The Logotype Crowdsourcing Project


Logotypes are supposed to serve multiple purposes. They are markers, representing associations, parties, companies and other formal social assemblies. They are also brands, which overtly or covertly aims to signal the values and goals of the associations they represent. Lastly, they are the visual representation of the associations in question in the physical world.

Read more: The Logotype Crowdsourcing Project

Since March 2016, the EOS is temporarily using the Green Logo, featuring a green background with white stripes, over which a golden Earth is placed with two golden arrows around. The left half of the logo forms the letter “E”, the right half forms the letter “S” and the Earth and the arrows around it forms the letter “O”. This is an evolution of the previous “Blue Logo”, where the O is symbolizing the Sun and the blue is symbolizing the Sky.

The first Logotype we had, during our predecessor organisation the NET, featured a wreath which surrounded a fulcrum.

It was not good at all.

Now we are going to develop our logotype further, and in order to make a good choice, we have decided to crowd-source the design of the Logotype to the wider user-base on our Facebook Group.

This experiment is done to widen the pool of inspiration, as well as seeing what kind of ideas are popular today.


From the 7th of May to 6th of June, we will accept commissions of logotypes to

By the 7th of June, we are going to present the alternatives publically on our website and in the Facebook Group.

By the 11th of June, which is the Annual General Meeting, the Board will vote on our new logotype, per a board decision on the 6th of May 2016.

What you need to do to present a commission

Be a human being. ☺

The winning alternative

The winner will be known to have designed the EOS logotype, which would mean that when we start to grow exponentially the designer would forever be associated with that new logo. If they are a professional artist, or an aspiring artist, it could be positive for future commissions and for building a personal brand.

Also, it’s a fun thing. ☺

What the Earth Organisation for Sustainability is

As a movement, we combine idealism and realism. We aspire towards a sustainable future where all human beings can achieve their highest potential within the Earth’s carrying capacity, and where the eco-systems and the planetary bio-diversity can recover. To this end, we are advocating sustainable technologies, but also a transition from an unsustainable socio-economic system. We are working for a future where human beings have the time to be human.


The Technate and Holonic forms of Governance


Ultimately, when we look beyond historical figures and wars, and the establishment and collapse of civilizations, the true trend of human history can start to emerge. The truth of the matter is that human history is characterised by amplifying human impact on the environment by the utilization of amplifiers – namely technological innovations which harness energy and perform work in less time and with more energy input than human labour could achieve on its own. 

For roughly the last 200 years, following the first industrial revolution, the amplification level has moved from livestock, horses, ploughs and windmills towards artificial fertilisers, cars, trains and aeroplanes, tractors and power plants, allowing human beings to pursue other economic activities and more free time. 

This has also meant the complete transformation of our planet. For example, a third of Earth’s ice-free land surface is today consisting of either pastures for livestock or monocultures directed towards the feeding of livestock. The reason for this profound alteration of our planet’s ecosystems – from circular flows to linear – is to be found in our view of the economy as separated from the wider environment in itself, and our reliance on an economic system built on self-perpetuating debt and credit. 

What is required for us to achieve sustainability is to recognise the fundamental impact on the planet’s surface that we have imposed through technology, and to be able to visualize this in a comprehensive model which would allow us to better understand the nature and scope of said impact. 


  • We understand the reality as consisting of Holons, entities which can be divided up into smaller units or joined up into larger, and understood at each level as integrated systems.
  • We believe that hierarchies ultimately are formed to transmit vital information. Centralisation is about achieving results under conditions where there are difficulties attaining information or systematising it.
  • Since the early 19th century, an entirely new world system has arisen, the Technosphere, consisting of transport, production and communication networks consisting of technological infrastructure.
  • This system offers challenges to traditional governance since it rapidly can transform both itself and the surrounding social and ecological realities.
  • We need to transcend traditional types of governance and wrap future institutions around the functionalities of our civilization as it physically is formed.
  • The Technate as envisioned by the EOS is a distributed system of autonomous Holons united within the same information network, a holarchic and de-centralised system allowing for creativity and data to run freely.
  • De-centralisation is a key to achieving resilience. This is also true for information technology, even within the emerging field of Artificial Intelligence. 

The Holonic way of understanding reality

When it comes to understanding a complex reality, human beings need to compartmentalise it into blocks to be able to understand it better in a professional manner. From this however, difficulties arise. We are encouraged to specialise our interests and be able to master specific subjects at the expense of general knowledge. The latter however is generally composed of so many different aspects that trying to understand it as a singularity is near impossible for a human mind. When we look at a view, we generally do not recognise every detail, instead constructing a generalised image of what we are seeing. 

The Holonic model is a simple way of imagining reality, and stresses that reality can be understood in terms of different layers. For example, we can study a cell as an entity in its own right, but we can also study it as a part of an organ. We can also study different aspects of the cell, like the nucleus, as entities in their own right, and move down to the molecular or atomic levels. 

Human society can also be understood as consisting of holons. Individuals, families or groups of peers, local societies, cultural regions, nations and all of humanity in itself can be said to consist of numerous forms of interacting holons. On the most local level, we are finding each and every individual, and on the most over-arching level, we’re looking upon all of humanity. 

Thus, if we are extrapolating from Holonic Systems Theory, we are not establishing a Holonic system – we are living under one. No matter what we believe, we are acting and interacting within a Universe of interdependencies, which exist within us, around us, below us and above us, making possible our existence. 

Hierarchies, information verticals and communication

For tens of thousands of years, human beings were living in tightly knit hunter-gatherer groups which seldom were more than a hundred people, and who often lived and died on the same land generation after generation, gaining a deep relationship to their surroundings (it is a myth that Palaeolithic peoples were nomads, it took several thousands of years for modern humans to colonize Eurasia, and it  was over thirty thousand years between the first human incursion into Eurasia through the Nile Valley or the Aden Straits, and the crossing over the Bering Isthmus during the Ice Age). 

We do of course not know much of social organisation during the prehistoric era, but what we can ascertain from archaeologic evidence and from observing remaining tribes living in the Palaeolithic life-style, is that pre-agricultural societies generally were more egalitarian and also – unsurprisingly – less complex in their forms of social organisation. 

When agriculture began in what today are the borderlands between Turkey and Syria, it formed the impetus for population growth and for the first cities to emerge. Previous social systems had been reliant on personal relationships between all the members of a community, often associated with family relationships. In this context, expanding agricultural communities or popular trading towns developed beyond the capabilities of Palaeolithic social organisation. The main internal challenge was how society should process justice, especially when conflicts arose between different clans regarding property, honour issues or crimes committed between different clans. 

Another factor which strained and occasionally teared down the social fabric of society was the ascent of social inequality. Variations in work, talent and drive, the beneficial effects of early acquisition of favourable geographic positions, the utilization of in-group solidarity, luck and the use of force successively led to – over the course of generations – to the establishment of stratified class systems. Such systems created vertical social conflicts between the dispossessed and the economic elites. Externally, some tribes specialised in attacking and extorting emerging wealthy agricultural civilizations. 

It is not possible to state unequivocally how governance originally appeared, especially since nearly three quarters of the time of human civilization (from Catalhüyuk to Ur) happened before writing had been invented.  In some cases, it probably arose from hostile conquest or the subjugation of a society by one of the dominant clans, in other cases, it is likely that it appeared out of the need to protect property or to establish systems of arbitration to avoid internal strife. The important question is what a government is. 

Like everything else within the sphere of human societies and institutions, a government is fundamentally a structure which exist because people 1) agree (passively or actively) to reinforce it by repeating certain behavioural patterns in relation to laws, customs and expectations, 2) is consistently (practically or ideally) formed in accordance with consistent rules that offer predictability, 3) the general public provides their consent to its formation. The government as a form of system is dependent on its own reinforcement by thousands of bureaucrats and public officials arising from their beds every morning and acting within the perimeters outlined by their tasks. 

Ultimately, complex administration systems like governments are formed primarily to uphold the predictability which helps societies to protect the status quo, both in terms of positive aspects (upholding order, creating a sort of formally neutral arbiter to mediate in conflicts and also to prevent conflicts from arising), and negative aspects (such as protecting exploitative elites or becoming tools for said elites in intra-elite struggles and general oppression). 

The actual functioning structure of a state, no matter whether it is unitary or federal, democratic or authoritarian, has always, since the days of King Narmer, been consisting of bureaucracies. These are the combined nerve fibres and brain stem of the primitive collective organism that a state is designed to mimic. The purpose of such bureaucracies is to facilitate information

In a society with a certain amount of actors, there is always a tendency for chaos. In order to be able to offer predictability, the state must obtain information that provides it with a clear monitoring capability of what is happening. Thus, vertical information nodes are formed through the bureaucracies, to form a chain of command where each node (operated and continuously reproduced by individual bureaucrats) can transmit relevant information to the various apparatuses that the state has as its disposal. 

Of course, a social organism created to gather and transmit relevant information in a vertical, pyramidal way, have its associated problems. The first problem is that the information-gathering techniques may be compromised, both because they may be ineffective, and because actors operating within the system may deliberately compromising or omit to share vital information, in order to benefit themselves personally or causes which they feel warmly for. This practice is usually known as corruption. The second problem, which is more serious, is that this superior access of information can – and quite often have been – abused. The exclusionary nature of hierarchical systems and the privileged access to information for particular groups and individuals has meant that the state not only tend to protect those with economic power, but also tend to create a new form of upper class, managerial elites with superior access to insider information, which would be used to advance themselves at the expense of the general population. The third problem is, quite ironically given that the purpose of bureaucracies is to transmit information, a tendency for information insulation, which means that the bureaucrats naturally tend to form an institutional culture – a de-facto tribe – which roughly shares the same interests, the same ideology, the same prejudices and the same outlook on reality. Thus, practices which run counter to the explicit guidelines of the state can be enshrined if a culture of neglect, favouritism or elitism takes hold inside the system. 

With stating this, I am not meaning that all states per definition are collapsing into corruption and nepotism per definition. The risk for increased corruption and for abuse exist all the time, and will increase the more complex and Byzantine a bureaucracy is growing. There are of course counter-forces, just like society in itself can be defined as a constant struggle between the institutions and the tendencies for collapse – a struggle which is fought literally every day within all significant public spheres. 

The rise of the Technosphere

The Technosphere first arose with the railways of the 19th century, which formed a number of communication arteries through nations and continents, transforming economies and making the world simultaneously bigger and smaller than ever before. 

What is a technosphere? I defined this term as the interlocked network of technological systems/technological infrastructure implemented on the Earth’s surface and actively interacting with one another in order to support the resource extraction and refinement process that is colloquially referred to as “Human Civilization”. 

I would argue that the Technosphere as a functional concept is meaningless to discuss before the ascent of railways and the telegraph in the early 19th century. It is evident that the earlier usages of husbandry and “passive” inventions like wind- and watermills or ploughs have served to amplify the power of human labour. However, it was not until the Age of Industrialization that techno-systems started to be able to amplify information, which since that age has created entirely new challenges. 

Nowadays, the world and its great cities are interconnected by airports, freighter ships, trains, highways, pipelines, electric grids, radio and telecom communication systems, fibre-optic cables and satellites. An entirely new technological system is expanding throughout the globe. 

Challenges and effects on power

Technology and its rapid ascent for the last two centuries have allowed the expansion of both the number of human beings on Earth, as well as the immensely impressive economic growth that has allowed one seventh of the Earth’s population to attain a standard of living previously only available to the aristocracies of old. 

This has, as you probably know, led to tremendous improvements in human life, but in an unstable way which is threatening to unravel the natural support systems of our world – the support systems which serve to uphold complex life itself. We are literally embroiled in a more and more visible war against time in order to save this planet, while the need to reform the system we have created grows more and more urgent for every year. 

The challenge is of course that the ascent of the Technosphere has changed the nature of human civilization, while political concepts are still largely reliant on thoughts and concepts which were formulated either before industrialization or during its first phases. These ideas on power and its nature are still mainly preoccupied with the role of the citizenry and constitutionalism. While important, they fail to address or properly understand how much our reality has been transformed by the formation of the Technosphere. 

That not said that there haven’t been attempts to reinterpret our societies organized in relation to new technological situations emerging. One example is the command economies of the old Soviet Bloc, which interpreted the state not only as a source of legal authority and a monopoly of force (or, decreasingly, as a tool for international worker’s revolution), but also as an integrated industrial system aimed at realising five-year plans. The Soviet system can be seen as an attempt to organize all industry under the state, and simultaneously to organize the state in the mirror-image of how a large firm usually operated under the latter half of the 19th century. Nevertheless, the emergence of the command economy and its mass mobilization of the Soviet population probably owed less to the theories of Marx and Engels than to the Russian historical experience of making up for technology gaps in relation to Western Europe by utilizing the full state power to make up for Russia’s peculiar geographical and climatological difficulties. 

The Technocratic Movement 

One theory which actually directly shaped itself around the perceived realities of the emergent Technosphere, was the school first developed by Thorstein Veblen and finalized by Howard Scott within Technocracy Incorporated (early 1930’s). This theory postulated the idea that technology had become so dominant as a production factor that 1) virtual abundance was attainable and 2) society had transformed into a de-facto machine. The only remaining issue was to cut away the politicians, lobbyists, judiciary and capitalists, leaving the administration of such a system in the enlightened hands of scientists and engineers, people who were seen as disinterested in personal gain and able to objectively understand reality. 

This is attributable to the era. During the 1930’s, the western world was still largely enamoured with the concept of everlasting progress and of science as the great solution to all the woes of society. The prevalent epistemology of science of the day was Positivism, which stated that science 1) was able to reach an objective understanding of reality, and 2) that science should be used as a tool to achieve a better and more enlightened society. This approach was not unique to the Technocratic Movement, but rather a part of the rationalistic culture of the day, which encompassed contemporary Liberalism, Social Democracy and Marxism-Leninism. These ideologies did however draw on the heritage of the 18th and 19th centuries, whereas Technocracy tried to do away with the entire prior intellectual heritage within social sciences and political philosophies. 

The Technocrats did not only understand society as a machine, but also understood this machine’s economy in term of the energy it was able to generate and consume. The concept of Energy Accounting, even as understood within the context of the 1930’s, was liberating in the sense that it tried to apply the Physical knowledge of how the Universe works on the Technosphere, and see the Technosphere as primarily a flow of energy and resources rather than a market of goods and services. 

Obviously, the claim that Technocracy was not (or is not) an ideology is as ludicrous as the idea that science will soon be able to supplant moral philosophy. The idea to see not only resource flows as a part of a machine, but also to do away with laws and the judiciary, and replace trials with “technical decisions” to correct transgressions by individuals would be dangerous and do away with a western tradition of jurisprudence developed since the ancient era. Scientists and engineers are also – like any other people – not disinterested, but often passionately interested in and devoted to specific solutions. The abolishment of money will most likely not eliminate competition, which in such a society as devised by Technocracy Incorporated would move towards fighting for promotions within a hierarchical-tayloristic system. 

Lastly, the Technate as imagined by Technocracy Incorporated would be a centrally planned and completely “katascopic” system, where the upper levels in the hierarchy would mobilize the lower levels to achieve specific aims. Production was not imagined as built on voluntary nodes, but rather on large centralised units which organise labour into eight four-hour shifts every cycle, to keep production load factors constant. A never-sleeping machine. 

We must not forget that the Technocrats of North America were a product of the distinct zeitgeist of their era, which emphasised centralisation, collectivism, de-individualization and mass mobilization of resources, briefly realised in the US War Economy of 1942-1946. 

In summary, the Technocratic Movement of the 1930’s is an interesting example of contemporary thinking, of an attempt to transcend established ways in how to view resource management and the relationship between human society and physics, and lastly one in many ways logical conclusion in relation to the direction in which technological development was moving. 

The dynamic chaos of the Technosphere

Any and all programmes toying with the notion of a centralised command structure imposed over the Technosphere are dangerous to entertain. The Technosphere is a force amplifier in more than one regard, evidenced by all the dictatorships of the 20th century. While there existed no democratic republics proper prior to industrialization, neither there existed any dictatorships with aspirations to control the public before the railways and the telegraph. 

It was simply not possible – or even desirable – for Louis XIV, Augustus or Xerxes to monitor the public opinion of all their subjects or to try to include everyone in political mass mobilization. Industrialization did not only amplify political output, but allowed for the politization of the masses, but also for the implementation of mass surveillance technologies. 

Given that, it is not only dangerous but also quixotic to try to impose a form of fixed, centralised control mechanism over the Technosphere, since the Technosphere is a wildly dynamic system. To some extent, it is reminiscent of the biosphere in that there is a constant near-evolutionary development of technology (just compare trains in the late 1790’s with modern trains, or look at the first telephones in comparison with modern cell-phones). This development is of course driven by human innovation rather than imperfect replication, but from an emergent perspective the growth of the Technosphere appears very much like how complex systems emerge within the biosphere. 

A part of this seeming chaos is due to the fact that when new technologies are introduced, we are seldom thinking of the long-term effects on the entire Technosphere, as well as on the system on which the Technosphere is nourishing itself or affecting environmentally. When the automobiles were first introduced in the late 19th century, nobody would think how much land would be paved over to make highways and parking lots, or would be able to envision the completely destructive and unsustainable concept of “Suburbia”. 

The main point is not the destructiveness of many industrial practices, but to point out that the aggregated effects of the introduction of new technologies are volatile and unpredictable, and threaten to unravel not only established economic forms of organisation, but also political and social traditions themselves. Generally however, we are only able to comprehend the future by looking at the past. 

Nevertheless, we must not step back and put on a blindfold in our relationship with the Technosphere, especially not as that approach has led us into a completely unnecessary and perilous destruction of the life-supporting systems of the Earth, which is threatening to cause a sixth great mass extinction. 

There is a desperate, urgent need to find a way to be able to monitor and administrate the Technosphere, without resorting to the oppression of humanity or individual human beings, impeding our progress in using technology to better human civilization, or be crushed by the unpredictable forces unleashed by the application of new technologies inside the system. It stands clear that we need a form of system that not only recognises the existence of the Technosphere and its peculiar nature, but also is adapted to said peculiar nature, especially now when the integration of technology is reaching an exponentially increasing pace and scope. 

The Technate as envisioned by the EOS

A technate is a form of governance system. Unlike previous systems, a technate is not focused on administering humans or employing force to hold them in line. It is instead focusing on overviewing administering the technological infrastructure – or Technosphere. 

That is a short definition, but it is partially obfuscating the truth of the matter, since it postulates a division between the Technate and the Technosphere – much like how the brain is partially separated from the other organs of the human body. Rather, the Technate is envisioned by the Earth Organisation for Sustainability as an integral aspect of every facet of the Technosphere. This means that if the Technate is ever consolidated, it would not consist of a pyramidal, hierarchical structure that is centrally coordinating the entire Technosphere. Rather, it would be infused into the very infrastructure itself, and become a natural continuation of the transformation of the techno-systems into a super-organism. 

This difference is of essential importance when understanding how the EOS views the Technate as a concept. We do not merely view it as a government over technology, but as an “intelligent integrated system”, which encompasses the entire global network of technologically based systems. 

The reasoning behind this is the following: 

  • We need to be able to keep an overview over the resource flows from the moment that they leave nature and loops within the human civilization.
  • The amount of information available within such a complex system is too over-arching to keep it within the confined control of centralised nodes.
  • Centralised systems are more vulnerable, and attempts by hostile interests to inflict damage – especially during the beginning phase of what will be a transformation characterised by contention from many groups that stand to lose in the short term – can become very destructive if there are central key points which control significant aspects of the system.
  • Centralised systems tend to centralise power and deprive human beings of their right to their own agency.
  • Technology is moving towards the point where central governments will be superfluous and possibly hamper the development towards sustainability due to the insufficiency of the tools which they have available.

How – practically speaking – could such a system operate? 

We imagine that it is administered through a huge number of interacting holons, consisting of project teams that operate different aspects of the Technate. The functioning of the holons, their number in relation to a specific operative task, and the depth and scope of their cooperation depends on the nature of the challenge that they face. 

Thus, instead of trying to shape technical structures around bureaucratic-administrative forms, we should create a dynamic system capable of anticipating changes in the Technosphere and adapt its local and regional working procedures after these changes faster than the current system is capable of. When necessary, smaller holons would cluster together to form larger holons, but not necessarily dissolve themselves. 

Of course, each holon which the system is composed of needs to be capable of communicating with every other holon in the system, through sequence networks that tie together various systems. The goal however is not that the communication systems will run the show, but rather provide a nerve network throughout the structure which can help to process information faster and more transparently. 

Most holons will of course not deal with the core functions of the Technate, those being managing infrastructure. Rather, they will focus on voluntarily defined tasks and projects which are close to the interests of the holon participants. 

This does also mean that if the necessity would arise, the Technate as a whole can be able to rapidly transform its internal structure into new shapes that can better handle arising challenges, for example massive solar eruptions that destroy the electronic systems of the Technosphere, or super-volcano eruptions. 

The role of AI

The holons which the Technate is envisioned to be consisting of are composed of teams consisting of humans with talents and skills comprising the core functions of their holon, and when we discuss these issues we often focus on the human role within the Technate. The reason why we haven’t discussed the role of Artificial Intelligence is because it is not yet possible to ascertain what Artificial Intelligence will be capable of achieving within even the nearest decades. 

Nevertheless, we can be able to form criteria which will establish the direction and limitations of AI. As Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, even though we cannot predict the turns of Fate, we are more than capable of foreseeing eventual problems. While problems and challenges always will arise, we can predict eventualities which will arise (according to Murphy’s Law).

When cities and infrastructural systems become smarter and more integrated with one another through the grid, and the complexity of any given system is increasing exponentially, the systems will grow increasingly vulnerable to disturbances. Recent hacking attacks against refrigerators in Moscow and Campus Printers on various American universities display this weakness. Cyber-security will increasingly turn into one of the most essential immune system barriers of the integrated Technosphere.

There are many visions of where we could go with Artificial Intelligence and how it can be utilized to create a new and better civilization. The Venus Project for example is advocating a future characterised by smart cities connected by central computers which regulate every aspect of urban infrastructure. The Singularity – Ray Kurzweil’s vision – is looking towards the fusion of all matter into one grid – one super-awareness. Science Fiction has also put its imagination into the future development of AI, from Star Wars’ humanoid-looking drone slaves to Iain Banks’ intelligent Minds that are steering massive ships through the Milky Way, to the Archailect Gods of the Orion’s Arm collective, the visions have tended to develop with the zeitgeist of the era.

What the Holonic model can teach us about the infusion of AI into our society, is that the introduction of centralised systems can both render us less free and more vulnerable. While it may increase efficiency in the short run, it would also create unforeseen problems due to the emergent nature of the Technosphere. Thence, the following foundations must be laid: 

  • If intelligent computer systems are introduced into infrastructural processes, it is advisable that they are limited in their scope – every system should be responsible for just one or two sequence processes.
  • They should still inter-communicate transparently and be able to transmit information to one another.
  • Within every sequence process, there should be two or three computer systems simultaneously working, with several copies lying dormant or “sleeping” within the same sequence process. If one system is hacked, it should be disconnected from the sequence process and replaced with a copy.
  • Instead of focusing research on achieving artificial sapience, we should focus our energy on creating imperfect self-replicating systems, mimicking evolution, with the direction of purging such systems that are more badly adapted to the changing realities of the Technosphere.
  • There should always be an off-switch.
  • There should never be an off-switch which simultaneously crashes important sequence processes like power-plants. 

Of course, there are more ideas which are worth exploring, like for example the Three Laws of Robotics. However, it is essential that we use technology for and within the context of a society composed of autonomous localities, and are striving towards greater de-centralisation and liberty, rather than towards centralisation and powers in the hand of an elite, whether human or digital. 

In summary 

The Technate as a concept is about shaping forms after function, rather than the other way around. Instead of moulding processes to fit into bureaucratic systems which ultimately were formed before there was a Technosphere, we should have a structure which is adapted to rapidly changing conditions and can transform itself rapidly. 

The EOS has reached the conclusion that the most desirable type of governance shall focus on managing technology and allowing human beings the freedom and time to discover themselves and create. It shall also be de-centralised and seek to empower people locally, while maintaining a transparent and relevant communication network. It should not meddle in normative or legalistic aspects (thus a separation between Technate and Confederation), and it should be consisting of autonomous groups that can shape themselves into larger groups and form the tools necessary to perform specialised tasks. 

While we never can be sure how the Technosphere will form in the future, we must try to influence it, which must mean a transition away from carbon-heavy industries and transport systems, non-renewable sources of energy, linear transportation networks, over-distributed manufacturing, mono-cultures and wasteful practices. We believe that a system like that which we advocates would help us transcend towards that, even if it would take generations before we can replace centralised governance. 


Time to terraform the Earth


The public discourse on Climate Change has been one characterized by a near singular focus on emission levels. While undoubtedly playing a central role in the disturbance of the planet’s natural climate cycle, the direction of the solutions presented have been so pointed towards emissions-reductions that we for many years collectively have failed to address other means of trying to regulate the climate and avert or soften the consequences of altered average temperatures. 

For decades, however, there have been proposals circulating regarding other means to control carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Just recently, we have seen proposals ranging from releasing particles in the atmosphere to moving sea-water to Antarctica. 

Many of the recent ideas have touched upon utilizing drones in operations intended to reduce the amounts of  greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. One potential innovation is to design and implement drones that will consume urban CO2 and use it to fertilize plants. This can increase the productivity of our planet’s ecology, and possibly propagate plants which could also assist in CO2 regulation.

Drones are capable of assisting in terraforming processes: this video documents a current method already deployed; in this case, they disseminate seeds in plantations producing food:

Reseeding the earth of trees (especially close to the equator) could perform a vital process in the capture of carbon which is in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2.

But this simple solution for seed dissemination can only ease one problem, and it doesn’t address the root problem – namely, that the Earth’s surface is overburdened by land use which does not help to store carbon, but release it.

Wood is not only extracted for its use and industrial process value, but also because forests take up space which can be used to raise up suburbs, parking lots, cattle pastures and agricultural fields. In fact, about a third of the world’s total ice-free surface is used to support animals which are bred for their meat. These usage models store less carbon, and emit more CO2.

Why forests and not grass? 

Some may argue that grass – like all plant-life – nourishes itself on carbon dioxide. Grass however has the tendency to combust during dry seasons, and has a far shorter and faster life cycle, meaning that the storage of carbon isn’t having the same impact as that consisting of trees living for centuries. 

The forests – and especially the great rainforests of the tropical regions – have not been referred to as ”the lungs of the Earth” for nothing. The temperate forests on the northern and southern hemispheres are ”inhaling” carbon dioxide during the summers and ”exhausting” it during the winters. 

The amount of forests on Earth have historically affected the global average temperatures. 

  • When large forests have covered the northern hemisphere in a green sheet, the greenhouse effect has been weakened and the result becomes a colder average temperature.
  • That has led to ice ages and lower sea levels.
  • This further leads to altered and weaker rainfall patterns, a drier climate and subsequent desertification and forest fires.
  • This releases carbon and heats up the Earth.
  • Further heat leads to melting of continental ice sheets, higher sea levels, a wetter climate and more room for forests to grow.

Usually, we think about the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve, the ECB or the Bank of England when we think about large banking institutions. But they are dwarfed in magnitude in comparison to the magnificent forests of the Earth.

There we can truly speak of ”too big to fail”. 

During the beginning of our agricultural age, we had double the amount of trees on Earth than what we have today. If we could increase the amount of trees on the Earth in a manner which considerably increases carbon capture and biological productivity on our planet, it would pit a damper on antropogenic climate change and give us time to develop new solutions. 

To plant trees is also a relatively cheap solution, and would probably be far more manageable and easy to overview than dimming the atmosphere using particles. It could not offset the monsoon rains either, but it could actually help to alleviate droughts slightly in the long term. 

To plant trees can sound like an easy solution, but it isn’t. The issue is not only how to restore logging areas, but how to reforest areas presently used to other endeavours, chief among them industrial agriculture. It is not that the seeds are hard to come by, but rather the land.

The challenge of redistributing our usage of space 

To expand the Earth’s forests is an attractive idea, since it would not only create a smoother and gentler trajectory for reversing the damage of man-made climate change, it would also gradually build up acquifiers, give red-listed species a fighting chance and give nature room to thrive.

All of these conditions are not just good for the health of wildlife and plants, but they produce a supremely healthy environment for people.

Reforestation has its prices. 

If we – as a species – move towards that path, we must reduce our usage of the planet’s surface and gradually shift away from industrialised agriculture focused on producing feed for cattle, pigs and chickens. We must achieve it without inadvertently causing an even larger famine or disaster. In fact, since 800 million people are outright starving in this day and age, we must ensure that they can get the access they need to be able to nourish themselves. And we need to do something akin to that during our lifetimes (and probably coupled with more interventions).

These steps for a healthy mankind don’t just protect our environment, but they create a social environment which has much better outcomes, stability and safety for all.

We need to form strategies on the regional and local levels on how to achieve this reforestation. We must shift our entire farming culture, and we must learn to grow sufficient food to provide for the human population of the planet while utilizing less surface. To do that, we need detailed scientific projections, measurements and models which indicate the kind of farming we need to use in order to maximise the reforestation of the Earth while also ensuring that all human beings will have access to food. 

Such a process cannot be just be a matter for organisations, scientific panels and public organs to implement, but a large a part of the people of Earth must actively participate and be represented in this process. The solutions must be adapted to the local and regional conditions, and for them to be successful demands the active participation of farmers and the rural and urban populations of the affected regions. We all must participate and buy-in to the solutions we need for survival.

TL;DR Summary 

While reforestation is not a perfect strategy and won’t solve all problems with global warming, it would certainly help bind up carbon dioxide for a while and, possibly in the medium to long term, help slow the destructive effects of climate change. 

Reforestation is only possible with changes in our local and regional food production systems. Food distribution must meet the needs of all of humanity while shifting away from industrial mono-cultures, linear supply systems, and the growth-driven paradigm which runs on a debt-based financial system, and we cannot do that without empowering the people of Earth.

That challenge is as great, if not greater than reducing emissions. 

The time has come to terraform the Earth. It is my hope that Earth Organisation for Sustainability can assist in that goal. The people of Earth deserve the dignity of a healthy environment whose conditions are sustainable, and the beauty of that possible Earth is worth every ounce of effort.

Dean Sayers also contributed to this article.


Jacque Fresco, a legacy of optimism


The first time I learnt about Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project was back in 2005, when the embryo of what would later become the EOS was originally born. The Venus Project back then did not have the notability it later would attain, and already back in 2006, the precursor to the EOS – the NET – arranged showings of William Gazecki’s documentary about Fresco, Future by Design, with the explicit permission from The Venus Project.

In 2008, The Venus Project gained a lot of publicity within a segment of the youth population through the popularization of The Zeitgeist Movement. The crowning achievement of the collaboration between TVP and TZM was the Jacque Fresco world tour of 2010, where one of his most successful lectures was in the Clarion Hotel in Stockholm that summer. It was a lecture which I myself was a part of organizing, as a part of the EOS. We were tasked with organizing the ticket sales.

Apart from giving me valuable experiences, this extended stay in Stockholm gave me the opportunity to talk with and interact with Fresco, which in itself was an interesting and thought-challenging experience. 

Now, Jacque Fresco is soon to celebrate his hundredth birthday. This centennial celebration is an important event for TVP and their followers, since he plays an important role, not only as a leader and inspirer, but also fundamentally a symbol. To his young followers, he can be said to be a “Cool Old Guy”, much like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are to their respective admirers. Since time immemorial, there has been a certain captivating quality of sage-like old men who have inspired a following. 

I was contacted by my predecessor and former mentor, Dr Andrew Wallace, regarding writing an article about Jacque Fresco’s heritage in relationship to his hundredth birthday, and regarding the collaboration we once had. That is actually a far more difficult task than what you would naturally expect, given that the EOS and TVP have several major differences. 

When writing an article like this, it is difficult to not write a eulogy on one hand, or a critique on the other. While mean criticism of Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project is rare (and often more reserved for TZM, justifiably so), it is far more usual to witness the variant where Fresco is described as a universal genius, who single-handedly had designed and created a thematic model for a future civilization – in short, a super-being who can lead humanity away from the current dark age.

Pondering in what context I would frame this article, I came up with the idea of seeing Jacque Fresco as a part of a wider contextual setting rather than as an isolated phenomenon. This can improve our appreciation of his true heritage as well as connect him to the actual cultural and structural development we’ve seen taking place within American and world culture. 

The transition from Modernism to Post-modernism

Modernism can be described as the dominant approach to reality during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is ultimately a linear understanding of human history, which is seen as “progress”, visually exemplified by the classical Darwinian image “From Ape to Man”. In the context of Modernism, human existence is seen through an optimistic lens as a journey from darkness to light. This journey should be understood in a purely material and scientific manner, as humanity learning to master its surrounding environment, developing society towards and beyond an industrial state and during this process also get rid of old superstitious habits and prejudices. The meaning of life is seen as advancing towards a post-scarcity society ruled by science and reason.

From the second half of the 20th century and onward, post-modernistic tendencies have been dominating the western cultural and social narrative. Post-modernism stresses that reality is heterogeneous and fail to live up to grand narratives in themselves. Post-modernism also questions the narrative of progress, instead stressing how technology in itself can be dehumanising, reduce the human being conceptually and de-facto into a biological machine, as well as destructive to culture and myths seen as enriching to the human experience. Post-modernism is also stressing a critique of norms and puts an emphasis on relativism in order to include other experiences previously excluded by the dominant choruses during the modernistic era.

The reason of the ascent of post-modernism (which started to emerge during the middle of the second decade of the 20th century) has been the experience of the world wars, the world-wide depression, the industrial genocides and the birth of nuclear weapons. All of this led to an emerging pessimistic view on technological progress which has been more and more prevalent amongst – ironically enough – the most progressive elements of western societies. If anything, this undercurrent had its political breakthrough during the Flower Power movement of the 1960’s. Films such as Wizards (1978) and Star Wars (1977) also more or less stressed the perceived inherent conflict between technology and spirituality. 

The Venus alternative

Paradoxically, the birth of Jacque Fresco as a public figure coincided with the transition from late modernism into post-modernism. Originally, The Venus Project was known as Sociocyberneering and consisted of a small group of students, engineers and others where Jacque Fresco was a dominant force. It remains unclear and exist many conflicting recounts of how Sociocyberneering came to transform into The Venus Project, an exhibition village on the future which for many years only had two team members, Jacque Fresco himself and Roxanne Meadows. 

Ultimately, The Venus Project is a movement that wants to usher in a radically different future, a post-scarcity economy characterised by high technology and a transition from hierarchic and force-based systems of conduct towards egalitarian and libertarian forms of social organisation. The Venus Project is claiming that the basis of their legitimacy lies in science. Their claims can be summoned up into three parts.

  • There is truly an abundance of resources on the Earth, or if resources are managed intelligently, there is a functional abundance of them and human beings should be able to utilize them without artificial constraints, i.e the “demand curves” created by financial limits.
  • Our technology is sufficiently advanced to manage these resources intelligently, with a minimum of human intervention, meaning that humans can be freed from labour and instead devote more of their time to the pursuit for happiness and excellence. The model in question is a cybernated planned economy run by A.I computers (with one central computer per city), much like Iain M Banks’ envisioned Cultureverse.
  • Human behaviour, as well as the behaviour of most other animals, is mostly or wholly regulated by environmental stimuli and experiences of previous environmental stimuli. This means for example that given the right conditioning, “any child can become a scientist or a composer” (Fresco, Future by Design).

I should also not omit to state that Fresco believes all of that is feasible now, with a transition period of less than ten years (Stockholm lecture, 2010). 

In summary, what The Venus Project is offering is a very optimistic and positive vision of the futureof humanity. In Future by design, Fresco is often remarking about what we will see in the future, though in later appearances (post-TZM-upsurge) it is made clear that TVP intends to not only describe the wonderful future of tomorrow, but also actively work to make it a reality, by gathering the resources necessary to build an actual model city.

What the Venus project is offering is a radically modernistic vision, in an era where we thought we had grown disillusioned with the idea of progress. 

A just critique

The steadfast optimism of The Venus Project is encouraging, but when it starts to entail practical measurable issues, the positive statements of Fresco and other proponents can have the effect that it either encourages the followers to the point of lethargy (“we don’t need to do anything because technology will solve all problems”), or creates the idea that we already have a working, established alternative to the current system, that the transition is a relatively simple affair (for a world with seven billion people, five world religions, several thousand cultures existing on all levels from hunter-gatherer, through feudal and tribal towards super-urban). 

On the other hand, in terms of actual numbers, The Venus Project has offered sweeping statements, through actual data of the feasibility of a Venus-style RBE or how they define the global abundance they claim we have is fuzzy at best and more or less non-existent at worst. A lot of what The Venus Project states is contradicted by the data from respected groups such as The Club of Rome, Global Footprint Network and other environmental organisations. 

Which brings us to the next point of critique, namely the lack of a discussion on environmental challenges during the next century. For The Venus Project, there seems to be a focus on the idea that we should transition towards a new system because the current system is inadequate and that it primarily is an issue of human well-being. The focus is – as already mentioned – directed towards the visualisation of the positive future. Maybe it is a good strategy since it encourages people in a positive and inclusive manner, instead of offering doomsday scenarios which often can tend to disempower people and make them feel scared and powerless.

However, a lot of people are invested, emotionally and materially, in the furtherance of this incumbent system which we are living under. They have real, tangible things to lose if a transition instead inadvertently leads to a situation which they perceive as worse. Maybe that is one of the reasons why youths tend to be more susceptible to the message of hope offered by The Venus Project?

The heritage of Jacque Fresco

It could be argued that Jacque Fresco is a continuation of late modernists such as H.G Wells, Buckminster Fuller and Gene Roddenberry. The same belief in human potential, linear progress and the supremacy of science is evident in Fresco’s vision, as in the works of these inspired individuals. 

To a large extent, the rise of The Venus Project as a concept within radical progressive circles in North America also has coincided with the ascent of the Neo-modernistic and radically optimistic transhumanist and singularitarian movements, which in most regards are far more radical in their visions than The Venus Project. 

Even if The Venus Project fails to materialise a tangible Venus City which can serve as an inspiration for a transition, they have managed to make a significant cultural impact on the emerging intelligentsia, to inspire youths to think outside the established boundaries and to energise a positive vision for the future. And that is not a small achievement given what we are witnessing daily around the world.

Happy birthday, Jacque!

The Rubik’s Cube is not just a forgotten toy from the 80’s. The fact is that it’s even more popular than ever before.


On Democracy, Rights, Community and the role of the EOS

Social sustainability, the basics

The Earth Organization for Sustainability is formed around the aspiration for ecological, economic and social sustainability. These are not buzzwords deprived of meaning and context, but are aimed to delineate objectives which achieve concrete, tangible results in the sphere of reality. Our three criteria are defining, in the broadest possible manner of wording, how we intend to achieve global sustainability which covers these three areas.

The third criterion establishes that all human beings have the right to life. This means not only guaranteeing housing, healthcare, education and access to resources, but goes deeper. In order so that human beings can thrive, it is not enough that they are being fed, clothed, educated, or that they possess material wealth. What we must discuss is freedom.

Granted, there are several different types of freedom, and at least since the days of John Locke, there has been a concerted effort to define what freedom is. For the sake of simplicity and historicity, let us say that within the modern sphere of western philosophy, there have been two dominant schools of definitions of freedom (or liberty) as it is alternately known.

  • Liberalism: There are negative and positive rights. Negative rights mean the right from unprovoked interference, that no citizen might be subjected to abuse, theft, deprivation of mobility or other actions imposed on said citizen against their will. Positive rights of course mean that the citizen also has rights to things, such as voting rights and access to a public welfare system encompassing education and – depending on what country you live in – education, retirement and minimum labour hours. Conservatives, neoliberals and economic libertarians tend to de-emphasise or outright deny the existence of positive rights.
  • Socialism: There are social rights, which are defined as the right to housing, education, clothing and partaking in the political process. In terms of negative rights, socialists tend to emphasise discrimination based on class, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation, rather than individual rights. Social democrats (of the classical variety) tend to combine this with the liberal negative freedoms, whereas marxists tend to dismiss the heritage of liberalism wholly or partially.

We can immediately see that both Liberalism and Socialism engages the subject of freedom through the concept of human rights, though they have divergent definitions of what constitute human rights.

Oh, Rights?

What constitute rights in the most basic aspect, is that they are not given to human beings, rather human beings are seen as being endowed with them (now we are talking about the currently hegemonic liberalist interpretation). Thus, they should not be held subject to political bargain, or granted arbitrarily to specific individuals or groups, or be tied to the kindness or political calculations of a particular political regime. 

The problem is that just because we agree that we all are endowed with human rights (no matter what these human rights constitute), that does not make impossible the violation of human rights. Conversely, if human rights violations were impossible (if we say that we for example had extremely strong biological inhibitors against violating human life), there wouldn’t even be the need of such a concept.

Some of the first states which enshrined what they called “rights” in their constitutions were the “enlightened despotisms” of 18th century Russia, Prussia and Austria – all three absolute monarchies relying on centralised bureaucracies and professional standing armies on a permanent war footing. The idea of human rights was very popular during the latter half of the enlightenment age, and was basically utilised as a fad amongst despots. The “rights” they guaranteed can most aptly be described as “privileges”, reliant on the interests of the state in the best case and in the worst case on the whims of a single individual.

Another example is how Stalinist states have continuously abused the language, defining themselves as “multi-party democracies” which enshrine “social rights” – rights which are entirely conditioned by whether the state has defined you as an ideological loyalist or not. 

Even in western democracies, human rights are continuously being violated, either because of the relative weakness of certain individuals or groups, cases of corruption or the existence of “deep states” – authoritarian institutions operating partially outside of the constitutional and cultural framework (one example is the IB affair in Sweden).

In summary, in order to guarantee freedom for human beings, we must establish and uphold human rights. The problem of course is that the monopoly of force can choose to ignore these established rights, rendering them into privileges. Some Marxists are on the basis of that arguing that human rights are merely a façade and that ultimately everything boils down to class oppression and the monopoly of force. The solution in that context is to replace the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” with the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (which de-facto most often has led to authoritarian or totalitarian one-party regimes). Not so few militiamen, survivalists and conservatives in the United States argue similarly, but instead see the solution in arming the entire citizenry to the teeth. Experience however shows that there are both relatively well-functioning democracies and authoritarian dictatorships where automatic rifles are readily available for the general population. 

The case for Democracy: Human autonomy and agency

When I was taught civics in the fifth grade, the teacher told us that in democracies, people vote for their leaders, that democracies do not have death penalty or torture and that democracies are making “nice laws”, unlike dictatorships, which are making “mean laws”. I am still unsure whether this very simplified definition of democratic governance served us well.

My argument for Democracy is related to the concept of establishing and defending human rights – a concept which, like democracy, solidarity and equality, very much has become a “buzzword”. In order for rights to be substantial and thus credible, there must be institutions established to safeguard these rights. However, institutions which are limited in scope and are only actively involving a minority of the people, will gradually alienate themselves from the majority and become tools for power.

Even if rights could theoretically be guaranteed by a “perfect despot” (a Venus Project A.I or a Culture Mind for example), there would still be the issue of participation and autonomy, and the rights in questions would de-facto be mere privileges, and the population would have no say in the future of their own fate. In fact, “the perfect utopian dictatorship” would be even more depriving of human autonomy than the glorified role-playing game that is “government by man”. To not mention the real and practical implications of computer viruses attacking the AI ruler (a good foundation for a dystopian sci-fi novel would be Salafi hackers hijacking the central grid of a Venus city).

Human autonomy is meaning not only that human beings are endowed with human rights, but that they have a substantial part of the power over the context in which these human rights are operating. Democracy, in the form of voting rights, is to a large extent guaranteeing influence over the issues pertaining human rights and human dignity to all adult human beings.

The right to the democratic vote is one of the absolutely essential rights for people, no matter how imperfect society otherwise is (corruption, political machines, cheating). The observation that the voting process in the real world often is abused, that legislators often ignore the promises to their constituents, and that the process is often influenced by lobbyists, banks, corporations and corrupt unions, is not a repudiation of electoral practices in themselves. Neither is the fact that voters are often undereducated, misinformed and voting based on preferences for certain policies or (worse!) certain individuals an argument against democracy, because even the most misinformed, undereducated and disinterested voter have the right to be an agent for their own interests. It should be noted that voters who are having these characteristics are most often those who are found in the lower income percentile of any given society, and often suffer from decaying housing, worse health and more uncertainty, abuse and crime. They are precisely the people who need agency, even if they rarely use it and often even vote against their own interests.

If a village suffers from contaminated water, the thing that should be done is to find a way to decontaminate the wells, not ending the need of drinking water.

A critique of contemporary Democracies

Firstly, I would want to object to the idea that a state can be defined as simply a “democracy”. A typical western state is governed through the mixture of an assembly of elected officials, a bureaucracy and the input of powerful interests. Only the first aspect is partially democratic, and regards what parties and persons should be representing the electorate. This arrangement is however troublesome, since the elected officials can renege on their promises, parties are often holding strong opinions over a multitude of issues where almost no voter upon closer study can agree with all of these positions and new contested issues can arise between election cycles which the parties have not addressed prior to the previous election.

In short, democratic voting in the context of parliamentary or semi-parliamentary systems is basically a delegation of democratic power to a small number of individuals who during a fixed term – usually three to six years – have total liberty in how they manage the interests of their constituents.

If there is a culture of strong civic service throughout society, as well as a high level of political participation amongst the general public, then the imperfect parliamentarian system can approach the democratic ideals of the enlightenment. I would argue that the Nordic countries had largely achieved such a society during the 1960’s, with a high degree of political participation and mobilisation within the populace. Political participation, as well as the institutional culture within the elected bodies, later on deteriorated for reasons that I perhaps will explore in a future article.

Ultimately, it would be more democratic if the constituents – rather than electing representatives – were continuously granted more rights to vote on policies, in short a gradual transformation from representative to direct and participatory democracy.There is also a quantitative problem with contemporary democracies, namely that the larger the population is, the less a single vote is worth and conversely the power exerted by the individual citizen shrinks. A third problem is the relationship – within the context of liberalism – between democratic rights and property rights. Originally, the 17th century embryo which later turned into liberalism, was formed in order to protect wealthy land-owners against politically-based property confiscations on behalf of the state. The problem which herein lies is the fact that the rights of corporations – which often reside in either the capitol region of their respective countries or even on the other side of the planet – often infringe upon the autonomy of local communities, by virtue of control of their natural resources and their infrastructure, meaning that they hold control over the factors that affect human livelihood without being affected by their own decisions equally much.

The EOS position on Democracy

The EOS position is that Democracy is an integral aspect of social sustainability, and that all human beings have the right to agency and representation. We must work to continuously strengthen and defend democratic rights, as a core aspect of human rights and as an extension of the Ideology of the Third Millennium.

This is what we should strive for:

  • Strengthening the participation of communities in existing democratic processes with a special focus on communities that are weak, through establishing contact networks, arranging courses and strengthen the self-confidence of citizens.
  • Supporting the human rights and the legal rights of citizens to agency, representation and human rights.
  • Strengthening communities by making them more self-reliant in terms of food, energy, infrastructure, water, recycling and production, thus increasing the participation of the local citizenry.
  • Advocating the integration of new social and cybernetic technologies into the democratic process in order to transcend parliamentarianism and move towards direct and participatory democracy.
  • Advocating de-centralisation and subsidiarity, that decisions should be made as close to those affected by them as possible, and if possible by those affected 
  • Strengthening the local communities by educating the electorate in understanding the scientific method, logic, deductive reasoning, human rights, intersectional theories and to be able to identify and combat logical fallacies. 
  • From these foundations, we will be able to object against actions aimed at depriving people from their democratic agency, as well as supporting initiatives aimed at strengthening democracy.


The EOS views Democracy as a positive concept because it helps provide people with agency to protect their rights, but we are noting that there are problems in which how it is implemented, regarding that people are seldom empowered to vote for issues directly, instead relying on elected representatives, that decisions are often made far from the people affected by them, that voters are misinformed or uninformed and that big economic actors often are able to reduce the autonomy and agency of communities.

We should as a movement strive to strengthen democracy and help to transcend towards more direct democratic and localised systems while making the intellectual and organisational tools available in order to strengthen the civic culture of the people.


What is money and why is it problematic?

The history of Money

Usually, we tend to think that money arose with coinage during the late Iron Age. Before that, human beings generally bartered goods directly, we are taught. The facts are far more nuanced and poised towards a gradual evolutionary development of currencies that have followed similar patterns throughout the world.

It is true that when trade was infrequent, goods were primarily exchanged as barter or gifts. When agriculture was developed, the population grew and villages turned into towns, trade became more and more habitual. Thus, with soon to be dozens of different goods exchanging owners in buzzing markets, trade became more and more complicated. Soon, certain goods evolved beyond their usage utility to serve as “key goods” to obtain other goods.

In ancient Egypt for example, beer sometimes played this role, while in early­medieval Sweden, dried fish was functioning as a de-­facto currency. These goods were soon treated as the default means of payment. Metal currencies arose partially to structure up trade and create uniform rules, and also so emerging states should be able to pay their armies and bureaucracies. They also served a role as a disseminator of ­approved information, so everyone would know the identity of the people in charge. The reason for the choice of gold and silver was often that there was a state monopoly on the extraction of these minerals, that they were scarce and that they were thought to have magical­-spiritual properties.

There were a few weaknesses with currencies based on noble metals however. The foremost of them was that their durability meant that they could accumulate into the hands of those controlling the land and providing towns with much needed food. This accumulation withdrew money from circulation which led to deflation – meaning that the value of money increased. This created an incentive to hoard money, and led to stagnation in trade.

During the Renaissance, families in the wealthy city­states of North Italy established banks which originally were providing gold storage in the trade between Italy and the westernmost point of the Silk Route – the Queen City Constantinople. A merchant in Italy could leave his gold at a Medici bank and take out a receipt, which he later delivered to the Medici office in Constantinople where he would receive an equal amount of gold to conclude the import of silk and spices.

Soon, the banks started to offer another service – loans at interest. The clients were most often governments in need of resources to be able to defend themselves, or to expand at the expense of their neighbors. Gradually, the demand for loans in the war-­torn Europe of the 15th century meant that banks started to lend out more money (in the form of receipts) than gold and silver contained in their vaults, creating the foundation for fractional reserve banking, where the reserves of a bank are just a fraction of what the bank possesses in terms of its role as creditor.

Wind forward

This system made possible the establishment of European colonial ventures, of empires and of the Industrial Revolution. Capitalism as we know it would not have been possible without fractional reserve banking.

In 1971, the last aspect of the old metal­based system was scrapped when the US Dollar was disconnected from being backed by gold reserves. From then on until today, money has globally been a unit created by and backed by debt and credit and created through loans issued by banks.

Usually, people associate money with physical cash. The truth is however that less than five percent of all money exists in the form of cash, and physical money is gradually being phased out in most developed nations.

The benefits of fractional reserve banking and fiat currencies is that it is easy to make available credit for investments and growth, which means that interest rates generally are low and that companies and governments can develop infrastructure and technology continuously.

There are a few problems however.

The first problem, which plagued fractional reserve banking as a system for generations, was the (quite so legitimate) issue of trust. Bank panics often began when it became clear that banks were insolvent, leading to financial crashes and recessions every few years. The establishment of Central Banks helped to alleviate the worst excesses of the system, and maintain the mountain of debt constantly being pushed forward.

The Central Banks act as lenders-­of-­last-­resort, supplying the private banks and business banks with credit so their insolvency seldom risks threatening their existence (and the well- being of the general economy). There are of course ethical and societal concerns with this arrangement, as it serves to collectivize the risks undertaken by major private entities. That means that when the pile of debts are threatening banks with bankruptcy, the public is punished for the mismanagement of the economy by the banks by having to bear the brunt of the costs – through stimulus packages aimed for financial institutions, and later through austerity, tax increases and reductions in public expenditure aimed towards bettering the situation for those who are in most need of such remedies.

The system has however been exceptionally resilient, and since 1929, we have only experienced few crises on a global level. This seeming stability is however dependent on another factor – exponential economic growth.

Why we are destroying the Earth

Exponential economic growth is actually about more than improving human livelihood on Earth. It is an imperative and a necessity for the continued existence of the current debt-fueled monetary system.Reduced growth forecasts are not only a threat to the well-­being of the employees and businesses, but also a long-­term threat to the very viability of the financial system.

Economic growth means that the economic activity must rise during this year compared to the last year in terms of the monetary value that is flowing through the system.Much of policy- making in the developed world is about maximizing economic growth. This inevitably leads to an economic system where there is an incentive to try to increase consumer demand, produce things as cheaply as possible and get them out on the market as fast as possible.

That culture is very problematic.

Because the most economically sensible cost­-cutting solutions prioritized by a system that emphasizes economic growth above everything else, are just the kind of policies that are ravaging our planet, homogenizing her environments to suit the needs for agro-­industrial activities, destroying fresh-­water reserves and are responsible for the transformation of her climate.

In short, a monetary system built on debt is dependent on exponential growth and will collapse without it, since the debt will accumulate over time and needs to be continuously repaid. The wealth needed to repay the debt and grow the economy is to a large degree taken from the Earth, to the point that we are now destroying the biosphere. Therefore, we need to move away from this current debt-­based currency system, and move towards a system based on how our planet’s systems are operating.


Energy Accounting


If you have read our article about the problems with the current monetary system, you know that it is addicted to exponential economic growth – something which is impossible within the near absolute constraints of a finite world. This can only mean one thing, and that is that we need to transition towards a different way of resource management – and one that can fulfill the three criteria outlined in this website.

Read more: Energy Accounting

Energy – the currency of the Cosmos

One of the set of governing laws that defines our Universe is Thermodynamics. There are four laws of Thermodynamics which together determine how matter and energy works.

  • Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium respectively with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.
  • First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, its internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
  • Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
  • Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.[2] With the exception of non­crystalline solids (glasses) the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero, and is equal to the log of the multiplicity of the quantum ground states.

The laws of thermodynamics in short means that every action in the Universe comes with a cost in terms of energy. Each system contains an energy reserve, which is called exergy. The term applied for the energy consumed in direct utilization of production is called emergy.

Since every action costs energy, that means that industrial operations, but also actions intended to remedy environmental effects, can be measured in their energy costs. This means that it is possible to calculate an economic system from a physical basis, namely how much energy an entire industrial process is taking into account. 

The Energy Survey

The Energy Survey as envisioned by the EOS is a process where the Earth’s carrying capacity is continuously measured. Such measurements do exist today as well, and studies show that we are using far more than what the planet can renew every year. The plan with the Energy Survey is to provide data about the ecological and economic situation of the Earth.

Out from this survey, we will move out slightly less than 100% of the Earth’s renewal capacity. That amount would be the resources available for human economic utilization. That means, per definition, that under the system of Energy Accounting, it would not be possible to use more resources than the Earth can provide for.

The Energy Units

The available energy in terms of the renewal capacity of the Earth will be distributed to each human being. The distribution means that each human being will be given an “ownership”, or rather “usership” of an exclusive amount of the Planet’s renewal capacity. The distribution can happen in several ways. All human beings can be given a specific amount just because they need to live and survive for example. People can be compensated for how many hours they work as well, or for their participation in innovative projects and the popularity of said innovations. All three ways to give people access to the resources can be employed simultaneously as well, and the system does not need to be homogeneous throughout the world. Energy units are distributed for a specific period, dependent on the Energy Survey. When the Energy Survey has updated, the amount of Energy Units are reset and distributed out again. Some critique within the EOS has pointed out that this can incentive hoarding during the end of the measurement period. 

How to use Energy Units

Energy Units will be allocated by the citizens individually to the companies, cooperatives or sequences (collectively understood as “holons”) which build up the production system. People choose themselves what holons they want to order goods and services from. The cost of the product or service will be equivalent to the energy cost in terms of the energy that it will cost to extract the resources, produce the item, transport it to the consumer and then restore the extraction site and deal with other environmental costs.

This means that the more environmentally hazardous a particular operation is, the more it will cost in terms of Energy Units. This will incentive actors to produce goods and services which are more efficient and durable in terms of environmental effects.

There is a discussion within the EOS on how the time factor should be measured.  

Economic growth under Energy Accounting

We are not opposed to economic growth in itself. Our problem with the current system, the Debt­based Monetary System, is that it is addicted to exponential growth at all costs.

Under Energy Accounting, the situation will be different since we are basing the measurements of the Energy Survey of what the Earth can cope with on long terms. That means that in terms of the volume of resources we use, we will grow slower. However, the de­facto size of the economy will grow due to efficiency gains when items gradually require less resources, are made more modular and more durable, and when the infrastructure is transitioning towards a more sustainable system.

That means that we will experience deflationary growth, as the user will be able to obtain more and more through an individual Energy Unit, while the total amount of Energy Units will remain in a state of equilibrium in relation to what our planet is able to manage. 

Empirical testing

Energy Accounting works on paper, but before any system like that is going to be implemented, it has to be tested – within computer simulations, factories and local and regional socioeconomic environments. The goal of the Earth Organisation for Sustainability is actually to field test Energy Accounting and attempt to break it.

The reason why we want to do that is so that we can find the flaws with our proposed system and then adapt Energy Accounting after the results of our tests, in order to form it organically after the needs of reality. We are a scientific movement and strives to achieve certain objectives, not to dogmatically cling to certain systems. If Energy Accounting is proven to not work, we would still try to learn as much from the experiments and use the parts that work to improve either on the current system or on some other potential system.

If our system is proven to work, we will not try to install it globally tomorrow, but rather opt for a gradual transition, where the immediately pressing goal is to see to it that the world of tomorrow is fulfilling the three criteria.


Energy Accounting for beginners


The goal of the Earth Organisation for Sustainability follows from our understanding of the world’s problems today at the start of the third millennium. We argue that the human civilization currently is 1) utilizing resources and surface in a manner which disturbs climate, soils, freshwater reservoirs and ecosystems, 2) that this disturbance will cause a “loss of social complexity” and threaten the welfare of billions of human beings and 3) that the process which is causing these life-threatening environmental problems are caused by the current socio-economic system.

From this follows that any type of long-term solution to the current conundrum would have to entail the phasing out of our current global socio-economic system and its replacement with a new global socio-economic system.

The E.O.S has developed a blue-print for this new sustainable socio-economic system, and our goal remains to test it.

The purpose of this introductory article is to outline the broad characteristics of our socio-economic model, Energy Accounting, and why we primarily want to run field tests.

The Three Criteria

The E.O.S has defined three criteria for sustainability which a new socio-economic system must conform to.

  1. The system must utilize equal or less resources than the Earth can renew.
  2. The system must utilize as much of the available energy and utility of the resources used as sustainably possible.
  3. The system must ensure a dignified level of life where access to food, housing, heating/cooling, clothes, education and healthcare is ensured for every human being on Earth.

These are the three poles within which a socio-economic system must find itself for it to be deemed sufficiently sustainable, according to us.

Main article on the Three Criteria.

Energy Accounting – a brief description

Energy Accounting as envisioned by the thinkers and engineers associated with the E.O.S is built on the idea that money as a means of exchange should be replaced by Energy Credits, which would represent units of production capacity. The system is resting on three pillars, the Energy Survey, the Technate and the aforementioned Energy Credits.

The Energy Survey

The first step of the economic calculation process under Energy Accounting would be the initiation of a global Energy Survey, where resources and ecosystems are continuously monitored by several thousands of institutions, communities and millions of individuals, and the data input would determine the global ecological budget of the planetary civilization.

The Technate

The Technate is envisioned as a supranational institution responsible for validating the Energy Survey and the creation and distribution of the Energy Credits. It would play a role reminiscent of a central bank under a monetary market economy.

The Energy Credits

The global ecological budget is divided into a specific number of Energy Credits, which are issued by the technate and distributed out to the users, which will be both holons (institutions/organisations/networks) and citizens, with which we mean individual human beings.

When used, the Energy Credits cease to exist, and are transformed into information that the user has allocated a share of their Energy Credits to a process of labour with the purpose of realising an item, a service or a process. In short, the Energy Credits represents how much physical energy is utilized in a production process, from the extraction of raw materials through the assembly towards the users and finishing with the energy cost for environmental compensation. This in order to ensure that the economy does not use more energy and resources than the global ecological budget ceiling allows.

New Energy Credits are created and distributed at regular intervals. When that is happening, all existent Energy Credits from the prior period are deleted.

The Holonic Social Model

Due to the development of information technologies such as the Cloud, hierarchical and rigid institutional systems will gradually be phased out and replaced with horizontal and fluid holons. A holon (meaning part-whole, a part which can be considered a whole in its own right) will be an autonomous, horizontal project group centred on fulfilling a function – often defined by its members. Given that capital as we know it has been abolished, factories, production centres and idle machinery may be utilized by numerous holons on a running schedule locally determined. The holons form their own networks to fulfil specific social, environmental and individual needs, and are empowered to conduct production from the allocations determined by the users.

Thus, we are talking about a radically de-centralized future, directed towards resilience and autonomy. People would in general experience a higher degree of freedom in terms of how they want to utilize their time, but also in terms of democratic participation.

Benefits – for the environment

  • It will not be possible to utilize more resources than the planet can renew.
  • Production processes which demand more efficient use of energy will become more affordable than processes with a high environmental footprint, incentivizing green technologies.
  • Things will only be produced when the users are actively asking for them, reducing overall production.
  • Users will know the environmental footprint in the prices of goods and services and will consciously strive to reduce their footprint.

Benefits – for society

  • Abolition of debt.
  • Abolition of the boom-bust cycle.
  • Abolition of life-threatening poverty.
  • Abolition of inflation and deflation.
  • Reduction of artificial scarcity-based bottlenecks.
  • We will no longer be forced to destroy the environment by the need for exponential growth.
  • Reduced inequality between the Global North and Global South.
  • Increased transparency.

Benefits – for the individual

  • A guaranteed minimum income.
  • Guaranteed housing.
  • Guaranteed education.
  • Guaranteed healthcare.
  • Shorter work hours due to reduced need for production.
  • More time to develop family life and personal interests.
  • Higher resiliency and personal/communal autonomy.
  • A higher degree of personal freedom.

Our goal: To test (aspects of) Energy Accounting

Here comes the aspect of the E.O.S which people often find the hardest to wrap their minds around. Our goal is not to – in a political or revolutionary manner – replace Capitalism with Energy Accounting. Our goal is to test aspects of Energy Accounting to learn how it would operate in the real world.

Specifically, we want to learn the following things:

  • Are there any aspects of Energy Accounting which do not work?
  • Are there any aspects of Energy Accounting which can be improved?
  • How will the introduction of Energy Accounting alter human behaviour?

And, most important of all:

  • Is Energy Accounting capable of fulfilling the Three Criteria.

That is the only thing we are asking for – the opportunity to run field tests on an alternative system. If the current socio-economic system employed by a majority of the regions on Earth may be unsustainable, then it would be a positive to have alternatives available. There is a possibility that we are wrong, and that the current system actually is possible to combine with sustainability (which we believe it isn’t). But there also is a possibility that we are right.

Even if you disagree with our hypothesis, it is wise and prudent to keep the door open for alternatives.

Why the EOS and not any larger green pro-sustainability organisation?

Most green organisations are operating under the assumption that the main problem is the symptoms. They are doing a laudable work and if you feel they better correspond to your interpretation of the current situation, then they are better served by your help.

The E.O.S wants to find a realistic and achievable model which can replace the current socio-economic system and fulfil the Three Criteria. This is our primary focus. We are not primarily an activist group or a political party.

How you can help

The E.O.S is a small organization and in need of manpower and resources to fulfil its operational goals. In short, we are in need of financial support to conduct our projects, like the ERCS developed by E.O.S Cascadia.

  • We are gratefully and duly accepting grants and donations from institutions and members of the public, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the budget is utilized in a transparent manner and in accordance with the designated projects it’s earmarked for.

We love to have new members and volunteers. From September 2020, membership fees will go to the local E.O.S associations.

  • As an E.O.S member, you have the power to propose projects and amendments to our internal decrees, as well as to petition to form holons.

Do you have a project you care about and which you believe can be of aid in assisting us towards achieving the Three Criteria? Please talk with us, and we will see if we can find ways to assist you.

  • We are interested in learning of and connecting with projects aiming to fulfil the Three Criteria, and which operate on local, regional or global levels.

This planet is your planet, and right now our current socio-economic system has caused a series of unintended, emergent phenomena which may cause a new dark age for humanity. We have never before as a species faced a situation like this, and we urgently need to develop alternative ways of resource management if we are going to achieve a sustainable transition.

If you want to join us, please go here:


The Current Ecological Crisis

Life on Earth is not just an assembly of all living things, but also an intricate, diverse and complex self-regulating system striving towards a state known as a dynamic equilibrium. This means that when minor disturbances occur within the eco-systems, or because of outside disturbances, the eco-systems react in a manner that restores balance. 

Of course, over longer periods of time, species will go extinct or evolve into new species, and environments will change. The system itself, however, tend to favor increased levels of complexity. 

On the global level, we can talk about a biosphere, which in itself affects the atmosphere and other systems which it depends on. The biosphere is simply all the life on Earth, excluding isolated eco-systems (like the deep ocean gas vent eco-systems, the eco-systems in Antarctic lakes or those in closed caves like the Movile system near the Black Sea).

Minor disturbances occur on a frequent basis, are natural and serve as an important impetus for the evolutionary process. Even most large disturbances can be absorbed by the system, and hundreds of such events have happened during the existence of this biosphere.

However, some large disturbances have off-set the balance so much that the biosphere itself has collapsed. The biosphere that we human beings currently are a part of is actually the sixth biosphere in the Earth’s history. It is characterized by land-based eco-systems dominated by mammals and avian (bird) dominance of the skies. 

These characteristics have existed for 65 million years, following the end of the Mesozoic biosphere, which was dominated by dinosaurs and sea reptiles, an era mostly characterized by a warm climate and more and smaller continents than today. What brought the end of the Mesozoic had been debated since the latter half of the 19th century – most scholars today are agreeing that the Chicxulub asteroid impact hypothesis is the most believable cause for a mass extinction which wiped out around three quarters of life on Earth.

Today, scientists are estimating that we are losing species at a thousand to ten thousand times the normal background rate. This corresponds to the rate experienced by the biospheres during the previous mass extinction events1. Moreover, the characteristics of the systems which are affected by and affecting the eco-systems are rapidly changing. These three systems re the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the lithosphere (more exactly the pedosphere, the uppermost layer of the ground) – which can be called air, water and earth respectively.

The Climate

For the last millions of years, Earth’s climate has been characterized by a flow between warm periods and ice ages when large parts of the northern hemisphere have been covered by large glaciers. The main regulating atmospheric gas which has governed these seasonal climate shifts have been carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas which heats the Earth by blocking the reflection of sunrays out from the atmosphere, thus trapping heat.

Carbon dioxide is also one of the gasses that is “breathed” by and stored by vegetation – and then especially trees. The relationship between the forests and the atmosphere have until recently determined the shift between warm periods and ice ages.

During ice ages, forests consume and bind carbon dioxide, reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere – and thus the climate is becoming colder. This leads to glaciers spreading out throughout the northern hemisphere, which are replacing forests and also binding water, creating a more desert-like and drier climate throughout the Earth.

Such a drier climate leads to forest fires, the spreading of grasslands and deserts and the replacement of boreal forests with tundra. All of these processes serve to liberate carbon dioxide, which heats the Earth. When the Earth is warming, glaciers are melting, creating more water that can be released into the hydrological system, increasing annual rainfall, thus allowing forests to spread out and bind carbon – thus the process repeats itself.

From the 13th century, the Earth was actually starting to enter yet another Ice Age, and the world became regressively colder until the 1860’s, when the climate suddenly first began to stagnate, and then to shift towards an increase in average temperatures.

The reason for this is that the Industrial Revolution has relied on the usage of energy stored in coal and oil, which releases additional carbon when burnt. This means that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously has increased due to human intervention, and the climate is currently increasing at the greatest rate since we first started to measure it back in the 19th century.

Right now, it is estimated that the average temperature of the planet’s surface will increase by more than two degrees this century, which will present an enormous challenge, especially as it will affect global rainfall and drought patterns, transforming the conditions of agriculture and human in-habitation in the most populated regions of Earth. Additionally, it can lead to the partial or complete collapse of the Greenland ice shelf, the largest inland glacier system on the northern hemisphere – and the subsequent rise of sea levels.

Most of the large cities world-wide are coastal, and the situation could produce hundreds of millions of refugees at the end of this century.

The Oceans

Covering two thirds of the Earth’s surface, the Oceans and Seas are extremely important – especially as they play an important role regulating the planet’s weather and climate. Apart from that, the first advanced eco-systems on Earth were oceanic eco-systems. When the surface of continents were nothing but inhospitable deserts, the seas thrived with coral reefs and a complex biosphere containing tens of thousands of species.

The oceans today are still the home of beautiful and diverse eco-systems – home for beings ancient like the jellyfish, or intelligent like whales. Despite their abundance of life, the oceans are very sensitive however, as much of the diversity is bound to just small parts of it.

The coral reefs, the lungs of the oceans, are far more susceptible to pollution damage than previously thought, and many reefs have either collapsed or are in a state of slow dying.

Overfishing has taken its toll on nearly two thirds of assessed fish stocks worldwide, and while demand is creeping up, the reduction of oceanic biomass has made ocean wildlife a shadow of what it was just forty years ago2.

The oceanic eco-systems are some of the most sensitive on the planet, and their collapse may happen well in advance of other collapses which we may see occur at a later date.

The Soils

The soils – once nutrient-rich and deep – are the result of millions of years and tens of thousands of generations of beings that have lived, eaten and died on land, as well as the outcome of the grinding, flooding forces of nature that have nagged down rock into grains and freed minerals. Plants and trees have bound the soil and served to create firm ground, and are in their turn dependent on soil for their survival. The lithosphere – the global soil layer – is what makes life on land possible.

That is why soil degradation is a global environmental problem on the same level as climate change. Reduction of organic matter, erosion, structural deterioration and the effects of changed rainfall patterns all contribute to a decline in the quality of soils on a global level.3

To a large extent, this is caused by the expansion of pastures and of high-intensity mono- cultures. In traditional eco-systems, hundreds of species of plants co-exist with one another and return nutrients to the earth when they die. In high-intensity industrial agriculture, the goal is to get the produce to the markets as quick as possible, without any regard to the needs of the soil. If the soils are unable to cope, then you can simply use artificial fertilizers to increase the yields.

For the last 150 years, half of the topsoil of the planet has been lost, and a third of the arable land has become unproductive, according to the World Wildlife Fund.4  

Freshwater Reserves

Only 2,5% of the water on Earth consists of freshwater – which is distributed in lakes, rivers, brooks and aquifers throughout the world. Freshwater is absolutely paramount for the well- being of the world’s eco-systems. Throughout millions of years, rainwater has been stored in the soil through root systems which later decay.

This has built up large aquifers of freshwater underground, that can sustain both eco-systems and human activities. The amount of freshwater has been near constant since the days of the Dinosaurs. That is… until now.

Sadly, water scarcity is on the rise globally, as cities, water-intense industrial and agricultural practices and other forms of activities are leading to us using up more freshwater than rainfall can renew. Moreover, climate change is causing a melting of glaciers which can turn large swathes of the most populous nations on Earth into desert-like regions.

This crisis has today affected one third of Earth’s freshwater systems, and by 2025, two thirds of the global population may face water shortages5.

The sixth mass extinction

Currently, species are disappearing at a rate thousands of time exceeding what has been normal for the last 65 million years. Not only large animals are vanishing, but also small animals, plants and insects. Moreover, more and more species are becoming threatened by extinction, as their gene pools collapse and they are isolated into remote pockets – unable to migrate and have access to their living space.

There are many causes, from climate change and regional environmental crises, to poaching, poisons and destruction of habitats. One of the main reasons can be said to be out-crowding. Monocultures, highways, infrastructure projects, urban sprawls and other activities are now more surrounding nature than nature is surrounding it.

That means that eco-systems are physically being pushed aside, and that species are split in isolated pockets that lead to inbreeding and stagnation. Even if species such as the various tigers survive due to conservation, they are today living at the mercy of human intervention, and will do so for a foreseeable future.

Not even seed banks, zoological gardens or genetic samples can salvage threatened species – because a species is not only a collection of individuals, but a product of their particular environment. When that environment is destroyed, there’s often no room for specialized animals to survive.

By mid-century, it is estimated that a third to half of all species on Earth may face extinction, which will make the events which are to unfold the worst disaster for life on Earth for 65 million years.