Creating a New World

[Approaching Infinity]

A most important aspect! And it was already mentioned that, hopefully, someone has knowledge of pathology. And what about the people who shut down and don't do anything, or don't want to do anything, or think they are prima donnas and don't have to do anything?

Well, after watching The Trap, a few things stand out. For one, there ARE people who are only out for themselves, who are paranoid strategists, and not just psychopaths. I think this is where an example needs to be set, publicly, where the situation is described for everyone. "Here we are, no food, no shelter. None of us WANTS to be here trying to survive. We'd all much rather be in the comfort of our own homes with a supermarket and climate control! But we're not there. We're here, and we need to do certain things in order to survive. Yes, there are those who cannot and SHOULD not, i.e. babies, elderly, and sick. But even the sick and elderly contribute where they can, because they see our situation. If we are going to survive as a group, we need to cooperate as a group. If you can cook, cook. If you can hunt, hunt. If you can build, build. But if you have the ability to contribute and do NOT, you create an imbalance in our survival. So you've got a choice. Either survive with the rest of us, by contributing to our efforts. Or try surviving on your own for a while and see how much easier it is to contribute in THIS setting." Then again, maybe an ultimatum isn't the best way to put it! I don't know. Maybe those who do not contribute get to miss out on benefits, like being high on the list for house-living. Maybe they eat last, etc.

 

[thevenusian]

A most important aspect! And it was already mentioned that, hopefully, someone has knowledge of pathology. And what about the people who shut down and don't do anything, or don't want to do anything, or think they are prima donnas and don't have to do anything?

Well, after watching The Trap, a few things stand out. For one, there ARE people who are only out for themselves, who are paranoid strategists, and not just psychopaths. I think this is where an example needs to be set, publicly, where the situation is described for everyone. "Here we are, no food, no shelter. None of us WANTS to be here trying to survive. We'd all much rather be in the comfort of our own homes with a supermarket and climate control! But we're not there. We're here, and we need to do certain things in order to survive. Yes, there are those who cannot and SHOULD not, i.e. babies, elderly, and sick. But even the sick and elderly contribute where they can, because they see our situation. If we are going to survive as a group, we need to cooperate as a group. If you can cook, cook. If you can hunt, hunt. If you can build, build. But if you have the ability to contribute and do NOT, you create an imbalance in our survival. So you've got a choice. Either survive with the rest of us, by contributing to our efforts. Or try surviving on your own for a while and see how much easier it is to contribute in THIS setting." Then again, maybe an ultimatum isn't the best way to put it! I don't know. Maybe those who do not contribute get to miss out on benefits, like being high on the list for house-living. Maybe they eat last, etc.

All well and good, but what about the pathological/ or pathological in training who shows up with a gun and starts taking whatever he wants from the group by force? What is an STO response to that? What if he kills someone or tries to rape someone? Many primitive cultures deal with pathological members by taking them out one day and seeing that they never return. I realize this is a thorny issue and one over which people can get upset, but what is the STO candidate's response to the 'kill or be killed' question? And I am talking about a situation in which it is not just oneself at risk, but others as well. What guiding principles are the true ones we are seeking here?

 

[Johnno]

Some of ya'll really need to stop and REALLY imagine yourselves in this situation. You are bringing in all kinds of contexts that simply do not apply to the given situation which, I should add, is a very real possibility. You are skipping all kinds of steps, all kinds of critical considerations that relate to SURVIVAL.

So, again, back up, regroup yourselves in that clearing where you have almost nothing but the people and their skills vis a vis the environment.

SURVIVAL, people!

And from such a situation, principles can be extracted.

Someone has already mentioned The Trap which I haven't seen.

However last week, I saw the movie Defiance which is about a group of Jews who build a camp in the Belarus forest.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034303/

Their priorities were water, food, shelter, health, warmth and defence. Basically anything to stay alive. Food was measured out equally, one of the more psycho Jewish resistance soldiers who was demanding more paid for this with his life.

They has a quasi-alliance with a Russian resistance force who basically used a lot of the Jewish soldiers as a sort of mercenary force. When the chips were down though, the Rusiians were not prepared to defend the Jewish camp.

Other things such as education, music, weddings etc came later as the camp was established.

 

[Thomas Alan]

I read a SciFi book when I was a kid. Space Prison i think it was called. Soldiers of a warlike civilization capture several thousand Earthlings and a abandon them on a hostile planet This planet has stronger than earth gravity, very extreme seasons, even extreme seasonal cycles, deadly plants and animals. Half of the earthlings die the first night, killed by "prowlers" half tiger half wolf.

I remember it because of the intensity of the situation. The group had to learn the skills needed for survival Now. Not time for theorizing. And they did so in ingenious ways. The story follows them through a number of generations as they increasingly grow stronger because of the adverse environment. They eventually lure the enemy back to the planet, take over their space ships. They are able to defeat the enemy because of the skills and strengths they gained on the hostile planet.

It is very difficult to imagine myself in a situation of 200 people suddenly finding themselves in a forest. Ok, I just had dinner, I am sitting in reasonably comfortable chair typing on the keyboard, it's a beautiful late summer day.

Even more difficult is the task of imagining how the 200 of us can survive and prosper in an STO way. This seems so alien in many ways. Goes against most of my education, the views presented in the media, the experience of daily life.

But if we can work through it, perhaps we can be an STO influence in our lives.

The Trap really makes the point that Service to Self is encouraged but it IS a trap. Less freedom not more. Seeking personal gain, ending up as slaves.

Mac

 

[gotogo]

A most important aspect! And it was already mentioned that, hopefully, someone has knowledge of pathology. And what about the people who shut down and don't do anything, or don't want to do anything, or think they are prima donnas and don't have to do anything?

Well, after watching The Trap, a few things stand out. For one, there ARE people who are only out for themselves, who are paranoid strategists, and not just psychopaths. I think this is where an example needs to be set, publicly, where the situation is described for everyone. "Here we are, no food, no shelter. None of us WANTS to be here trying to survive. We'd all much rather be in the comfort of our own homes with a supermarket and climate control! But we're not there. We're here, and we need to do certain things in order to survive. Yes, there are those who cannot and SHOULD not, i.e. babies, elderly, and sick. But even the sick and elderly contribute where they can, because they see our situation. If we are going to survive as a group, we need to cooperate as a group. If you can cook, cook. If you can hunt, hunt. If you can build, build. But if you have the ability to contribute and do NOT, you create an imbalance in our survival. So you've got a choice. Either survive with the rest of us, by contributing to our efforts. Or try surviving on your own for a while and see how much easier it is to contribute in THIS setting." Then again, maybe an ultimatum isn't the best way to put it! I don't know. Maybe those who do not contribute get to miss out on benefits, like being high on the list for house-living. Maybe they eat last, etc.

All well and good, but what about the pathological/ or pathological in training who shows up with a gun and starts taking whatever he wants from the group by force? What is an STO response to that? What if he kills someone or tries to rape someone? Many primitive cultures deal with pathological members by taking them out one day and seeing that they never return. I realize this is a thorny issue and one over which people can get upset, but what is the STO candidate's response to the 'kill or be killed' question? And I am talking about a situation in which it is not just oneself at risk, but others as well. What guiding principles are the true ones we are seeking here?

I was thinking similar things after watched the Trap part 1. There are many difficult questions to face. And I thought any 'political system' is somehow functioning as "buffers" for individual to avoid facing these difficult situations. Now we need to face them!

When we find someone in such a 'survival' situation acting as if he/she does not have conscience. We may not be able to find what is going on for a long period of time since he/she is so clever to hide things. Anyway finally we find what he/she has be doing while others are struggling to survive. And then how we treat him/her after that. Of course, we need to 'investigate' facts and construct a reasonable theory through our mind 'Networking' since we don't have abilities to See telepathically (objective "remote viewing"?) or something as 3D. Ok, lets say we concluded he/she is a psychopath then what? We capture him/her in a separated room and monitor him/her but provide foods? Or we simply say he/she can not live in this community so she/he needs to go somewhere else? Or we notify everybody that he/she is a psychopath and we tell him/her that there are certain rules he/she needs to follow (even she/he does not understand them) and state if he/she break the rules then he/she needs to go out of the community. This psychopath will stay if he/she still sees the 'benefit' in spite of rules he/she needs to keep. Still risky? But in order to diminish risks we should 'kill' him/her? NO! One of the principle should be NO VIOLENCE!!!! We each may make mistakes but as a principle this line should be kept no matter what. NO VIOLENCE!!!!

 

[shellycheval]

Laura wrote

“These people don't have time to worry about that yet, they are prioritizing to SURVIVE. Why are so many of you just skipping over the lesson here? Imposing your wants and needs from the comfort of your homes on a group of survivors in a forest clearing who, recall, don't have shelter, don't have food, and need to rebuild from scratch?
What "social dynamics" are you talking about?
This is SURVIVAL!
Who the heck cares about single women's houses or family houses when being able to survive at all is the priority right now?”

Honestly Laura I think a lot of us were confused about the changing contexts of the scenario—I did not get from the first or the second scenario descriptions that this was supposed to be a survival situation where a variety of people unknown to each other, without anything from their previous lives with them except their knowledge and personalities, find each other in a forest clearing and have to figure out how to survive.
Shijing wrote:

“I'm going to try to watch The Trap as soon as I can too, to see what everyone is and will be discussing (it took me a bit to shift gears from the initial direction this thread was going yesterday when we were trying to brainstorm about what an STO society would be like on a large scale, to what it had morphed into this morning when I woke up, where a group of 200 people are stranded in a forest).”

Like Shijing, I was confused by the following:

Scenario 1 suggested to me that we imagine an STO world—create a type of “utopia.”

“I would like to start a discussion that focuses on Creating a New World.
I would just like for all participants to think about what is wrong with our world and what they would like to see happen to make it right. There are a lot of things to which there are no simple answers. For example, I don't think that communism, socialism, fascism or capitalism are the right way to go economically, but I'm not sure what IS the right way that would fulfill the needs of the majority of humans. How to separate what is essential to all, etc. Are there elements of each of those systems that are truly STO and if so, what? How to pull out what is useful and put it together?
I think it will be a very useful exercise to define things, to imagine things, to describe how things would be done in an STO world. Things like who decides things? How? Who owns things? How? Is there voting? How is it done? Who can vote?
Education... what is available to who and how? Who pays for it? Social services: counseling, child-care, medicine, etc.
Literally every area of our society has been corrupted in one way or another, so how to re-imagine something that would really work? Re-think it, re-define and describe it?
Start anywhere. Maybe we should start talking about what is wrong with various systems and what could be done to fix them, if anything. If they are wrong at the foundation, what to replace them with?”

Scenario 2 still suggests that this was a volunteer group getting together to plan a new way to live together.

“How about we imagine a group of people who get together in a forest clearing and decide that they are going to be a society. Say there is 200 of them. . . . The range of intelligence and skill is normal . . . Some have artistic talent, some musical talent, some are scientifically inclined, some like to take care of others; some are very good at organizing, some can hunt and like to do it; some like to spend their time with animals, some like building things, some like gardening, some like sewing, some like cooking, etc. There are some who have "psychic abilities," prophetic dreams and such, and so on.
How will they organize themselves? Who does what? How is value attributed to what is done?
So, just think about this small group first of all. Once we get them all "thought out" and are satisfied that it is organic and mutually beneficial for all, we can begin to "grow" our little society and see what happens. Kind of like a Sim City thought experiment.”

I took the descriptions literally and did not understand that the context was limited to more of a survival situation until I read the following.
“

These people don't have time to worry about that yet, they are prioritizing to SURVIVE. Why are so many of you just skipping over the lesson here? Imposing your wants and needs from the comfort of your homes on a group of survivors in a forest clearing who, recall, don't have shelter, don't have food, and need to rebuild from scratch?
What "social dynamics" are you talking about?
This is SURVIVAL!
Who the heck cares about single women's houses or family houses when being able to survive at all is the priority right now?”
Quote from: Tigersoap on Today at 11:51:11 AM
That's what benefited the psychopaths for millenium, separation based on class or skills (even though some people have indeed different capacities, everyone should be considered able and equal to do things in regards of his/her own capacities but not with an arbitrary standard based solely on the gender or the stronger osit.)
Nobody is saying that what is done immediately for survival is the long term plan!
Remember the CONTEXT!

Certainly looking at the fundamental patterns of human behavior and imagining how the beginnings of a society could be worked out to avoid a pathocracy later on is a worthy thought experiment and one, as many have pointed out, that the majority of us may be faced with, for one reason or another, in the near future. But, I think several of us here have posted ideas addressing all three scenario variations and that has created a lot of confusion in the discussion. I worked out a long description of what I thought a best-case scenario in answer to suggestion 1 would be and was ready to post it when I caught up with where the thread had gone. I will hang onto it for a while I address the Survival Scenario first—a very challenging test of one’s knowledge on a variety of levels. Clearly I won't be surviving long in the forest clearing as I can't even keep up here! ;) I cannot view The Trap until I get access to a high speed connection at work tomorrow, but I will catch up soon!
shellycheval

 

[go2]

This is an incredible discussion of mankind’s deepest fears and deepest instincts. I too sense danger in the future. I don’t know if it is natural cataclysm or systems collapse. I assume Laura is speaking of a natural disaster with the near total destruction of human infrastructure. Many of the basic survival skills are lost in the modern age. I grew up on a diversified farm and learned to use tools and grow plants and animals in childhood. I am surprised at how few have these skills in the United States. Plumbers and truck gardeners are beginning to make a decent living in a society where most people have no idea how to supply their physical needs. The corporations have stripped humanity of its competence.

The possibility of securing food stores for a group of two hundred would depend upon the location of the forest. If the forest were in farming country, the task would be easier, as corn and soybeans store for many years. If the forest were in the American southwest it would be nearly impossible to secure food supplies and transportation out of the area would become paramount. Are their other groups in the forest?

When it's a question of pure survival, I think people change. Some will become inspired and be capable to doing much more than they had otherwise imagined. Some will become immobilized and become dumber than a doornail. You'll need leaders and soothers and problem solvers.

Nothing dethrones the Personality like the sudden appearance of death. Essence steps forward and natural leaders who can do, quickly emerge in survival situations. These people do what has to be done, following a deep instinct for triage and consideration of others. The selfish are recognized immediately when they cannot use economics and bureaucracy to maintain an illusion of authority and competence. The blowhards get pushed aside by those who hunt, fish, cook, farm, build, and fight, in other words; those with practical skills wedded to altruism become the natural leaders. I have lived off the grid in communal situations and in dangerous company, where relationship dynamics quickly sort out those who serve community from those who serve themselves. It is amazing how quickly pathology is recognized when survival itself is in doubt.

I read this a long time ago and cannot cite the source, but it has stuck with me because it seems to be a truth borne out by my own observation. In an emergency people tend to fall into 3 basic types. One becomes incapacitated, shocked & unable to act. Another group is those who keep it together and try to do things to help everyone. A third group are those who try to use the situation to benefit from it for themselves.

So if survival is the order of the day, protection from the 3rd group is one of the top priorities.

Many primitive cultures deal with pathological members by taking them out one day and seeing that they never return. I realize this is a thorny issue and one over which people can get upset, but what is the STO candidate's response to the 'kill or be killed' question? And I am talking about a situation in which it is not just oneself at risk, but others as well. What guiding principles are the true ones we are seeking here?

One of the guiding principles in response to the venusian’s question seems to me ….There is good and there is evil, and which depends upon the context.

Cormac McCarthy’s novel, “The Road”, gives a glimpse of the potential survival problems in a post-apocalyptic world.

NO! One of the principle should be NO VIOLENCE!!!! We each may make mistakes but as a principle this line should be kept no matter what. NO VIOLENCE!!!!

Hi GotoGo, Do you really mean, you would not defend the lives of innocents with violence, if they will die as a result of your inflexible principle?

 

[Brenda86]

I've been trying to catch up here, reading everyone's responses. I'm about to watch The Trap now. But imagining we're in a scenario where survival is the order of the day, I think one of the first things that would need to be done before even thinking about water (or it could be looked for at the same time) is to scout the area for any immediate dangers. You don't want to be looking for water without watching your back. And any travelling should be done in groups (I think of at least 3-5 people), so that there is a better chance of not getting terribly lost, or so that if someone is injured there will always be someone who will be aware and able to help. Any areas we've been to would need to be marked in SOME kind of way so we know if we've been there. For those of us who haven't spent a lot of time in the forest, it can be a pretty confusing type of terrain. Especially if fear is present.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Here's a summary of some of Lobaczewski's points, which Laura quoted. First of all, the instinctive substratum is the genetic "base" of human emotion and instinct. Just as a spider acquires certain "habits" that are expressed innately in members of the species, like web-spinning, humans have a set of programmed responses/tendencies. These are a carryover from our evolutionary past in the animal kingdom (i.e. 2D), and they are emotional-instinctive in nature. Emotions/instincst are present in animals. They inspire and direct behavior, e.g. fear results in fight or flight in order to evade or conquer a threat to survival. In animals these are automatic responses. An animal cannot think, therefore cannot think "I'm not going to let this urge express itself in action."

Human instinct-emotion is similar, but has the addition of thought and thus the possibility of self-analysis and self-control. We are thus less controlled by our emotions and have a greater ability to direct them (i.e. the substratum is "less dynamic" and "more plastic"). But we still experience the emotion, and it still colors all of our interactions. As Lobaczewski observes, it's so natural to us that we seldom notice it. In 2D, some animals must cooperate to survive, and this seems to carry over in group-feelings. As we grow through childhood, our emotional life causes us to attach to our caregivers and others important to us. We also have a social past, and our survival depended on it. Our emotional life thus develops these bonds, and contributes to forming the limits of social behavior. We all have an instinctive reaction to antisocial behavior. Our social history also leads to our need for group "sameness", and "a striving to achieve a worthy role within that structure". While some individuals are completely ruled by their own instinctive self-preservation, we also have the seeds of altruism, which promote group well-being. This leads to the tendency to sacrifice. That is, our instinctive substratum holds the roots of our "humanity", which is what we love in each other and our mentors and role-models. As Lobaczewski writes, "Proper child-rearing is thus not limited to teaching a young person to control the overly violent reactions of his instinctual emotionalism; it also ought to teach him to appreciate the wisdom of nature contained and speaking through his instinctive endowment."

Our emotional-bonding tendency is what gives rise to human morality. Individuals who have achieved a level of mastery of their emotions and trust in their own instinctive wisdom agree on moral matters. Evidence of this is the similar moralities that can be found in advanced individuals in all nations and time periods. The similarity among moral individuals of all races is striking when compared to the difference between the most and least moral within any given culture. However, despite leading to morality, the substratum has its weaknesses, which can be seen in individuals lacking higher abilities to transform their emotions. That is, they are controlled by their emotions and urges. These can be sexual, leading to infidelity and rape; aggressive, leading to argumentation and violence; selfish, when one puts one's own survival needs ahead of the good of all. We also tend to want stability, even if it is false stability. One negative tendency often manipulated is the reaction to dangers to our group. This "moral judgment" of others as "evil" if they threaten our group traces back to "nature’s striving to eliminate biologically or psychologically defective individuals." This is what leads to group conflicts (often manipulated by psychopaths).

[I'll post more as I paraphrase...]

 

[Nević Nenad]

OK now, I am here, I am out of myself and want to scream, but it’s no use I would just upset people around me. And there is no use of that; many are in worse state than I am. I must help to calm people down. What to do? Shell I shout to them, shell I somehow regain my strength and look confident in me so that they see that is all OK for the moment? Must try somehow to calm the whole situation down. Maybe at first try to help with elderly people and injured if there are any, I am able to do that psychically. OK, when everyone is looked after and when we all are somehow calmed, let’s try to find if someone wants to go with me and to see where are we exactly. Maybe some younger and faster men could go, some people must stay with the weaker ones, just in any case. Let’s ask if someone knows how to light fires, who knows maybe we need that at night at this place.

I could imagine that would be quiet period after initial shock, we could use that period to see can we use something as a tool, and who knows how to use those tools. I think that at this moment I would more observe people which are here, who does what, who is not doing anything, who is being smart but not helping, maybe try to figure out in whom I can have confidence. I think that the groups would start to crystallize very soon after initial shock.

But what can I do even if I see there are some more sinister characters among us? Shell I use force? Shell I act with personal integrity? Shell I wait and see if they will do something to hurt others in some way, or shell I act immediately, and how?

 

[Brenda86]

Let's ask if someone knows how to light fires, who knows maybe we need that at night at this place

I was thinking this as well. Fire would be another very important commodity, especially if this place is cold.

I could imagine that would be quiet period after initial shock, we could use that period to see can we use something as a tool, and who knows how to use those tools. I think that at this moment I would more observe people which are here, who does what, who is not doing anything, who is being smart but not helping, maybe try to figure out in whom I can have confidence. I think that the groups would start to crystallize very soon after initial shock.

This also is a good idea. Look for anything we can use as tools. And remain vigilant for how people are acting/reacting. Shock/fear can be very overwhelming. We'd have to try to be vigilant without falling into the trap of "everyone is out to get me".

 

[Nević Nenad]

Also, I think that we must be prepared for death. There will be much of it around us in first days, especially elderly and sick people. If that is a real wood, there is not much that we can do to help them adequately, just sort of to make them easier.

People in shock and incapacitated are not much problem, shock can go after some time, but what to do if we see some pathological and primadonnas (as Laura said) shell we provide somehow for them too? Shell we go from them or send them away from us? I must say that I am from second option, I can’t help someone if someone don’t want help or expects to do everything for him, well, I am not such a idiot to do that, there are other people who needs help and deserves it because they are also trying to be of help to others, no matter how weak are they.

We could eat tree maggots and roots few days, but some animal must be killed for food, there will be some hundred and something people to feed after few days, and most of them in terrible condition, both mentally and physically (hunger, thirst, illness, shock, no medications)

And what to do if some trying to act on their own, steel that little food that we gather, trying to talk to others “let’s kill old ones, they are just eating our food” (there is possibility, things like that and much worse really happened during the wars). If there is only one real psychopath we are all doomed.

 

[Andrew]

I'd just like to know from other members if this passage from the C's is relevant.

Q: (L) Several books I have read have advised moving to rural areas and forming groups and storing food etc...
A: Disinformation. Get rid of this once and for all. That is 3rd level garbage.

Given the topic of this thread, this seems relevant to me, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding the context in which the question was asked?

It seems that the C's are against the idea, but maybe it was in the context of doing those things when it wasn't a necessity. In which case if there were an economic crash, such things would be necessary thereby altering the context making the scenario not 3rd level garbage?

Anyone?

 

[Brenda86]

I'd just like to know from other members if this passage from the C's is relevant.

Q: (L) Several books I have read have advised moving to rural areas and forming groups and storing food etc...
A: Disinformation. Get rid of this once and for all. That is 3rd level garbage.

Given the topic of this thread, this seems relevant to me, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding the context in which the question was asked?

It seems that the C's are against the idea, but maybe it was in the context of doing those things when it wasn't a necessity. In which case if there were an economic crash, such things would be necessary thereby altering the context making the scenario not 3rd level garbage?

Anyone?

Well, the reason I down-shifted was because I could see that people were getting all twisted up in philosophies and issues that they had no foundation to really understand and it was necessary to go back to the very basics of the evolution of the human instinctive substratum that Lobaczewski describes. So, how to extract timeless principles? Start at the beginning and re-imagine things, watch them build and grow, observe where it goes, and if it goes astray, trace it back to where the wrong turn was made. Then, in real life, you will have a better foundation.

I think this an exercise in thought/imagination getting us to go back to the very beginning as it were and work our way forward in an attempt to garner knowledge of how an STO society might function. But what Laura seemed to be saying is we were jumping too far ahead in our initial discussions about philosophy without seeing how we would get to that place to begin with - not really an exercise in hey let's prepare and move away from the world.

 

[brainwave]

Ya'll are skipping steps here. Please, just picture the scenario and start from the beginning as RflctnOfU started to do.

There they are, standing in this clearing. We don't need to know how they got there or worry about other details. They are just there. You have to do something with these imaginary people who may be shivering from cold and exposure, may be hungry, children may be crying... what are you going to do with them?

Ok in thinking about this more, the first thing is to attend to the immediate needs. People will need, food, shelter, attention to their ailments etc. So those things would be the priority for members of the group in the forest. Those most able to do those certain things related to that would begin to work on it immediately. The division of labor would be sorted out that way. Maybe there is just enough time for one person to say; " X is in pain, let me see what I can do" another will say; "it's cold, we're going need shelter I'm going to gather materials and building something but the babies and sick folks have first dibs on what we put up. Who can help to make it go faster". Some would gather food, some build shelter and so on. What I imagine is like some of what the community of Acorn/earthseed in Octavia Butler's parable of the sower and parable of the talents. Though not exactly like it-some things that are happened in the story is really frightening.

The books describes a dystopian society in which a group of people led by one woman try to create a utopia. The characters were people who met up during their search for safety in a chaotic world -like meeting in a forest now. Lauren, who emerged as leader-naturally there will be-had previously seen how things were going in her community and tried to point it out. Though she was very young and few believed her, she prepared as best as she could as things were falling apart around her. When her neighborhood was invaded and destroyed with many people wandering around, she found herself with a group of people who decided they want to make a society that was different. The society they formed was called acorn where there was a division of labor, care for others and basically self sufficient. The problem is they were not in a position of real protection when they sort of isolated themselves. In fact their refuse was set up to be easily raided and it was. The concept of Acorn had to exisit in a way within the larger society (in the world not of it) despite the chaos. They had to have a measure of protection by becoming organized. Some reviews from Amazon:

"Octavia Butler tackles the creation of a new religion, the making of a god, and the ultimate fate of humanity in her Earthseed series, which began with Parable of the Sower, and now continues with Parable of the Talents. The saga began with the near-future dystopian tale of Sower, in which young Lauren Olamina began to realize her destiny as a leader of people dispossessed and destroyed by the crumbling of society. The basic principles of Lauren's faith, Earthseed, were contained in a collection of deceptively simple proverbs that Lauren used to recruit followers. She teaches that "God is change" and that humanity's ultimate destiny is among the stars.

In Parable of the Talents, the seeds of change that Lauren planted begin to bear fruit, but in unpredictable and brutal ways. Her small community is destroyed, her child is kidnapped, and she is imprisoned by sadistic zealots. She must find a way to escape and begin again, without family or friends. Her single-mindedness in teaching Earthseed may be her only chance to survive, but paradoxically, may cause the ultimate estrangement of her beloved daughter. Parable of the Talents is told from both mother's and daughter's perspectives, but it is the narrative of Lauren's grown daughter, who has seen her mother made into a deity of sorts, that is the most compelling. Butler's writing is simple and elegant, and her storytelling skills are superb, as usual. Fans will be eagerly awaiting the next installment in what promises to be a moving and adventurous saga"

Parable of the Sower is a vivid, often harrowing, story of survival, loss and companionship, set in a United States in the near future, where the environment and society have degraded to the point of breakdown. An account of a young woman's journey away from the dangerous neighborhood of her childhood, and of the perils and the people encountered in the search for a safe haven, this novel is about the triumph and resilience of the human spirit. Although I felt it would have been just as good without its religious element, reading this story was ultimately an uplifting experience."

Now even without thinking of a particular leader with a destiny (even if the Cs suggest this something of the sort ) the main thing is how the characters went about creating earthseed after just trying to survive within acorn and mostly failing. However, in Acorn they were in a dire situation(in the forest). The first things they did was to attend to the basics of survival and little by little while Lauren taught the basic principles of living to her fellow community members they evolved. The principles revolved around the idea that "god is change." One had to change according to what objective reality was pointing out-the circumstances to their environment. Maintaining empathy, caring for others while growing or giving up to "become a dream of the past" was the reality of the situation. In fact Lauren suffered from a "disorder" of hyper empathy in which she literally felt others pain, tremendously. She couldn't help but DO something. Even when Acorn was raided and members captured, including Lauren, she and others continued working toward the goals of earthseed until they were capable of fulfilling the destiny of making it to the stars-the idea of a new world. Really the book is about how a way of living in chaotic times evolved into something of a religion.

Laura is asking is to consider a way of living when faced with the situation in the forest. I think it requires attending to the immediate needs of people while working towards a structure for making a better world. In any case, it has to be based on some core principles of knowledge rooted in conscience and service to others. It means for example, that those most in need of food and shelter would get it first or get a bit more but in the long run no one would go without.