Radicle Civics — Building Proofs of Possibilities for a Civic Economy and Society

Dark Matter Labs
Dark Matter Laboratories
21 min readAug 14, 2023

“Like an operating system, the medium of infrastructure space makes certain things possible and other things impossible. It is not the declared content but rather the content manager dictating the rules of the game.” — Keller Easterling, Extrastatecraft (2014).

Our infrastructures are vital to enabling the complexity of modern life. Yet the role they have in creating technological, institutional, and behavioural path dependencies is often underestimated. Once they’re built, they continue to drive how we organise society for decades or even centuries through habituation, vested interests, and economies of scale and scope. This happens in often intangible, counterintuitive, and destructive ways. In other words, we shape our infrastructures and thereafter they shape us, and so on…

André Gorz describes this cyclical logic in his essay ‘The Social Ideology of the Motorcar’: “The car has made the big city uninhabitable. It has made it stinking, noisy, suffocating, dusty, so congested that nobody wants to go out in the evening anymore. Thus, since cars have killed the city, we need faster cars to escape on superhighways to suburbs that are even farther away…Give us more cars so that we can escape the destruction caused by cars.”

Economic infrastructures are no different from our roads and concrete jungles. They too have locked us into extractive and harmful pathways. Capital, markets, (intellectual) property regimes, land registries, GDP and other performance metrics, make up seemingly axiomatic cornerstones of our societies, yet they’re based on deliberately narrow, centralised definitions of value that encourage myopic, extractive behaviour. Looking through Eric Beinhocker’s lens of the “ontology stack”, GDP unfolds itself as not just a metric, but the tip of the iceberg of a layered economic infrastructure with an embedded worldview: one that perceives and positions humans as rational, profit-maximising, disembedded beings.

Infrastructural and imaginative lock-ins

These structural constraints in our economies and societies are now locking us in. We are facing multiple, interconnected crises of the climate, ecosystem, economic inequality, and democracy. These crises are not a crisis of the world, but of our relationship with the world, and how we understand ourselves. We are facing a deep code problem.

Our current code was written by Enlightenment thinkers, who developed the narrative of autonomous beings, endowed with individual rights and liberty, abstracted from the world around us. To be human, is to think. Nature is a mere backdrop against which humans live out history (Mills, 2016), or even worse, an infinite resource to be mined and consumed. Industrialisation, capitalism, and consumerism have further abstracted humans from being human and remade us into “bad robots” through our alienated labour and that of others. As Edmund Burke cautioned the Enlightenment-inspired revolutionaries, “liberty, too, must be limited in order to be possessed.” And the erosion of these limits, whether these limits are our responsibility to our social or ecological bonds, are in turn, eroding our ability to enjoy liberty itself.

This centuries-long ontological division between human-nature and production-reproduction has been hardwired into our regulatory, financial, and built infrastructures. It has not only allowed us to dominate, exploit, discard, and waste, but structurally locked us into this reality. We are reaping the consequences in the form of a self-terminating crisis where the things we dismissed as externalities are now threatening our very existence. Whilst many propose patches and quick fixes to the symptoms, we hypothesise that the only way out is to recode ourselves and our being-in-the-world. To build on Easterling, when the “rules of the game” are broken, it’s time to change them.

What we need is to reconceptualise ourselves as inalienably interconnected and relational beings, as a knot of flows. We need a relational worldview that sees our lives, our cities, our societies, as complex organisms comprising socio-ecological systems and webs of relationships (Engle 2022). We need to redesign our infrastructures so that they centre this complex entanglement and enable all beings — be they humans, future humans, and more-than-humans — to individually and collectively thrive.

What does it mean to see the world through the lens of ‘knots of flows’? Let’s explore this through a seemingly simple dining table. This table starts from soil to trees, from trees to lumber, from lumber through multiple stages of processing and transportation, to becoming a table, which then will be used for eating, playing, drawing, and working, providing numerous flows of social, economic, cultural, and emotional value. Over time, the table will be resold and recycled, enter into different homes with different flows of value, or be turned into materials for new tables, chairs, or paper, which will in turn be composted, returned to the soil, and transformed into new flows of value.

Germinating new civic futures with proofs of possibilities

Bruno Latour said, “Change the instruments, and you will change the entire social theory that goes with them. Over the last six months, Dark Matter Labs has been trying to do precisely this with our Radicle Civics portfolio: changing instruments and civic infrastructures to enable a new social theory that recognises our entanglement and centres interdependence, care, and deep democracy.

The focus on civics is a fundamental one, because to address this deep code problem we must even preempt assumptions of a social contract with a state or a government. Civics for us extends far beyond conventional representative democracies, bordered places, and central jurisdictions. Civics starts instead with the most elemental of our social relationships: our mutual interdependencies from which forms of social organisation emerge. In this sense, reimagining civics is about both process and outcome. It requires us to expand our understanding of citizens who partake in these interdependencies to include humans and more-than-humans, and to reconfigure the ways in which we collectively relate and interact with one another, towards non-coercive, empathic, caring, and peer-to-peer systems. It is through this reimagining of civics that we can cultivate renewed civic capital and resilience that can serve to act as bulwark against any over-concentration of power, intentional or otherwise, while enabling collective thriving.

With the financial and strategic support of Partners for A New Economy, Scottish Land Commission, and Opus Independents, Radicle Civics has been building a vibrant ecosystem of diverse partners including the River Dôn Project, Law and Political Economy Europe, and the Design Museum London (and more to be announced). Together, we have sowed the seeds for new civic infrastructures through a number of ‘proofs of possibilities’: visceral experiences and situated experiments that embody a new logic for how we can relate to each other and our environment, how we can recognize value beyond markets and money, and how we can nurture a deeper democratic agency. They are akin to what Erik Olin Wright has called “real utopias” or what Giorgos Kallis refers to as “incubators of counter-hegemony”: not distant fantasies but concrete and contextual manifestations of alternative futures that help render new paradigms part of our ‘everyday’. They do this not just by updating our shared civic protocols, but also through ‘common sense’ in Isabelle Stenger’s meaning of “making sense in common”, with communities in their contexts.

Our vision for a new ‘everyday’ focuses on our relationships with our homes, land, and rivers. These natural and built infrastructures are so foundational to our everyday lives that they provide the ideal leverage points in which we can explore, reshape, and practise different ways of being and relating in the world together. In particular, they aim to demonstrate how reshaping the dark matter of our systems reshape possible futures. It is in our everyday experiences that we can uncover, in the words of David Graeber, “the ultimate, hidden truth of the world, […] that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.”

So what would it look like to liberate our homes, land, and rivers from the logic of objectification, dominion, and extraction coded into our current economy? What would it mean to transcend alienation from our planetary entanglement and acknowledge that no-body and no-thing can be owned or dominated by another? How could our shared infrastructures be free, and in their freedom, generate freedom for us and the world around us? These provocations for emancipated civic infrastructures are embodied in four proofs of possibilities:

We will highlight our work on FreeHouse, FreeRiver, and FreeSpace in more detail below, while we will publish a separate piece on FreeLand in the coming months.

We’ve attempted to distil our collective exploration and experimentation into three critical shifts in worldview. We believe these form the embryonic shoots for a new social theory and its corresponding civic infrastructures: a shift from objects to agents, from externalities to entanglements, and from public-private to commoning. Each of our proofs of possibilities sits at the intersection of these foundational shifts as manifestations of this worldview.

Worldview shift 1: From objects to agents

Western law allows us to become property owners and through that gain exclusive control to exploit and extract economic value from things framed as ‘property’ such as homes and land. In Contract and Domination, Carole Pateman shows how property rights were used to justify the colonisation of land, the monopolisation of scarce resources, and the privatisation of value extraction while commoning its consequences. Rather than simply tinkering at the edges of property ownership and circumscribing its social and ecological impacts, Radicle Civics is exploring a shift in the very roots of this system. Instead of seeing humans as subjects and the Earth as objects and commodities, can we recognise ‘selfhood’ and agency of everything, from flora and fauna, to rivers, the land, and the homes we build there? Instead of ownership, can we reimagine ties with the land and the Earth as part of a network of relationships built on care, mutuality, and reciprocity in a community of humans and more-than-humans?

Ownership is one theory of control and can only ever optimise for one output: the exclusive interests of the owners. It is structurally not designed to optimise for multiple entangled stakeholders, interests, and benefits. Instead, these are only considered when different owners’ rights are in conflict, or through regulations that limit the exercise of these rights in narrow contexts. These are blunt mechanisms for the complexity of our systemic crises. When we see the world from an entangled value proposition, we recognise a fundamental need to move beyond ownership to a relational model. The self-ownership of land, rivers, and houses allows us to subvert the existing system of ownership by ruling out the possibility of an owner. Without the owner’s dominating control, these beings can exercise agency for their own needs, in relation to one another. Rather than property contracts that would transfer exclusive rights, we would enter into care and stewardship relationships that would balance rights and responsibilities between the needs of equal beings.

So what could this self-ownership of land or rivers look like? How might we imagine their enfranchisement? For this, we are building on the wisdom of different Indigenous peoples that have traditionally granted great stature to nature and future generations and found ways to speak on their behalf, as well as the growing Rights of Nature movement. Radicle Civics is exploring how we can harness assistive technologies and alternative governance design to effectively realise the agency of more-than-human actors and usher in a cultural shift beyond Anthropocentrism.

Our current technologies of bureaucracy are still extensions of analogue models — ‘paperwork’ still has a literal meaning, even if the pages are digital. And the way we currently use these bureaucratic technologies to manage the world as objects has reductionist tendencies. With the availability of abundant data and our capability to process it orders of magnitude greater, this is no longer a constraint, but in fact an enabler of an agent-based worldview. With tools like digital twins, we now can dynamically and non-exclusively identify, organise, and interact with this information while ensuring it is constantly verified with reality. When applied to governance, computational bureaucracy can support plurality and coherence, as demonstrated by machine learning tools like Polis, and at planetary and hyperlocal scales simultaneously. Distributed protocols, such as blockchain, of verifying, transacting, making sense and decisions can be done with integrity without relying on central authorities. By treating these as assistive technologies that allow us to interact with an agent-based worldview, it serves an ennobling function, allowing humans, more-than-humans and machines to interact in a peer-to-peer way, and operationalise this new vision of civics.

Our Proof of Possibility: FreeRiver — River Dôn Project and Interface for Care

Together with Opus Independents and a group of partners, including Lawyers for Nature, Sheffield Hallam University, Urban Flows Observatory: The University of Sheffield, Sheffield Data for Good, Urban Flows Observatory, South Yorkshire Sustainability Centre, and Don Catchment Rivers Trust, we are working on the River Dôn Project. The project aims to create an alternative model for relating to the River Don through recognising its personhood and hopes to unlock new ways of seeing, understanding, valuing, empathising with and caring for the River as an agent.

Building on our CivicAI work, Dark Matter Labs is working on designing an Interface for Care to engender new caring relationships and stewardship action for the river. Our Interface for Care will use a mix of interfaces, from chatbots to augmented reality, to feedback ecosystem data tangibly and meaningfully. This will grow our collective intelligence and cultivate deep empathy and a sense of belonging with the river ecosystem. Through different expressive media, we will explore how the river can best communicate its needs and values. Can a river write a poem to express its hurt over being polluted? Would a heart-to-heart conversation empower communities to take proactive action to care for the river? We will explore how an evolving empathic relationship built through the Interface can be leveraged for citizens entering into new types of stewardship agreements with the river around specific individual and collective actions of care. The Interface will capture input from citizens on their care actions, and complete the feedback loop by expressing the positive impact of their agency as part of an iterative process of learning to deepen and evolve care. The Interface also explores how a care economy around the river can be built, such as by guiding human behaviour towards better stewardship via social (rather than financial) incentives, such as thank you letters and art.

Worldview shift 2: From externalities to entanglements

The original sin of modern economics according to Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen is the illusion that our economies do not depend on resources, energy, and waste sinks, and can thus continue to expand exponentially. Companies have been allowed to maximise profits by commandeering ‘nature’s gifts’ as cheaply as possible, while absolving them of any obligation to repair, restore, or replenish what they take. A study by Trucost found that none of the world’s top industries would be profitable if they paid for the natural capital they use. The total unpriced natural capital consumed cost our planet $7.3 trillion a year — 13 percent of global GDP in 2009. This damage is simply treated by our economic system as ‘externalities’, external to the interests and liabilities ascribed to the owner, with these true costs falling on everyone and everything else. In other words, externalities are convenient fiction enabled by property, the arbitrary premise that property and its value can be enclosed from the world around it.

“Categories such as ‘away’ have evaporated: one doesn’t throw a candy wrapper away, one drops it on Mount Everest” — Timothy Morton, Humankind.

Externalities are not just an accounting glitch: they are a denial of our complex entanglement (as Barry Commoner stated in one of his laws of ecology, “Everything Is Connected To Everything Else” ) and a structural flaw in our economic theory of value. In realising we live in a resource-scarce world, we should also recognise that value should not be enclosable and alienated from the world around it, but that value is relational and entangled with the world. In a worldview that sees agents, not objects, value comes from relationships between agents (for example, the value of a tree as a habitat to an insect). But value can also be an emergent property of this complex system of relationships (for example, from individual relationships of habitation between flora, fauna, and geography emerges the biodiversity value of the ecosystem). Once we accept the complexity of entanglement, our theory of value also becomes necessarily complex. We are starting to sketch out loose taxonomies to help us transition our worldview and economy from an extractive to entangled understanding of value, starting with the house:

This entangled theory of value will in turn shape our decision-making: what should our civic infrastructures be designed to value, prioritise, and encourage? In turn, how might our civic financial models (across regulation, investment, accounting, taxation, insurance and procurement) evolve to account for this multi-dimensional, entangled and longitudinal forms of value, and leverage the institutional and private capital needed to solve the complex social and environmental challenges created by the legacy of externalities? For example, compare an uncomfortable, energy-inefficient, rent-seeking house built unsustainably to a house that is designed in harmony with the environment, its inhabitants, and society: does our current economic system truly account for the full difference in value between the two? If not, what would a new economy and housing model for the latter look like? We hope to explore these questions through our proof of possibility.

Our Proof of Possibility: FreeHouse

The house is a widely familiar and relatable space; it also sits at the intersection of economic, social and environmental systems, making it an ideal site for experimentation for this entangled theory of value. What if the house is no longer a property to be bought and sold like any other commodity? Instead, the house is self-owning entity that embodies a knot of value flows: the value of materials into and out of the house when it is constructed and deconstructed; the value of flood risk reduction from sustainable urban drainage approach; the value of the energy the house generates, uses, and contributes back to the grid; the value of its role in the ecosystem of organisms that live in and around it; the value of its sustainable construction as a carbon store; the value of ‘home’ for belonging and mental well-being; and the value of being a constituent part of a wider community.

When the house is recognised as a knot of value flows, and that these flows have multiple beneficiaries and multiple liability holders, how can we reimagine and invest in the house, not as a vehicle for speculation and extraction but as a generator of common benefits? To realise this theory of value, we are testing these critical components:

1. Generative financing and decision-making driven by entangled common value

The house embodies the creation of multiple value through energy generation, food production, social interactions, ecosystem services, etc. Instead of extracting rent, this entangled theory of value is an opportunity to design a generative business model that maximises the house’s creation of this common value, while allowing the house to sustain itself in the long term, such as maintenance and servicing its own loans. We will be designing the frameworks needed to make these value flows and relationships legible, such as entangled value mapping. We will also be scoping the infrastructure needed to make this value operationalisable, both tradeable systems (such as outcome buying and multi-valent currencies) to non-tradeable systems (such as that of care and gratitude).

The theory of entangled value will influence our decision-making process. Short of the house being fully autonomous in exercising its agency, we will be designing the kind of governance and decision-making structures needed to help it achieve its generative mission, rather than serving the private interests of owners. These structures will also accommodate the participation of the house’s both human and more-than-human neighbours and interdependent stakeholders.

2. Commons governance for cohabitation

From an agent-to-agent perspective, use value is generated through the relationship between houses and their inhabitants. Currently, we are exploring the design of stewardship agreements, drawing inspiration from Michel Serres’ concept of The Natural Contract and Traditional Ecological Knowledge in order to actualise our entangled relationships with the systems that sustain us. These agreements would balance the right to live in the FreeHouse with the responsibility to care for it and the relationships it has with the world around it. In other words, this stewardship relationship is multilateral: in return for an affordable comfortable home, inhabitants may undertake responsibilities that involve maintaining the house, promoting the flourishing of wildlife, and also being a responsible member of the local community.

Housing inequality emerges from systemic misallocation: wealth accumulation enabled by property often leads to excluding others from fulfilling their fundamental housing needs and addressing broader societal and environmental concerns, including climate transition and mental wellbeing. In other words, property has a social function and the right of exclusion also comes at a societal opportunity cost. A self-owning house already exempts it from a market-based approach to resource allocation. But we are exploring alternative approaches to decide who gets to live in a FreeHouse, by moving beyond a mere reallocation of use rights to fostering a culture of cohabitation. We are starting a new civic conversation with potential residents over what is a fair balance between needs for ‘homeliness’ and opportunity costs for the wider community of agents, including those who may not reside in the house or immediate neighbourhood.

3. Materials on loan from the commons

Material value encompasses both the advantages of agents possessing materials for their function, the responsibility to avoid wastefulness, and the opportunity cost of those materials serving other functions. The choice of materials used in constructing a house can profoundly influence the environment and the well-being of its occupants.

What if the materials used in the construction of the house are leased instead of owned? A fully circular economy that avoids resource depletion has indisputably greater value than our current model of unsustainably extracting new resources without considering their subsequent reuse. How this full circularity emerges will require a system-level infrastructure for enforcing the long-term responsibilities of possessing materials. Currently, we are exploring the idea of a Carbon Storage Lease, which involves testing whether a long-term or perpetual instrument like a lease agreement can be utilised to ensure that carbon remains stored throughout the lifecycle of materials such as timber.

Worldview shift 3: From public-private to commoning

We’re continuing to use approaches designed for another era to tackle challenges of today, opting for one-size-fits-all or centralised responses that were limited by the quality and quantity of information and technology available. In the age of increased uncertainty with complex, interconnected challenges, these approaches are increasingly showing their age. These challenges transcend our constructs of boundaries, departments, and disciplines: global problems such as pandemics, climate change, or growing inequality can not simply be solved by one government, or even a coalition of governments. Simultaneously, the growing abundance of mass sensing and data has the potential to provide public benefits, but also bring with them the risks of power and information asymmetries, vulnerabilities, and abuse of privacy from the centralisation of such data. We have reached the edge of our theory of control: we need to reconsider the ways in which we make decisions over shared resources, beyond carving out domains of exclusive control.

Radicle Civics explores how commoning (or “becoming in common” as Andrea Nightingale describes it) can usher in a new age of planetary collaboration and unbounded fluidity in the way we use our resources, materials, and spaces and solution for our shared risks. This shift will simultaneously require and cultivate a major reorientation around new collective intelligence models and social and civic capital. We are already seeing the potential of these multi-capital systems manifested: a tree planted by some local authorities has a chance for survival as low as 10%, while a tree cared for properly by a community should have over a 90% chance of survival, an illustration of the difference between centralised management and distributed care. We are exploring how we can leverage technology to activate pre-existing economies of care and build new ones. Technologies such as distributed computing, ledgers, and smart contracts, can be used to both build new sense-making and learning capabilities, helping align actions among multiple stakeholders, reducing associated costs, and advancing the generative, plus-sum value of collaboration.

Our Proof of Possibility: FreeSpace and Permissioning the City

Most of us are familiar with seeing rivers or land as commons: but how about commoning applied to vacant buildings? Our cities are full of under-utilised spaces as a result of the pandemic, the evolution of work, and demographic and economic restructuring. However, we currently do not have any fiscal incentives or regulatory frameworks in place to leverage these assets for our collective benefit, even though the ongoing underutilisation of these assets incurs a societal cost. With FreeSpace, we are exploring how we can unlock a city’s public and private spatial assets for civic use through new types of commoning, such as using micro-stewardship smart contracts and peer-to-peer deliberation with other agents. It asks how we can encourage a practice of commoning and culture of stewardship towards shared urban assets that goes beyond traditional rental or ownership models. For instance, can we transform a vacant office space into a partial commons by overlaying common ways of governing of a specific space — for instance a shared kitchen — or for a specific duration — such as monthly Tuesday evenings, and do so while measuring and ensuring the impact is net-positive on its interdependent stakeholders? Our Korea team recently published how they are building this experiment of new civic allocation in the context of Daegu city with Re:permissioning the City.

Three shifts towards a new economy

As Denise Hearn describes, “how we construct monetary, financial, and economic systems is not an exercise of cold calculation. Our systems, more accurately, are an expression of our cultural, philosophical, and even religious views about who we are as a species and how to best organise society.” We have identified three shifts in our worldviews that we believe to be critical in how we should relate to each other and the world as a reimagining of civics from its very roots. By recognising the world as interdependent agents, from which distributed and dynamic ways of organising and commoning can emerge, we hope this redefinition of civics can not only have implications for how we coexist, but also brings with it a new thesis of economics.

When we move beyond treating beings as economic objects for extraction (assets) to recognise the the subjecthood inherent in every being, when we unlock these beings’ capability to partake in decentralised monetary production to structure their own value flows, when we account for plus-sum behaviours such as care, trust, gifting, and collective knowing, these shifts in the axioms of our economic system open up new pathways of progress, and allow us escape out of the deepening rut caused by our previous system. And we believe the proofs of possibility we have chosen to work on, the self-owning economic agent (FreeHouse), interfaces for caring for agents (FreeRiver), and methods for agent-to-agent deliberation (FreeSpace), will be components critical for this agent-based economic system to become a reality.

What’s Next?

We hope that the framing of the ontological shifts and proof of possibilities provide a tangible sense of possible futures. In the upcoming months and years, we are continuing to collaborate with diverse partners in various locations, contexts, and lead markets to develop further proofs of possibilities. Through these initiatives, we seek to identify and demonstrate other strategic interventions that open up pathways towards recognising in our cultures and infrastructures the world as a complex relational system.

There are a few more projects we are cooking at the moment:

  • FreeHouse Berlin: Creating opportunities for embodied experiences and meaningful civic conversations that foster societal-level imagination and drive profound structural and systemic transformations. This journey begins with the exploration of stewardship agreements, allocation systems, and innovative financial mechanisms, all of which lay the groundwork for the necessary and impactful shifts ahead.
  • FreeSense: Self-owning surveillance cameras to explore the public value created by sensors, and how they can be governed without centralised control, addressing security and privacy dilemmas.
  • Civic News City Sheffield: Nurturing deep listening capabilities in Sheffield using the interplay of media and events for deliberation, and creating a new hybrid civic space for ongoing citizen assemblies and collective sensemaking.
  • Neighbourhood as Commons/ Shared Street Sheffield: Centring neighbourhoods as the foundational unit of change to unlock system-level outcomes (i.e. trust, resilience, well-being, flows of information) and build new capabilities for collective sensemaking and action.
  • Our ongoing learning circles with diverse experts in citizen science, art and cultural organising, constitutional and contract law, token economics, blockchain and distributed organising and deep dives into our strategic design questions (with deep gratitude to Law and Political Economy Europe, Holochain, da0 civic tech community).
  • Contributing to P4NE network: Collectively exploring how to demonstrate and build the infrastructure that the new civic economy needs to be able to become the new normal.

Radicle Civics is a portfolio of explorations and proof of possibilities developed by Dark Matter Labs. It is currently supported by Partners For A New Economy, Scottish Land Commission, and Opus Independents. Previous support was provided by the National Lottery Community Fund, Shift, and One Project.

If you’re interested in getting involved, or want to know more, get in touch via https://radiclecivics.cc/countmein/ or tweet us at @DarkMatterLabs.

Team

This piece has been co-authored by:

Alexandra Bekker, Calvin Po and Fang-Jui “Fang-Raye” Chang;

Graphics by:

JP King and Eunji Kang;

Reviewed by:

Indy Johar

Published in Dark Matter Laboratories

Dark Matter Labs team works with partners, clients, and collaborators across the world, researching and developing new institutional support frameworks for collaborative system change.

Written by Dark Matter Labs

We are building options for the next economies.

Responses (9)

What are your thoughts?

When the house is recognised as a knot of value flows, and that these flows have multiple beneficiaries and multiple liability holders, how can we reimagine and invest in the house, not...

what an amazing question. a KNOT of flows, a reimagining, and so much more.
I'm gonna need to sit with this

--

Instead of seeing humans as subjects and the Earth as objects and commodities, can we recognise ‘selfhood’ and agency of everything, from flora and fauna, to rivers, the land, and the ...

This reminds of Graber and Wengrows "The Dawn of Everything" when enlightment Europeans, who were focused on property, met the Native Americans, who were focused on interdependence. The model you're describing existed but was eradicated.

--

Both Beautiful and Brilliant. We've been working on "economic operating infrastructure" See: https://catalyst2030.net/collectively-forging-a-new-economic-model/ and Waddell, Steve, Sandra Waddock, Simone Martino, and Jonny Norton. “Emerging Economic…

--