Sophie Davison

Best answer so far

"Yes"

How certain are we?

Pretty certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

There are some things that are hard to make happen unless lots of people push for the same thing. For example, if three groups are growing their armies to fight each other, there is no way to prevent war just by having a movement within one of the groups.
There are a lot of social movements already working on issues locally and nationally, but there aren't many (any?) global social movements. This means that we'll be doing a pretty good job of solving local/national issues compared to how good a job we're doing of solving global issues.
It should encourage people to join and strengthen already existing local movements. This would be because they feel more hopeful of the local movements' success being part of a larger effort, and because the global movement can be used as 'advertising' for local movements.

Reasons it might not be the best answer

A global social movement could be too restrictive of people trying to work on things.
Compared to local movements, it might be too slow to create tangible change, so people participating in the movement could lose interest or not join to start with.
People might need a stronger foudation of skills and trust etc to be able to take action once they join FWPS.

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!

Best answer so far

"No, it should be visible to whoever is interested"
(p.s. it's currently on my website semi-hidden with no password. i.e. not linked on the homepage)

How certain are we?

not that certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

We don't think there is a big risk of opponents trying to shut down this movement until it is already too late. Once we've determined our topic and gotten at least 100 people all over the world to commit to building this, it will be hard to shut down. By that time, if some people in the group are arrested unfairly, it will only draw attention to the movement, and there will hopefully be a structure in place that means that there is no 'central' group of people or infrastructure that can be controlled. Just an idea existing in a lot of places.

Reasons it might not be the best answer

It might be possible for opponents to shut down the movement, such as by paying people to go to our meetings and slow things down or mess things up. It might also be the case that arrests of people in this group could shut the movement down.

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!

Best answer so far

"Get a diverse group to talk together, perhaps in the style of a vote, listening campaign, or a citizen's assembly. Online communication will be needed. Focus on getting diverse participants to run their own groups to give opinions.
Start by asking politicised value-aligned people for opinions, but pretty quickly move to asking a wide array of people
Make sure people keep having options to sugggest new topics, rather than just voting on existing ones"

How certain are we?

pretty certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

Allows the talks to happen in other languages and places, and with different lenses. Increases the chance of global enthusiasm to take time doing this (classic movement organising lens).

Reasons it might not be the best answer

It might be too fast and decided by a small privileged group, or too slow and deliberative,

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!

Best answer so far

"Food, water, peace, shelter. For everyone. Forever." (FWPS) We get all sorts of groups working in all sorts of ways to ensure this for everyone globally.

How certain are we?

Medium certainty

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

• Easy to understand from the title
• Wide support base
• Focus on disarming harmful systems before building the new. "Don't start an operation to remove bullets if the person's still being shot"
• Will naturally reduce the strength of harmful workplaces e.g. army, mining, finance because people have the safety to leave those organisations without becoming unhoused etc.
• Will provide safety that will allow people to spend time working on other issues afterwards. For example, it's hard to start an effective citizens assembly movement if people don't have time to join because they're working long hours to pay their rent and afford food
• Needs to be done globally, otherwise countries without the movement will grow their armies and economies and might crush the countries with the movement
• Also provides large benefits to people in rich countries

Reasons it might not be the best answer

• Support might not be as wide as we think. There's definitely a group of people who think this unconditional support will allow others to be 'lazy and selfish'. Hopefully this is less that 10% of the population.
• 'We Decide' could be better. Saying that decisions should be taken by a citizens assembly of people who are affected by the issue. This is nice because it's more flexible.
• 'Follow your heart' or 'Take back time' or 'No time for that' could be better. Again, this is a little more flexible, and will gain easier support among less hierarchical religious groups. Following your heart is naturally opposed to 'do what you're told', which we believe to be a key cause of harm in the world. However, it's not really possible without ensuring safety (i.e. food water peace shelter), so it could fail if done as a first step.
• Universal basic income could be better, because it also provides energy, transport, entertainment etc. But it doesn't have disobedience built in and maintains a transactional economic system.
• 'Trust me' or 'I trust you' could be better - removing punishments, doubts and constraints that stop people following their gut, and instead trusting them to act in a way that is good for themselves and everyone else. This includes trusting ourselves, and knowing that what we truly want is also good for the world.
• 'End fear' could be better
• There is no enemy in FWPS to unite against, which can be a powerful psychological tool. Making the enemy something other than a powerful person can do this nicely without estranging people and creating opponents e.g. abolish AI or end fear
• Maybe something related to community, culture, education could be included

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask mnore people! Make a survey to see how many people would support FWPS. This could be done in combination with publicity. e.g. set out tables with jars for votes, and let people drop a grain of rice in the jar with the idea they like. Get images and articles of the process out there

Best answer so far

"yes"

How certain are we?

pretty certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

More complex manifestos are harder and slower to spread, and might be misinterpreted Starting an organisation instead can be vulnerable to creating hierarchies, which can be taken over or shut down by people who don't share the movement's interests e.g. bad leaders, government banning the organisation
Denise agrees, who has spent a lot of time thinking about these things

Reasons it might not be the best answer

• Once the aim is met, there won't be as much infrastructure left over to create another movement as we would have with a more formal organisation. I don't think this is a big issue, as the relationships and methods still exist.

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!

Best answer so far

"yes"

How certain are we?

very uncertain - don't know who is going to be part of the group yet other than Sophie

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

Most people will do a good job
Denise thinks Sophie is great ("big yes"! though she is my friend)

Reasons it might not be the best answer

could get taken over by a bunch of privileged people who lack the power awareness to build a living movement, and instead create a top down structure where they dictate what to do, which will fail for manny reasons

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Work out who wants to join and how they are with power awareness. Try to get diverse people to join early

Best answer so far

"yes"

How certain are we?

Pretty certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

• It's very transparent and humble.
• It gets the balance between moving forward with hypotheses and making things too concrete too soon.
• It prioritises the key questions.
• Everyone that's given their opinion on it has been particularly supportive.

Reasons it might not be the best answer

People think in stories and this isn't a story.

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask people!

Best answer so far

"The team that helped facilitate the topic being picked basically gets dismantled, and all the different people involved spread the theme all around. Various groups use all sorts of different tactics to reach the goal stated in the topic, and coordinate spontaneously with each other as they currently are. A new group gets set up to observe overall progress and be helpful here and there e.g. connecting groups that might have synergies, doing admin for a shared social media account.
A new movement or two can immediately be set up, with the wins becoming easier after the initial movement. For example, once FWPS is achieved, a movement based on people's assemblies for direct democracy will be much more successful because people now have the time and safety to take part."

How certain are we?

Medium certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

Continued centralised control can be vulnerable to creating hierarchies, which can be taken over or shut down by people who don't share the movement's interests e.g. bad leaders, government banning the organisation

Reasons it might not be the best answer

More ongoing structure can ensure that synergies aren't missed. Continued organising might be required to keep people in the movement motivated and empowered.

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!

Best answer so far

"no, there shouldn't such thing as being 'officially' part of the movement. Instead, the slogan should be a value that is held by individuals, and acted on within the organisations they are part of."

How certain are we?

Medium certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

A centrally organised network can be vulnerable to creating hierarchies, which can be taken over or shut down by people who don't share the movement's interests e.g. bad leaders, government banning the organisation. Making organisations (e.g. for profit companies, governments, NGOs) officially part of the movement might mean that the interests of the movement are treated as secondary to the interests of the company, and the people who are part of that organisation might be less bold with putting the aims of the movement first or thinking for themselves

Reasons it might not be the best answer

Things can move faster when you get organisations to be part of a movement It can be helpful to have an overview of who's in the movement, to connect groups and to inspire people by showing how the movement is growing

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!

Best answer so far

"No. Everyone should just decide what's best for them."

How certain are we?

Not that certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

• It keeps the movement as simple as possible. We are not dealing with issues of violence vs non-violence, and shouldn't try to add too many rules
• People know best in their individual contexts when violence makes sense for self defence. E.g. who would we be to say that the Viet Kong were wrong for using violence while resisting the US invasion of Vietnam? Or a person stabbing someone who was about to rape them?
• Even Jains, who avoid eating potatoes because of the harm that their harvest does to the ecosystem, acknowledge that it can be necessary to use violence: "the Jain approach demands exhaustive pursuit of diplomacy, dialogue, de-escalation, and restorative justice before any use of force is contemplated. If defense becomes unavoidable, only the least force necessary may be used, with continuous self-scrutiny to prevent escalation and cruelty." source here

Reasons it might not be the best answer

• It could be better to say "no physical violence. Sabotage is ok"
• If the movement is explicitly about peace, it would be weird not to endorse non violence

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!

Best answer so far

"be part of"

How certain are we?

Medium certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

• It makes people feel quite involved without being confusing about whether an organisation exists

Reasons it might not be the best answer

• They might be confused that there is no organisation
• "believe in" the value could be better, as it gives a longer lasting feel than being part of a movement, which will be necessary in case of future attempts at reversing the gains
• "join" could be better, but people might be confused that there isn't an organisation

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!
See what other movemets have done

Best answer so far

"Make it a value that it's everyone's duty to hold and maintain. Follow the movement up with other progressive global movements"

How certain are we?

Pretty certain

Why do we think it's the best answer so far?

• For example, FWPS followed by citizen's assemblies would reduce the chance of an authoritarian government eroding FWPS
• Having a value reduced the chance of people trusting hierarchical organisations, which could be take over by bad leaders who go against the movemet

Reasons it might not be the best answer

What to do to improve our answer and become more certain

Ask more people!
See what other movements have done