable fees (similar to existing “fines”) and/or mandatory help can be used to quickly solve many small problems or minor dangers a citizen purposely or inadvertently causes.
This framework is also designed to identify people who repeatedly “act out” or are commonly involved in dangerous situations, and to get them help (as opposed to accusing them or labeling them as criminals). In this framework, repeated victims are a focus as well as repeated trouble-makers.
For this structure to work, an advancement of cooperation and trust between the government, private industry, and the individual – in the form of information exchange – must occur. I suggest that the internet and public internet terminals would allow access to such information.
Proposal:
(1) Non-immediate, potential dangers require fees to be paid. (Similar to existing fines)
a. Examples: Speeding, not wearing seatbelt, not obeying crosswalk laws.
b. Fees are calculated using insurance-company-like estimates, and contribute to funds that help the victims of such dangers.
c. There is no room for argument involved in the payment of these fees. There is no judicial process involved at this level.
d. Paying these fees is not considered a “violation” of anything, nor have you “broken the law”. These are nothing more than “mistakes” with a cost.
(2) Reported minor nuisances require fees to be paid.
a. Examples: playing loud music, dog not on a leash in a leash-only area.
b. These fees could go towards future enforcement and education.
c. These nuisances are report-only. Unless it is bothering someone and they report the nuisance, no fee is required. If the minor nuisance does not endanger those around (as determined by all present) and nobody present takes offense, then nothing needs to be done.
d. There is no room for argument involved in the payment of these fees. The reporter does not need proof of the nuisance being caused.There is no judicial process involved at this level. This may jump out as an avenue for expressing personal vendettas or abuse of the fee system. However, this is not the case, as is explained later in this paper.
(3) Give citizens the benefit of the doubt.
a. If a fee is contested after-the-fact, refund the individual if it is not a repeat performance.
b. Examples: if a citizen takes the time to go into the police station and claim they were wearing a seatbelt (and there is no direct photo the police can provide), refund their fee. The same applies to nuisance fees.
c. If it is a non-immediate danger and a repeat performance (as determined by rate or by total occurrence, for instance a 3rd time for not wearing a seatbelt in the last year, or for speeding repeatedly), then do not give the benefit of the doubt.
d. In the case of a repeat performance, it is up to the citizen to contest the fee: this is the first point that the judicial system gets involved.
(4) All non-immediate dangers and minor nuisances are erased from record after a given period of time.
a. This depends on the number of repeat performances. If the average citizen receives one speeding ticket a year, then one speeding ticket per year is removed from each citizen’s record, each year.
(5) Increase the fees for each repeat.
a. An $80 fee for speeding could require a $500 fee if it was your fourth time pulled over in the last month. The fee is determined by your Z-score. For instance, if you one of the top 5% speeding citizens, your fees would reflect that.
b. Similarly, a $50 littering fee could become a $1000 clean-up fee if the littering has been occurring repeatedly.
c. A loud-party complaint fee could go from $25 to $500 if the same person continues to cause a nuisance to others.
(6) If a citizen cannot pay the fee, then they must perform public service to pay.
a. In hour-equivalents to minimum wage.
b. If the person repeatedly does not show up for public service, the individual will be required to receive help and evaluation.
c. Repeated resistance to fee-paying or public service is treated seriously and must be resolved by the judicial system.
(7) If minor nuisances or non-immediate dangers are repeated many times, temporarily remove the freedom of that citizen in the area of nuisance, whenever possible.
a. If a citizen has been fined 8 times for speeding in the last year and does not seem to be catching on, then the judge and judicial system becomes involved. If the citizen is not able to convince a judge of his or her appropriate reason, then their license would be temporarily suspended.
(8) A community can choose to overlook a “report-only” fee (such as nude sunbathing), under certain conditions.
a. The “overlooked” actions must be submitted by three quarters of the community, and stored as public knowledge at the local police station for each neighborhood, and available on the internet for review by potential homeowners or renters.
b. If more than one quarter of the neighborhood residents submits an “objection”, then the report-only overlooked fee will be removed from the list. Then, after a set period of time, any citizen can report the nuisance, and the nuisance-maker will be charged the usual fee.
c. In this way, communities can be empowered in setting their own consequences for actions, with “nuisance fees” only.
d. New homeowners and members of the community are encouraged to discuss issues with other members of the community before “objecting”.
(9) The tally and type of minor nuisances reported by each individual is public knowledge. Tallies of reporting any endangering actions (such as domestic disturbances, etc) are not public knowledge, due to safety concerns.
a. In this way, renters can know which landlords excessively report loud music, and potential homeowners can find neighborhoods which are friendly about letting their dog run without a leash.
b. If a citizen has paid public nuisance fees for loud music at night each month for a year, a landlord can see this before-hand and not rent to them.
c. This encourages communities that “play together nicely”. They are more likely to work through their own problems and remain supportive and flexible.
(10) For immediate problems and dangers, unconditionally get the individuals help.
a. Do not treat individuals as criminals. However, getting them help needs to remove all parties from the immediate problem or danger.
b. If reasonable, individuals should stay with family pending treatment. If this option is not practical or desired, short-term, optionally-monitored housing should be made available for a small fee. If short-term housing cannot be paid for or is not appropriate, jail housing should be a last result.
(11) If these serious problems are repeated, take action to remove an individual from society to a place where they can get 24-hour help and monitoring.
a. This could be jail or prison, as a last resort.
(12) With property theft or property damage, the problem must be corrected for both the victim and the thief.
a. Examples: shoplifting, burglary, car prowling, etc.
b. Repay the victim for the price of the item and damages/losses/time. If the thief cannot pay, require community service to “repay” the amount. The judicial system only needs to be involved if there is a dispute.
c. If the thief does not agree with the victim’s valuation of stolen property or damages/losses/time, then the thief may ask the judicial system to be involved.
d. If so, the victim is required to show up in court and explain his or her valuation of stolen property.
e. These two measures encourage the victim to come up with a reasonable valuation (to avoid the hassle of the judicial system), while retaining the rights of the thief to contest the amount.
f. Require therapy or treatment for any occurrence of theft, even for first occurrences of shoplifting. No judicial system involved.
g. The judicial system must be involved if this is recurring (as determined by statistical Z-values), or if the theft involves multiple issues, such as trespassing (burglary) or threats (robbery).
h. Any related problem behavior (such as not attending therapy or causing trouble during community service) must be dealt with by the judicial system.
i. Any identified “problem sites” in which thievery commonly occurs can be requested to pay for a security evaluation, or must give proof of a prior security evaluation. In this way, victims are encouraged to take action to reduce occurrence of the problem.
(13) Fraud or money related.
a. The judicial system must be involved.
b. Encourage consequences of over-repayment and therapy/treatment.
c. For repeat problem persons, restrict the rights of the problem person in the area in which fraud occurred. For instance, to the best of current ability, remove credit rights, check-writing rights, or computer-use rights.
(14) Other issues will be examined in detail later in this document.
Potential “Real-World” Examples:
Traffic Stop
Let’s look to an ideal situation involving a traffic stop. Perhaps you get pulled over for going 10mph over the speed limit and the officer notices you are not wearing your seatbelt. His or her radar detector has captured your speed and license plate number on computer. After a brief license plate check, the officer walks up to your car and hands you a pamphlet on the dangers of speeding, and another pamphlet on the dangers of not wearing a seatbelt. No glaring, no derogatory questioning. Simply, “Sir, I pulled you over for going 10mph over the speed limit and for not wearing your seat belt. This won’t take long, and then we can both be on our way. While you look over these pamphlets, I need your registration to confirm that you are the owner of the car. ” The officer also hands you a card with their name, number, and district information. The officer briefly explains that your fee is $300 for speeding (since you were also pulled over speeding just two weeks ago), that in part goes to victims of car accidents. There is also an $80 fee for not wearing a seatbelt that, in part, goes towards helping those who crash without a seatbelt on and can’t pay for their medical expenses. This record of charged fees is also handed over to your insurance company, who can also take whatever action they feel necessary.
If your record shows that you have sped 10 times in the last year, the officer simply charges you more safety fees, up until you are warned that you could lose your license if you continue to endanger others on the road. Like present law, an officer might decide to let you be on your way if you are taking your pregnant spouse to the hospital, for instance.
If a citizen feels they have been wrongly charged the fees (which will likely decrease if they are not treated like a suspicious criminal), then they go to the police office and report the officer name and number. If they want to dispute the fee payment and their proof-of-speeding data is not properly filed, they get a refund. They can also state that they were wearing their seatbelt, and they are given the benefit of the doubt; the money is refunded. However, all notices, including the seatbelt notice, are kept on file. If the person comes in many times claiming that they were wearing their seatbelt but officers have repeatedly reported otherwise, their fine will not be excused unless they sign up to argue their case in court.
If many people have complained about an officer, then citizens can note this (all this information is public). The citizens themselves then can act to have the officer investigated, moved, or removed, by requesting a judicial system (court) hearing.
In this way, an officer’s job is made easier, the citizen is empowered in responding to their action (such as going to the station for a refund), and most importantly, the citizens help solve the problem (paying fees towards a fund, etc) rather than being treated as a criminal.
Domestic Violence
Let’s look at another situation involving a domestic violence call. An officer is called to a situation where a woman claims to have been threatened by her husband during a fight. The officer immediately removes both parties from the situation, taking children into custody. There has been a fight, and this is a cry for help - not simply a case of victim and bully. Neither one is treated as a criminal, neither as a victim. The couple is required to pay to see a family therapist, and each individual is offered protective services. If drugs such as alcohol are involved, then both could be required to pay for a certain amount of drug assessment and counseling. If it is a repeated alcohol-related disturbance, then they could be restricted from buying alcohol for a year. The key is to make this costly for all individuals involved, without accusing them of being “bad”. Simply get them help. Often a serious (yet non-criminal) consequence will be enough to cause some sort of change. By creating a hassle for the victim as well as the offender, there is additional encouragement for the victim to leave the relationship. If the husband is a repeat offender, a court may need to be involved to determine what action needs to be taken (a restraining order, a forced move, payment for medical bills, and/or in a drastic case, removal from society). Both individuals have the right to request a hearing. However, mandatory counseling and fees (irregardless) should discourage couples from using the court system to play out personal vendettas.
Many people have a heated argument once in a while. The key is to collect data to pinpoint families that have experienced repeated problems. This is not done to “single out” trouble-makers, but to pinpoint those that need help and can’t seem to move forward on their own. Only drastic situations (as determined by the officer) or any repeat disturbance requires the use of the judicial system.
This applies to “victims” as well. If a woman were involved in 10 domestic violence calls, with perhaps 4 different partners in the last year, this data would suggest that she be required to attend some sort of therapy. Again, she is not treated as a troublemaker or a victim, but as one who needs help.
Shoplifting
Let’s look at another situation. A person is shoplifting from stores in a mall. This person has been banned from the mall for shoplifting previously. Currently, this elevates their shoplifting into burglary and they are sent to jail. However, let us consider the possible alternative “consequences”. First, the shoplifter would be required to pay back, perhaps fivefold, the cost of merchandise stolen. The shoplifter would be required to pay for therapy, paying in community service hours if unable to pay out-of-pocket. Unless this person is a compulsive shoplifter who has failed treatment for years, this person does not deserve months in jail or years in prison.
Credit Card Fraud
Perhaps someone has stolen some credit cards and has used them. They are caught using these stolen credit cards. The judicial system must be involved at this point. The consequence might be to pay back charges, fivefold. In addition, the person might not be permitted to use any sort of credit/debit card or check for payment for the next five years (which requires easy access to information). Consequences for repeat violation or failure to pay may require temporary removal from society (restricted housing, jail, or prison) while the person receives psychological help.
Changes toward Flexibility in the Judicial System
Now that a lot of the pressure on the judicial system has been alleviated by the above guidelines, the judicial system is free to debate more difficult issues and decisions. The most prominent changes in the judicial system include:
(1) In a non-jury trial, the judge’s job is to focus more on helping the individual (and the “victim”) rather than finding a fitting “punishment”.
(2) In a preliminary hearing, if the judge feels it necessary to remove the person from society to jail or prison for a length of time, he or she must call a jury trial.
a. This is done when it appears therapy has failed as demonstrated by repeat problems, or in a serious crime such as murder where the person needs to get help while also being temporarily (or permanently) removed from society.
(3) If the judge does not feel it necessary to remove the person from society to jail or prison, but the person receives consequences set forth by the judge that they do not agree with, then the person can request a jury trial. (Otherwise, no jury trial is necessary).
a. When disputing the judge’s consequences, a jury trial would be performed at moderate expense to the individual, or in return for a reasonable amount of community service.
b. Note that most juries will agree that it is not major punishment to send someone to therapy, pay a fee, or require community service.
c. Most juries will find it difficult to be compassionate when a person has resisted help repeatedly.
d. The monetary cost and time-related hassle of calling a jury trial will help dissuade individuals from requesting a jury for less extreme prescribed consequences.
(4) If help has failed in the past and/or the individual must be removed from society, it is up to the jury to decide the length of time in jail or prison.
a. This time can be shortened by the judge, but not lengthened.
2. Significantly alleviate the financial burden carried by the government.
The above ideas for higher levels of individual responsibility and jailing only repeat offenders will likely save money at the level of all government. Another way of alleviating the financial burden carried by the government is by responsibly, yet directly empowering the individual with more control over his or her life. The specific area I mention below could result in approximately $40 billion dollars of combined federal- and state-level savings each year. The area I have chosen to examine in empowering the individual in a responsible manner is “The War on Drugs”.
The problem with the War on Drugs has been summed up very nicely by Governor Gary E. Johnson of New Mexico in 2001.
“After 20-plus years of zero-tolerance policies and increasingly harsh criminal penalties, we have over half a million people behind bars on drug charges nationwide -- more than the total prison population in all of Western Europe. We're spending billions of dollars to keep them locked up. Yet the federal government's own research demonstrates that drugs are cheaper, purer, and more readily available than when this war started. Heroin use is up. Ecstasy use is up. Teenagers say that marijuana is easier to get than alcohol. No matter how you slice it, this is no success story.
In 1981, the federal government spent about $1.5 billion on the drug war. Today, we spend almost $20 billion a year at the federal level, with the states spending at least that much again. In 1980, the federal government arrested a few hundred thousand people on drug charges; today we arrest 1.6 million people a year for drug offenses. Yet we still have a drug problem. Should we continue until the federal government spends $40 billion and arrests 3.2 million people a year for drugs? What about $80 billion and 6.4 million arrests? The logical conclusion of this is that we'll be spending the entire gross national product on drug-law enforcement and still not be addressing our drug problem. I believe the costs outweigh the benefits.” (Governor Gary E. Johnson (R-NM), July 10, 2001)
The solution that follows the philosophy of empowering the individual while encouraging responsible growth and consequence, involves the following:
(1) Eliminating the drug black-market, through as natural means as possible
a. Severely reduce profitability for drug dealers
i. When the money (and severe legal danger) goes out of the profession, the violence, aggression and greed diminishes as well.
(2) Allowing people to put whatever they want into their bodies, while still having moderate control over health consequences.
a. Identify and help at-risk individuals
(3) Prevent the distribution of drugs to high-risk or inappropriate populations
a. Reduce the availability of drugs (including alcohol) to kids
b. Reduce the distribution of drugs to high-health-risk individuals
3. Encourage the growth and freedom capitalism while also strengthening related ethical issues through information availability.
Checks and Balances in the Private Sector
Product-Related Companies
Service-Related Companies (including doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc)
4. Empower each citizen through a broadening of individual freedom and responsibility.
5. Work towards resolution of two-sided standstills, where democracy can not necessarily lead to a stable outcome.
6. Facilitate empowerment of the family, creating sustainable, nurturing neighborhoods and communities.
7. Create a solid foundation for a society that can continue to grow and adapt to a changing world environment.
[Obviously I never completed this rambling, but some may find it interesting, so I pass it on... to the internet!]