Social Systems Are Dysfunctional

The SEEDS Method Is The Update

It’s Our World

Suffering, subjugation, and destruction result from obsolete systems of government and economics. We haven’t updated the technologies of social systems for centuries, or even millennia. Every other technology has become advanced except those technologies that organize human life and we’re long overdue for completely new systems.

As a species, we have the technology and the intelligence to provide plenty of wealth, health, and freedom to every individual on Earth, but we are limited by the momentum of extant social systems that are destructive, oppressive, and archaic. Our most pressing social problems are not handed down from the heavens, they are problems created by human hands and they can be solved by our choices.

The SEEDS Method Is an Assault on Ideology & Dogma

Rigid, one-size-fits-all solutions, from the 19th century, are six feet under and it’s time to move on. It’s time to approach social systems with the same intelligence and sophistication that we approach project management or scientific study, today.

The SEEDS Method is a system of modelling present-day civilizations to form meaningful, practical analysis and strategy for today, which can be immediately applied to completely transform social structures, within one lifetime, to best serve the basic human needs of subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, and autonomy; for the most individuals as possible, as effectively as possible.

The SEEDS Method creates more effective, accurate models by separating what is often mixed together homogeneously, into one model of an ideology. The SEEDS Method is divided into three types of models; the SEEDS Model, the analyses models based on the SEEDS Model, and the prescriptive models based on the analyses models. The SEEDS Model provides the framework for analysis, based on five aspects of social organization; Social, Economic, Ecological, Decision-making, and Structural.

We Can’t Eat Slogans & Banners Don’t Pay The Bills

To solve these problems, we need ways to figure out the best solutions and plans to apply those solutions. It seems that almost everyone says they have the answers, but all the answers sound the same; “join my party, convert to my ideology.”

Parties and political groups from left to right promise everything and none of it is working. As so many groups play political football, the rest of us still need to eat, we need to be warm, to live, and find ways to do more than just survive, if we can.

Present Ideologies Are as Obsolete as The Social Systems

When we seek solutions, however, we find that nearly all the answers today are from the 19th century, at best. It seems that we’re surrounded by people who are preaching at the altar of one ideology or another, looking for converts, but there are few sincerely looking at our present systems for modern analysis and real solutions.

We may as well try to install Windows on an abacus. We may as well put hay in a gas tank, imagining it’s the same as a horse. The answers from present ideologies are just as obsolete as the systems, in which we live. The answers from ideologies don’t offer the flexibility of pluralistic thought and action needed to transform social systems and create a solidarity to transform them. Ideologies offer singular solutions, dogmatic insistence on certain tactics, and certain strategies that even define the ideologies.

We Need A New Approach

A Completely new approach is needed, without the suffocating rigidness of dogmatic ideology. We need a sincere method of observing, analyzing, and forming conclusions to address the problems of modern civilization, without the delusion, fantasy, and cloudy-thinking of playing ideological football and looking to defend dogma over seeking accurate, honest understanding.

The SEEDS Method is that approach, which is designed to be adaptable to many strategies and tactics for diverse communities. It is designed to bring clarity to questioning institutions with a step-by-step analysis that side-steps the fog of ideologies. It is designed to offer a unity among diverse groups seeking social transformation, with a plurality of action.

Problems of Modelling

Why The SEEDS Method?


Human civilization can be examined, defined, and categorized in countless ways. There are so many variables of social organization and human behavior that the focus must be narrowed by creating conceptual models to represent these systems, in order to interpret data and predict outcomes.

These conceptual models are symbolic representations of reality, to observe and predict systems and events in a way that is comprehensible. These conceptual models use terms such as “capital,” “class,” or “government” to describe and explain phenomena, as they might be observed in the newspaper or a history book, in a collection of economic data, or demographics. These models are used to make sense of all the knowledge that could possibly be considered, with a more narrow and manageable template for understanding data.

Social sciences such as economics, history, political science, sociology, marketing, cultural anthropology, and the myriad of others, all seek to form predictive models and general principles to understand what is incomprehensibly complex. Even the observation itself requires models to make the observed phenomena comprehensible.

Models are like maps. They can represent the same terrain in many ways, but they are not the terrain. They can be poorly made or well made, with great or little detail, and they may reflect different truths about the same terrain, or they may not represent the terrain at all.

Data, Analysis, and Conclusions

The difference between data, analysis, and conclusions is a key distinction made by the SEEDS Method. The same data can be analyzed differently to reach different conclusions. The inputs can be the same, but the process, ultimately, determines the outputs.

If the underlying assumptions and models used to process information have a predetermined outcome or if they are inadequate to process the data effectively for a given goal or requirement, then it doesn’t matter how much information is gathered, the output will be a low-resolution model, a poorly constructed conclusion. Low quality ideas beget low quality conclusions. Dogma doesn’t seek answers, it seeks support for conclusions.

The very use of certain models can determine the conclusions reached with them. The conclusions may usually follow a logical path, but the logical conclusion is relative to the underlying assumptions of the model used to interpret the information. This doesn’t make any one model inaccurate, per se, but all models should be viewed relatively, not as absolute “truths.”

Thought Schemas

Besides models, people use simple thought schemas to respond to complex social problems. While a schema may use a model and the two are similar, it’s more of a way of thinking about reality than the symbolic representation that is a model of reality. A thought schema is a simple template of predetermined conclusions that is used to mechanically respond to questions with an automatic answer.

Instead of sincerely and thoughtfully considering a question, a thought schema is nothing more than parroting lines, a simple imitation and regurgitation of ideas, in place of thinking. Everything from party slogans to more sophisticated talking points may be thought schemas, but none of them help one to sincerely observe and analyze a problem.

In practical terms, people evaluating information on society (e.g. reading history, watching news, etc.) through the filter of rigid thought schemas, these mental templates of reaction, with deeply, rigidly held beliefs and prejudices, may be unable to draw any conclusions about this information other than the conclusions that have already been reached in and of the schemas.

The term “process,” here, is thinking about information given. One can deeply consider the information, or it may be fitting it within an existing schema, in a low-effort thought process that doesn’t really give sincere consideration to the information. In this way, it may be accepted as a confirmation of existing conclusions, or it will be rejected as “propaganda,” “lies,” “disinformation,” or as “heretical.”

Cognitive dissonance reduction tactics such as the isolation from exposure to inputs that are contradictory to an individual’s conclusions, or the dismissal of contradictory information, may lead people to have narrow inputs (e.g. only watching news consistent with their views or not discussing social concerns with people who hold different views), but it’s the initial limited process that determines already narrow outcomes, not simply a lack of information; in diversity, quality, or quantity.

SEEDS Is Not a Belief

An obstacle arises from unexamined conclusions and schemas, assumptions that commonly form processes of observing and interpreting reality, including models about society, often without the individual’s awareness. It creates a problematic feedback loop of confirmation bias, rejection of contradictory information, and predetermined conclusions.

Upon the recognition of models that form a “worldview,” whether from independent, individual exploration, from culture, from parents, peers, or elsewhere; individuals may identify with the models, the conclusions, the beliefs; seeing the models as an extension of themselves, rather than simply conclusions.

Unlike conclusions about how to tie one’s shoe, for example, this attachment to the perception of identity stunts the development of model-making, because the more it is attached to one’s perceived identity, the less it is able to change, evolve, and undergo natural, coherent, realistic model-making functions within a person’s mentation. It departs from reality when it becomes attached to a person’s identity and it becomes no longer about making an accurate, effective model of reality, but, instead, justifying existing conclusions about generalizations of reality, in an assortment of -isms.

The loyalty to dogma, to banners, and to -isms often overrides consideration of information or even thoughtful analysis of social problems. Instead, as long as one’s team is saying one thing, it is believed, even if it’s contradictory or incoherent, and the converse is true of any team considered in opposition to one’s own. However a debate is popularly framed is often the limit of how it is considered, and it’s often considered only to the extent of knowing one’s team’s position.

Oversimplified, binary arguments replace thought with talking points towards the aim of “winning” an unwinnable argument, rather than sincerely observing, analyzing, and drawing conclusions, from among the incalculable possibilities of solutions to human problems. It becomes about “picking sides,” and rooting for a team, unconditionally, like a football game.

An additional problem that arises is attraction and aversion to certain terminology, usually of some political belief or another, and a total lack of willingness to participate in groups that are perceived to be “partisan,” in favor of anything other than the individual’s identified -ism.

Consequently, creating another -ism is assumed to be of no value at all and any work towards a beneficial transformation of human social systems must make every effort to disassociate from previously used terminology and ideologies that are likely to be misunderstood, where it is reasonable and practical, in order not to cause more confusion and in order not to waste time and effort on endless semantic debates, arising from unnecessary misunderstanding.

The SEEDS Method is rooted in a rejection of dogma, hero-worship, doctrines, and ideologies. Indoctrination is explicitly antithetical to the methodology of SEEDS. It’s neither rigidly fixed nor dependent on certain individuals, terminology, or extant belief systems. Rather, it’s rooted in the dismantling of unexamined conclusions. It’s a method, not a conclusion, much like the Scientific Method. Like the Scientific Method, SEEDS relies on basic assumptions and essential steps, but these are only working assumptions and steps in an aspiration towards the best possible models available to us in our current cultural and contemporary conditions.

“I do not believe anything. Most people, even the educated, think that everybody must ‘believe’ something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X, or the reverse of X. My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence… As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”
― Robert Anton Wilson

Left-Right or Centralization-Decentralization

The spectrum of political philosophy has commonly been described as Right-Left, or on a plane, including authoritarian-libertarian on the Y axis, as well as other ways. It may be better understood as centralized-decentralized.

On the centralization end of the spectrum, we have authoritarianism. Centralization is more control over systems in fewer hands. It is the maximum amount of decision-making, over the widest scale, by the fewest people. On the decentralization end of the spectrum, democracy and autonomy are necessarily parallels. Decentralization is the widest distribution of control, to the smallest possible decision-making units, each of which to the greatest degree of self-rule.

The smallest possible decision-making unit is the individual, followed by the neighborhood, then the city, and so forth. Therefore, decentralization leads to individual liberties and participatory democracy, taken to its furthest, logical extent. The SEEDS Method assumes that decentralization is the most effective, efficient organization of decision-making processes, because distributed networks enable the most accurate and responsive forms of data processing for social systems.

Sources of Power

The fundamental sources of power are dependence and violent force. If people depend on someone or something, it gives anyone, who can control access to what is needed, influence over those who need it. Control of capital gives power to those who possess it. The same can be applied to control of social systems, such as government. Both, most fundamentally, concern continued existence for an individual, by bread or by bullet.

The SEEDS Method

Social Economic Ecological Decision-Making Structural

A Method for Today

Intersecting with many fields of social sciences and derived from a diversity of theories, the SEEDS Method is a synthesis of models, past and contemporary, to create a coherent, complete, and consistent framework for creating analytical and prescriptive models about complex social systems.

The SEEDS Method is created to determine solutions to the fundamental human problems of suffering, subjugation, and destruction, where they are caused by dysfunctions of social systems, by creating more effective, accurate predictive models.

The SEEDS Method is an approach to questioning social organization, which departs from any previous ideologies, while not ignoring their input. Within its framework, the input of previous analyses and ideas about social organization fit, as it’s not mutually exclusive, but it is meant to synthesize scattered works, practices, and models into coherent and useful predictive models.

The SEEDS Method is formed to be a framework to develop meaningful and practical analyses and strategy for today, which can be immediately applied to completely transform social structures, within one lifetime, to best serve the basic human needs of subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, and autonomy; for the most individuals as possible, as effectively as possible.

The SEEDS Method is nothing more than an analytical process, based on the SEEDS Model of social organization, which isolates certain models of social organization and separates the steps of the process of analysis in a coherent, complete, and thorough way that mitigates the legion of cognitive dysfunctions that prevent the formation of useful, socially transformative models that reduce material suffering, subjugation, and systemic destructiveness.

1. Separate Models, Analysis & Prescriptive

The SEEDS Method creates more effective, accurate models by separating what is often mixed together homogeneously, into one model of an ideology. The SEEDS Method is divided into three types of models; the SEEDS Model, the analyses models based on the SEEDS Model, and the prescriptive models based on the analyses models. The prescriptive models may be divided into ideal and strategic, but it’s not required. These two may be described together, as they may go together.

2. State Assumptions

State logical assumptions about the model and ideals for human civilization.

In order to make accurate, predictive models of society and reality, it is necessary to consciously recognize those components of the model that are assumptions, which can not be reduced any further. Perhaps one “believes” in autonomy over authoritarian “beliefs,” and at the core of discord among incongruous models is not simply the process or inputs, but that the fundamental assumptions, which may be fundamentally subjective, are unreconcilable.

At the beginning of analytical and prescriptive models, state basic assumptions, as well as they are consciously known, which form the basis of the models. The fundamental beliefs are stated at the beginning because the flow of logic of the analysis is relative to the core assumptions. This statement of assumptions is intended to be simple, such as “autonomy is assumed to be desirable.” Another example of this may be “freedom, as defined by the ability to completely govern one’s own affairs, economically and politically, is desirable.”

The statement of assumptions is intended to include what may seem to the author to be obvious, but which can not be reduced any further, so boiled-down that they are only meaningful as principals of subjective belief. Assumptions are perfectly legitimate in the model, but must be understood in their relative subjectivity to make an accurate model in the sincere and systematic recognition of all its parts.

This component of the method is meant to maintain relative objectivity, to the extent that it is possible or desirable, and to make a high-resolution model by separating and thoroughly considering each component of the process during its formation. This allows for errors to be more easily recognized, or for a faulty chain of logic to be more easily corrected by understanding and documenting each step of the development. An unexamined, faulty assumption can have a cascading effect on the model, so this method mitigates unexamined assumptions from corrupting the model all the way down the line, simply because they weren’t adequately considered. In a way of understanding it, it’s like keeping thorough and well-written software documentation while writing code.

In addition to basic assumptions about society, the assumptions include aims for civilization. These are not objectives or tactics, but fundamental principles of ideal human civilization, such as community autonomy or freedom of speech. State the benefits to individuals and to communities of each aim of ideal civilization.

3. SEEDS Framework

The SEEDS Model provides the framework for analysis, based on five aspects of social organization; Social, Economic, Ecological, Decision-making, and Structural.

Each component of the SEEDS Model is selected, no more and no fewer, based on the conclusion that each component possesses unique influences on today’s society, such influences are significant enough that they demand separate consideration for a thorough and complete modern social model, and such influences each represent a distinct force in modern society, which can not be accounted for accurately under the umbrella of another component or components. The interaction of each component is as a separate force, which may be interdependent with the others, but is clearly acting in its own, distinct manner.

The SEEDS Model is not a universally applicable model for observing and analyzing human social systems in all times and places. The SEEDS Model is only intended for practical use today to form new technologies of social systems, for the benefit of homo sapiens, communities, and individuals.

4. Models of Analysis

4.1 Assumptions

State assumptions, including the civilization aims.

4.2 Core Problems

Identify core flaws and their historical causes in the decision-making system that make outputs inconsistent with inputs or inconsistent with the stated assumptions of aims for civilization. If core flaws exist outside of the input-process-output system of decision-making systems, identify these influences as well.

4.3 Stakeholders

Tell the story of key stakeholders within the civilization. Define stakeholders based on their interests; their needs, desires, and core motivations.

4.4 Decision-Making System

Tell the story of the decision-making system of inputs, processes, and outputs, for the given societal component.

4.5 Requirements

Identify core requirements in the decision-making system to achieve the assumed aims of ideal civilization. Keep core requirements fundamental, in order to be achieved with a variety of methods and in order not to preclude useful methods with excessive specificity. Identify the opportunities and benefits of core requirements.

A core requirement might be for a form of decision-making process that makes the outputs more consistent and responsive to the inputs of communities, for example. Requirements may be seen as objectives of the aims of ideal civilization and should be specific, measurable, actionable, realistic, and time-constrained.

Identify beneficial features of current decision-making systems, which may be carried over into updated systems and which are needed in updated systems. Separate these features from their present means, in order to consider how they may be done in other ways.

For example, the nation-state is presently, commonly understood as the manager of a vast bureaucracy, including such bureaus as the rather benign segments of Parks and Recreation and Waste Management, which are not inherently features of the nation-state, nor the social function of collective decision-making for communities. There are a myriad of ways these departments or their equivalent functions could exist, if their functions are needed or desired. Identifying and isolating these features makes them no longer tied to their current institutions, such as the state, when adding them to prescriptive models.

Identify key threats to and weaknesses of the core requirements in the decision-making system to achieve the assumed aims of ideal civilization, in current systems, in methods of transition, and in the ends.

5. Prescriptive Models

There are endless ways to transform civilizations and the prescriptive models of this method are meant to be always a work in progress. If one need is identified in the analyses models and that need can be achieved through multiple methods, the participating groups that are using the model can try them as they see fit or develop their own.

The prescriptive models offer the ability for a pluralistic approach to action, as every community that uses the SEEDS Method can write their own prescriptive models, or adapt theirs to some written by others, to best suit the unique community.

5.1 State Assumptions

5.2 Abstract or Executive Summary

Explain how, why, and when the following strategy is being used to meet the core requirements of the models of analysis. Keep this as a brief overview.

5.3 Objectives

State the objectives to achieving core requirements in a way that’s specific, measurable, actionable, realistic, and time-constrained. These may include such broad stroke objectives as replacing the centralized, nation-state with confederations of self-governed, directly democratic communities, for example. State opportunities and threats of these objectives.

5.4 Tactics

State the tactics to meet the objectives, in the same way. Explain strengths and weaknesses of the tactics. These should be clear and complete. Leaving out details creates a vulnerability to implementation with blind spots. Include considerations of stakeholders involved, funding considerations, and organizational requirements.

5.5 Communication

Explain how the core stakeholders will be reached, including messaging, to meet the objectives and tactics and how they are expected to respond to the prescriptive models.

5.6 Tracking

Describe how the strategy will be measured and managed to stay on course.

The SEEDS Model


The cultural influences of society are some of the most fundamental and strong influences on an individual, which create their own feedback loops and are difficult to interrupt or directly influence with any accuracy. The receptivity to cultural influences is hard-wired into homo sapiens, as pack animals, where the impression of belonging and the fear of alienation are evolved from life-and-death social functions that served the purpose of creating a foundation for group cohesion. This cohesion once held the benefit of ready identification of those who are members of the pack, understanding of mutually agreeable behavior within this pack, and formed a foundation for coordinated efforts, social learning, and understanding that give pack-animal species their advantages.

Culture is hard to pin down, but it is generally the set of philosophical beliefs of a given group or society. These are really a set of assumed conclusions, which extend anywhere from the meaning of life, to “correct” tribal dress for the given group, to dialect or language, to social stratification, to artistic or musical tastes.

Cultural influences can be influenced and, once influenced, tend to create a new feedback loop. These influences can have life-and-death consequences for certain groups and individuals and the culture can have a primary influence on the other aspects of social organization. While culture is less predictable and more difficult to measure and analyze, it has significant potential to influence all other aspects of social organization.

In addition to these more general features of culture, there is the nation. A nation is meant as a group of people with a distinct culture, belief system, or other social identity that unifies the group and, which is unique to the group. This is not to be confused with the nation-state, a term which has often been used interchangeably by the simple fact that the nation-state is the dominant and presumed legal expression of a nation, politically, across the Earth.

The role of nations within a society or a nation-state is of particular interest to this model, in their autonomy, their influence on the nation-state or broader society, their relationship with other nations, the influence of nations in the individual, and the relative influence of the nation-state on nations within the borders of the nation-state and without.

The social component of society can be described as the cultural influences of a time, place, and people. This component is an indispensable component of the model, one of the most critical components, yet the most complex, indefinite, and fluctuating.


Economies are simply the production and distribution of goods and services. Economic activity is the modern function of our pack animal behavior to contribute our individual efforts towards a coordinated, greater effort that results in more than the sum of its parts, or rather, the division of labor allows us to specialize and trade to produce more than we would otherwise be able to produce on our own.

This is, essentially, the chief function of the pack for pack animal species, besides protection. It might even be expanded upon with Homo Sapiens, which possess the relatively unique ability to have sophisticated social learning, to trade and pass on knowledge through sophisticated language and sophisticated predictive, pattern-identifying, model-making.

The ability to produce is dependent, in modern life, on certain tools and systems, which make the ownership and control of those tools and systems the primary source of power for economic activity. Access to this means to produce and the control thereof is, in modern life, access to survival itself. Anyone who has control of this access has such a negotiating advantage that anyone who does not have access is either at the mercy of those who control access, or compelled to force those who control access to grant access, as a matter of survival.

The model of understanding capital as the source of economic power is nothing new. It is further than simply the means to produce, however, because this function in the model can be more fundamentally understood as a conduit of energy transforming resources. The economic system is an transfer of resources and energy. Energy transforms resources into countless other things, including goods and services, as we now know them. The means of production provide the conduit for energy to transform resources, or even to transform already transformed resources, into some other goods or services, which acts within the economic ecosystem.

Energy can be in the form of human labor, fossil fuels, animal labor, and many other forms besides. Whatever way it is applied as inputs, it is applied to processes, in the means of production, to create outputs, in wealth, whether in products or services. In the current conditions of economic systems, the inputs of energy to transform resources into goods or services are so drastically inconsistent with the beneficial distribution of this activity to the most people possible, as effectively as possible, that the process must be reconsidered.

Currently, there is an extraordinary waste of inputs, in terms of human and other energy, because the process does not effectively make use of the inputs for desirable outputs for anyone but a disproportionately small segment of the population.

Understanding the economic model as energy transforming resources, with the conduit of the means of production, rather than simply labor and capital, allows the model to include the role of technology and fuel, and many unincorporated elements of other models become more clear. Even the means of production, in the form of retail stores, for example, are included as conduits of energy transformation as means of production, because they are transforming already transformed goods, with the application of human labor, to provide the social value of what is, today, “customer service.”

To understand this concept further, what is commonly called “added value,” likewise, can be considered an application of energy to transform already transformed goods or services, as it is transformational in a way that is used by people in a society, in whatever way it is used. Even call centers, if they are actually desirable, transform very complex goods, in a certain way, with human energy, by answering questions or doing whatever is done in call centers, as a direct consequence of the products the call centers are used to compliment. This may be the most distant form of energy transforming resources, compared to something less convoluted as welding, but it is included in this model and dependent upon many layers of transformation to exist, in a highly complex economic system.

The historical and contemporary competition between workers and those technologies, which replace labor, becomes understandable, much more simply than the convoluted explanations of a multitude of other models. Human labor is in direct competition with all other energy inputs, yet those engaged in human labor are often not benefitted in the short term by their lack of necessity, with this technological displacement or more efficient applications of non-human energy transformation of resources, because their wealth is not presently relative to the productivity of the society to which they contribute, but to the value given to them for their labor by those few who control the conduits of energy transformation, in the form of the means of production. This also invites a more complete model to incorporate the historical economic booms from the discovery or increased use of different fossil fuels and other non-human energy sources.

Economic structures and the organization of social power form around the ownership and operation of the means of production, or, generally, around capital, which, as the conduits of energy transformation of resources, become the keys to the economic circuits of society, where no significant energy transformation can otherwise take place. Whomever controls the means of production, in ownership and operation, controls economic activity for society, typically the distribution of wealth, and, therefore, the means to survival, sustenance, and all other material wealth.


The human species is sustained by the ecosystems of the world, not only by agriculture, but in a number of other dependencies, such as for clean air and drinkable water. Human life is dependent on healthy ecosystems and this makes ecological considerations a fundamental aspect of human life.

The relationship between human behavior and ecological health is the underlying foundation of human existence, without which, all other social organization breaks down. Without a healthy habitat, human beings can’t survive.

The relationship of homo sapiens to the ecological systems our species inhabits is also a reflection of the social relationships that influence and are influenced by social structures. The structure of these relationships plays a fundamental role in the health of human society, as much as the health of ecosystems.

The systematic destruction of habitats, on which human beings rely, has a direct correlation with other destructive and dysfunctional features of current socio-economic systems, and the relationship between existing hierarchical structures and oppressed and exploited groups. The cultural influences that create and maintain these systems also cause dysfunctional and destructive behaviors towards ecological systems, the symptoms are not incidental and are not completely explained exclusively by economic terms.


While collective decision-making is commonly thought of, today, as “government,” this can be confused with the state, or nation-state, or even a particular type of government. Decision-making for the nation, in whatever form it manifests, is the body for collective social agreement.

This is the decision-making body that is recognized by and for the affairs of the communities within it. This can be as small as a tribe of 500 people meeting in an assembly, or selecting a council of some kind. It can be as large as a nation-state, such as the United States. Whatever the size of the decision-making body, the affairs of customs, laws, policies, and so forth are set and enforced by this body.

What is often taken for granted, in many societies, is that the collective decision-making body of the community or communities is the nation-state, such as with a democratic-republic or a dictatorship, but this technology of social systems is relatively new, in its present forms, and offers a litany of fundamental dysfunctions. The state, in this case, means a monopoly of violence, controlled by a centralized authority, where decisions are made by a few for the majority and enforced by this monopoly of violence, within a given territory, managed and considered under the authority of this state authority. The nation-state ecompases a territory of people with the intention or in fact of a single national identity within the borders of this state.

This decision-making body of the state is sometimes expressed in parliaments, councils, dictatorships, and other forms; but, today, consistently according to rule of the many by a few, enforced by a monopoly of violence, held with standing militaries, police forces, and typically legal systems. Not all of these features are inherent in community or collective decision-making bodies, which are forms of social communications technologies. Such organization and communication can be done in many ways, but are typically only done, today, according to archaic technologies of centralized nation-state governments. Forms of self-government and stateless democracy, such as confederations of self-governed communities are possible models and in sharp contrast to a centralized state.


Technology has as much of an effect on civilization as social stratification and organization. The infrastructure, in communications, shipping and transportation, manufacturing and automation, and so forth, affect social organization as much as social organization determines technological acceleration.

Communications technology permits kinds of democracy that would otherwise be impossible a century ago, or at least makes such possible forms of democracy more efficient. Dependency on global trade and the uninterrupted logistics of manufacturing and distribution make any transformation necessarily within the confines of keeping these systems running during transition, otherwise all deliveries of daily goods stop.

The operation and maintenance of sophisticated systems, from shipping logistics to communications technologies, to accounting, and so forth, require a unique class of specialists, which were otherwise unaccounted for in previous models of social organization, but their necessity on any accurate model of social organization is present now more than ever.

On The Horizon

The next steps are to release analysis and prescriptive models and use them. The SEEDS Method is not exclusive to one set of models, but the models from the author and groups applying them now will be published here.

The SEEDS Method is meant to be used by communities and adapted for their own unique needs. As development progresses, communities will be connected.

Stay connected about the latest SEEDS Method developments and get in touch with communities by email.