Source * Article: The Construction of the Post-Civilizational Civium Has Begun. Why the confederation of more than a dozen translocal popup villages in Chiang Mai is a historical pivot. Michel Bauwens, Oct 23, 2024 URL = https://4thgenerationcivilization.substack.com/p/the-construction-of-the-post-civilizational Text ===Der Bau des postzivilisatorischen Civium hat begonnen= zusammenfassung durch Chat GPT „Civium“ ist ein Konzept, das von Jordan Greenhall entwickelt wurde und das ich als eine trans-lokale, postzivilisatorische Weltordnung interpretiere, die durch trans-lokale statt lokale Prinzipien organisiert ist. Jordan erklärt es wie folgt: :„Die Erfindung des Buchdrucks erhöhte massiv die kommunikative Kapazität der westlichen Zivilisation und balancierte die psychokulturelle Sensibilität des Westens radikal neu aus. Aber selbst dann war der Großteil der Kommunikation von Angesicht zu Angesicht, und das Zentrum der Zusammenarbeit war in physischer Nähe verankert. Bis vor Kurzem. … Die Erfindung und Entwicklung des ‚Digitalen‘ beendet die kulturelle Logik der Stadt, die die Zivilisation seit ihrem Beginn antreibt. Wir verlassen jetzt die Epoche der Stadt und treten in die Epoche einer neuen Beziehung ein: das Civium.“ Giles Fraser drückt es etwas prosaischer aus: : „Civium ist eine Art, Städte zu betrachten, und speziell, wie eine Welt nach der Stadt aussehen könnte. Es stellt sich eine Allianz zwischen Technologie und dem Land vor, die die Stadt als Fokus von Kreativität und Wohlstandserzeugung ersetzt. Es ist die Idee, dass es keinen großen Sinn mehr macht, in der Mitte einer großen Ballungsregion zu leben, wenn man jetzt ausziehen, durch sein Fenster auf Felder schauen, saubere Luft atmen und all seine Meetings per Videokonferenz abhalten kann.“ Jordan Greenhalls Begründung für den Übergang zu diesem Modell bezieht sich auf das bahnbrechende Buch von Geoffrey West mit dem Titel „Scale“. West unterscheidet zwischen sublinearen Beziehungen, bei denen Skalierung zu einem Effizienzverlust führt, und superlinearen Beziehungen, bei denen Skalierung die Effizienz erhöht. Ein Beispiel für ersteres ist der menschliche Körper, bei dem eine Verdopplung der Körpergröße eines Babys nur zu einer 85%igen Zunahme der Gehirngröße führt. Aber eine Stadt ist superlinear in Bezug auf ihre Innovationskapazität, was natürlich mit dem exponentiellen Anstieg vernetzter Beziehungen zusammenhängt, den sie ermöglicht. Eine Verdopplung der Stadtbevölkerung führt zu einer 115%igen Steigerung von Innovation und Produktivität. Deshalb waren Städte der entscheidende Aspekt des Zivilisationsaufbaus, seit sie vor etwa 5.000 Jahren entstanden sind. Das ist NICHT trivial. Zivilisation ist eine geografische Beziehung zwischen einem ländlichen Hinterland, das Nahrung produziert, und einer Stadt, die diese Nahrung nutzt, um eine Verwaltungsklasse zu erzeugen. Wir können ein zivilisatorisches Regime auch als eine bestimmte Anordnung zwischen Materie und Energie betrachten, die durch Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie gebunden ist. Deshalb haben die Entwicklung der Medien – von der Erfindung der Schrift über das Alphabet, den Buchdruck, elektronische Medien bis hin zu den digitalen Netzwerken des Internets – zu enormen Produktivitätssteigerungen, allgemeinem menschlichem Wohlstand und einer Beschleunigung der Innovation geführt. Zivilisation ist natürlich viel mehr als das. Wie Keith Chandler in seinem wunderbaren Buch „Beyond Civilization“ feststellt, das bereits postzivilisatorische Potenziale diskutiert, besitzt eine Zivilisation die folgenden Merkmale: :„Es gibt mindestens acht Hauptmerkmale, die alle zivilisierten Gesellschaften eindeutig charakterisieren: :1. Eine hierarchische soziale Organisation, dominiert von einer Machtelite, die gegenüber der machtlosen Mehrheit nicht rechenschaftspflichtig ist und deren Handlungen kaum oder gar nicht geahndet werden. :2.Konzentration von Macht und Reichtum in befestigten urbanen Zentren. :3.Schriftsprache, deren Verständnis und Nutzung von der Elite und ihren Funktionären monopolisiert wird. :4. Ein Wirtschaftssystem, das das Eigentum an dem von der Gesellschaft produzierten Reichtum in der Elite verankert und diesen Reichtum durch eine streng bemessene Zuteilung aller industriellen, landwirtschaftlichen, forstwirtschaftlichen und bergbaulichen Ressourcen innerhalb der Kontrolle der Zentralmacht steuert. :5.Fähigkeiten, Ausbildung und Arbeitsspezialisierung, die darauf ausgerichtet sind, die Ziele der Machtelite zu dienen. :6. Umfangreiche Sklaverei oder Leibeigenschaft. :7. Eine große Mythologie, die die Gesellschaft als von übermenschlichen Kräften stammend und weiterhin beeinflusst darstellt, wobei die Elite als Vermittler dieses Einflusses fungiert. :8. Eine militärische Einrichtung, die nicht nur für äußere Verteidigung und Aggression, sondern auch für innere Kontrolle und Unterdrückung der entrechteten Mehrheit genutzt wird.“ Die Veränderung der territorialen Logik einer Zivilisation wird Auswirkungen auf viele dieser Merkmale haben, und ich möchte einige der aktuellen Herausforderungen für das zivilisatorische Modell skizzieren: Es entstand aus einer Notwendigkeit, einem Wunsch und einer Entscheidung, natürliche Prozesse zu beherrschen. Aber die Markt- und Staatsform der Zivilisation hat immer zu einer Übernutzung ihrer lokalen Ressourcenbasis geführt, was zu Zyklen von Aufstieg und Niedergang führte. Die Planetarisierung hat zu einer Krise der globalen Übernutzung geführt, die spezifische Lösungen erfordert und wahrscheinlich sowohl einen globalen Gesellschaftsvertrag, neue Formen multilateraler Governance als auch eine neue Beziehung zur nicht-menschlichen natürlichen Welt notwendig macht. Die Zivilisation begünstigt Kernpopulationen zum Nachteil der Peripherie, was zu Proletarisierung, Unzufriedenheit und sozialer Unruhe führt. Derzeit stellt der Wettbewerb zwischen der marktorientierten westlichen Allianz und der staatszentrierten ost-eurasischen Allianz von Russland und China mit den BRICS-Ländern des globalen Südens die aktuelle geopolitische Weltordnung in Frage. Die aktuelle Krise der von den USA geführten hegemonialen Weltordnung, die letzte Phase eines Modells westlicher Dominanz, das im 16. Jahrhundert entstand, erfordert daher eine soziale, ökologische und geopolitische Neuorganisation. Aber in unserem Kontext ist die neue Anpassung, die zwischen der geografischen Ordnung der Zivilisation und der trans-lokalen Ordnung des Civium erforderlich ist, von Bedeutung. Unsere Zukunft hängt von einer neuen Artikulation beider ab. Natürlich ist diese Herausforderung nicht ganz neu. Religionen waren bereits trans-lokale Strukturen und hatten Gemeindeleiter, die für eine Glaubensgemeinschaft verantwortlich waren, die nicht mit der territorialen Logik übereinstimmte. Denken Sie an den katholischen Papst, der nicht nur die Christen innerhalb des Römischen Reiches, sondern auch darüber hinaus leitete, und an die ähnliche Rolle eines Kalifen. Das mittelalterliche Europa stellte eine potenzielle Durchdringung geografischer und nicht-territorialer kultureller Herrschaft dar, die jedoch durch das Modell des Nationalstaats umgestoßen wurde. Wir stehen am Rande einer neuen Iteration dieses Modells, daher die häufige Rede von ‚Neo-Mittelalterlichkeit‘. Hier ist meine Interpretation der drei derzeit in unserer geopolitischen Weltordnung bestehenden Modelle, inspiriert von der Theoretisierung von Mark Stahlman vom Center for the Study of Digital Life und von der Arbeit von Michael Hudson: * Der Osten ist die staats-souveränistische Option, geboren mit den zivilisatorischen Staaten, die die stammesbasierte Verwandtschaft ersetzen, und ihren ethischen Prinzipien des Achsenzeitalters. In diesem Modell ist eine öffentliche Institution, der Staat, entscheidend, um den Frieden in einer auf Klassen und Arbeitsteilung basierenden Gesellschaft zu wahren. Michael Hudson zeigt, wie die imperiale Form die östliche Seite des eurasischen Kontinents über mehrere Jahrtausende dominierte, manchmal dynamische Märkte ermöglichte, aber sie in Schach hielt, insbesondere die ‚Gläubigerklasse‘, indem sie Gesetze zur Schuldenstreichung und Jubeljahre einführte, die die Binnenbevölkerung vor Sklaverei und Knechtschaft schützten. Selbst heute haben Russland und China starke Staaten, die die kapitalistischen Kräfte erheblich kontrollieren und deren volle Autonomie verhindern. Dieser Block könnte dabei sein, das ‚westliche‘ westfälische Modell des Nationalstaats mit dem angepassten Modell des ‚Zivilisationsstaats‘ zu aktualisieren. * Der ‚westliche‘ Weg begann, als die Gläubigerklasse in Griechenland an die Macht kam, was eine Revolte auslöste, die die politische Demokratie in der griechischen Polis erfand. Mit anderen Worten, das System basierte auf maritimer Macht, der Dominanz von Handelsrouten, der Macht der Gläubigerklasse, aber gemildert durch die Gegeninstitutionen des Plebs, was ein System von Versammlungen und Demokratie schuf. Roms Tribunat koexistierte mit der Dominanz der eigentumsorientierten Patrizierklasse und hielt sich im mittelalterlichen Recht, was schließlich der Bourgeoisie ermöglichte, sich in den freien Städten zu emanzipieren und eine kapitalistische Welt nach ihrem Bild zu schaffen. Dieser fortwährende Kampf führte zum Ersten Weltkrieg, der die imperiale Form eliminierte; zum Zweiten Weltkrieg, in dem neue staats-souveränistische Herausforderungen die Hegemonie der parlamentarischen Demokratie gefährdeten (Faschismus und Stalinismus). Der Westen unterwarf zunächst das sowjetische System, aber China fand die Formel, die Vorteile marktwirtschaftlicher Dynamik zu nutzen, ohne dass sein Staat davon überrannt wurde * Die dritte Möglichkeit ist die Civium-Option – also eine nichtstaatliche Form der Governance, wie sie durch Netzwerke ermöglicht wird, in denen sich pluralistische, wertorientierte und zivilgesellschaftlich verbundene Kosmopoliten selbst organisieren. Das ist es, was in der Welt der digitalen Commons geschieht, wo trans-lokale Koalitionen von Fachleuten ihre eigenen ökonomischen und Governance-Strukturen entwickeln und dabei sowohl die Logik des Marktes als auch des Staates teilweise ersetzen. Der Civium-Weg strebt nach konvivialen Formen des Zusammenlebens, die nicht durch territoriale Kontrolle, sondern durch gemeinsame Werte, offene Infrastrukturen, gemeinsame Werkzeuge und kollektive Entscheidungsprozesse ermöglicht werden. Wir befinden uns heute im Übergang zu dieser neuen Konstellation. Die Zivilisation in ihrer bisherigen Form – organisiert um imperiale Städte, nationale Staaten, extraktive Märkte – hat die Grenzen ihrer eigenen Logik erreicht. Sie ist zunehmend unfähig, die ökologischen, sozialen und geopolitischen Herausforderungen der Gegenwart zu bewältigen. Das Civium ist keine Utopie. Es beginnt bereits jetzt. Überall auf der Welt entstehen Netzwerke von gemeinschaftsorientierten Akteuren – Kooperativen, Open-Source-Projekte, regenerative landwirtschaftliche Initiativen, dezentrale autonome Organisationen (DAOs), solidarische Wirtschaftsmodelle –, die sich nicht länger auf die alte urbane und staatliche Logik verlassen. Sie sind durch gemeinsame Prinzipien verbunden, nicht durch geographische Nähe. Ihr Ziel ist nicht Kontrolle, sondern Koordination. Nicht Wachstum um jeden Preis, sondern Gleichgewicht. Nicht Zentralisierung, sondern Konvergenz. Dies ist die eigentliche Bedeutung von post-zivilisatorisch: nicht das Ende aller Ordnung, sondern der Übergang zu einer neuen, tiefer eingebetteten Ordnung, die auf anderen Grundlagen ruht – relational statt territorial, funktional statt extraktiv, vernetzt statt zentralisiert. Natürlich wird dieser Übergang nicht einfach sein. Die alten Kräfte der Zivilisation – Märkte, Staaten, Imperien – werden nicht kampflos weichen. Aber sie verlieren bereits ihre Fähigkeit, Sinn zu stiften, Legitimität zu erzeugen und kooperative Handlungsfähigkeit zu fördern. Das Civium entsteht nicht durch Revolution, sondern durch Mutation. Es wächst in den Zwischenräumen, in den Grenzzonen, in den digitalen und physischen Peripherien. Es ist ein neues Muster, das das alte nicht frontal angreift, sondern unterläuft, überflüssig macht, ersetzt. Wir müssen uns daher als Zivilisationstransformatoren verstehen: Menschen, die nicht mehr an die alten Spielregeln gebunden sind, sondern neue Spielräume schaffen. Menschen, die wissen, dass die wahren Hebel des Wandels in den Mustern des Miteinanders, der Ressourcenteilung und der Sinnstiftung liegen. Der Bau des Civium hat begonnen. Nicht durch Dekrete von oben, sondern durch gemeinsames Handeln von unten. Nicht durch Abriss, sondern durch Aufwachsen. Nicht durch Zwang, sondern durch Einladung. Wir alle sind eingeladen, an dieser neuen Welt mitzubauen." "Civium is a concept developed by Jordan Greenhall, which I interpret as meaning a trans-local, post-civilizational world order that is organized through trans-local instead of local principles. Jordan explains it as follows: - "The innovation of the printing press massively increased the communicative capacity of Western civilization and radically rebalanced the psychocultural sensibility of the West. But, even then, the majority of communication was face to face and the center of collaboration was grounded in physical proximity. Until recently. … The invention and development of “the digital” brings an end to the cultural logic of the city that has been driving civilization since the beginning. We are now exiting the epoch of the city and entering the epoch of a new relationship. The civium.” Giles Fraser puts it somewhat more prosaically: - "Civium is a way of looking at cities, and specifically what a post-city world might look like. It imagines an alliance between technology and the countryside replacing the city as the focus of creativity and wealth-creation. It is the idea that there is no longer much point living in the middle of a large conurbation when you can now move out, look at fields through your window, breathe clean air, and do all your meetings with video conferencing. " Jordan Greenhall's rationale for the shift to this model refers to the landmark book by Geoffrey West, called Scale. West distinguishes sublinear relationships, in which scaling leads to a loss of efficiency, from superlinear relationships, in which scaling increases efficiency. An example of the first is the human body, whereby a doubling of a baby’s bodily size, only creates an 85% increase in the size of the brain. But a city is super-linear, as regards its innovation capacity, and this is of course related to the exponential rise in networked relationships that it enables. Doubling a city’s population leads to a 115% increase in innovation and productivity. This is why cities have been the crucial aspect of civilization-building, once it made its appearance about 5,000 years ago. This is NOT trivial. Civilization <is> a geographic relationship, between a rural hinterland producing food, and a city using that food to produce a managerial class. We can also consider a civilizational regime as a particular arrangement between matter and energy, which is bound by information and communication technology. This is why the evolution of media, from the invention of writing, through the invention of the alphabet, through printing, electronic media and finally the digital networks of the internet, have led to huge increases in productivity, overall human wealth, and the speed of innovation. Civilization is of course much more than that. As Keith Chandler would have it, in his marvelous book ‘Beyond Civilization’, which already discusses post-civilizational potentials, a civilization possesses the following characteristics: "There are at least eight principal attributes that clearly characterize all civilized societies: 1. A hierarchical social organization dominated by a power elite which is not accountable to the powerless majority and for whose actions there is little or no redress. 2. Concentration of power and wealth in fortified urban centers. 3. Written language, the understanding and use of which are monopolized by the elite and its functionaries. 4. An economic system which vests title to the wealth produced by the society in the elite and controls that wealth by a strictly measured allocation of all industrial, agricultural, forestry, and mining resources within the control of the central power. 5. Skills, training, and labor specialization designed to serve the goals of the power elite. 6. Extensive slavery or serfdom. 7. A grand mythology portraying society as originating from and continuing to be influenced by suprahuman powers with the elite as the conduit of that influence. 8. A military establishment which is utilized not only for external defense and aggression but also for internal control and repression of the dispossessed majority." Changing the territorial logic of a civilization, will have effects on many of these characteristics, and I would outline some of the current challenges to the civilizational model: It was born out of a necessity, desire and choice, to master natural processes. But the market and state form of civilization has always led to an overuse of its local resource bases, hence cycles of emergence of decline. Planetarization has led to a crisis of global overuse, which will require specific solutions, and likely both a global social contract, new forms of multilateral governance, and a new relationship to the non-human natural world. Civilization benefits core populations at the detriment of a periphery, which leads to proletarianization, discontent and social unrest. The current competition between the market-centric Western alliance and the state-centric East Eurasian alliance of Russia and China with the BRICS countries of the Global South, is challenging the current geopolitical world order. The current crisis of the U.S.-led hegemonic world order, the last phase of a model of Western domination that emerged in the 16th century, therefore requires social, ecological, and geopolitical reorganization. But in our context, what matters is the new adjustment that is required between the geographic order of civilization, and the trans-local order of the Civium. Our future depends on a new articulation of both. Note of course that this challenge is not entirely new. Religions were already trans-local structures, and had community leaders that were responsible for a community of faith, which didn’t coincide with territorial logic. Think of the Catholic Pope, heading not just the Christians within the Roman Empire, but also beyond, and the similar role of a Caliph. Medieval Europe represented a potential interpenetration of geographic and non-territorial cultural rule, but which was upended by the nation-state model. We are at the cusp of a new iteration of that model, hence the frequent talk of ‘neo-medievalism’. Here is my interpretation of the three models current at play in our geopolitical world order, inspired by the theoretization of Mark Stahlman of the Center for the Study of Digital Life, and by the work of Michael Hudson: • The East is the state-sovereignist option, born with the civilizational states that replace kinship-based tribalism, and their Axial Age ethics. In this model, a public institution, the state, is paramount to keep the peace in a society based on classes and a division of labor. Michael Hudson shows how the imperial form dominated the eastern side of the Eurasian continent for several millennia, allowing for sometimes dynamic markets, but keeping them in check, especially the ‘creditor class’, by instituting Clean State Legislation and Jubilees which protected the internal populations from slavery and bondage. Even today, Russia and China have strong states that substantially control the capitalist forces and prevent their full autonomy. This bloc may be in the process of updating the ‘Western’ Wesphalian model of the nation-state, with the adapted model of the ‘Civilization State’. • The ‘Western’ way started when the creditor class took power in Greece, and this created a revolt that invented political democracy in the Greek polis. In other words, the system was based on maritime power, the domination of trade routes, the power of the creditor class but mitigated by the counter-institutions of the plebs, creating a system of assemblies and democracy. Rome’s tribunate co-existed with the domination of the propertarian patrician class, and persisted in medieval law, eventually allowing the bourgeoisie to emancipate itself in the free cities, and to create a capitalist world in its image. This ongoing struggle has produced WWI, which eliminated the imperial form; WWII in which new state sovereignist challenges endangered the hegemony of parliamentary democracy (fascism and Stalinism). The West at first subdued the Soviet system, but China found the formula to use the benefits of market dynamics without its state being overrun with it. With the capitalist crisis of 2008, western neoliberalism’s hegemony ended, creating a ‘multi-polar’ world, where again, the two systems are battling it out in Ukraine, and Russia has joined the state-sovereignist axis. • The Digital Sphere however stands for the third coordination system, that of mutual coordination or stigmergy. Stigmergy stands for mutual coordination through signaling in open ecosystems. Its emergence started with the universalization of open-source dynamics, which is the capacity to coordinate human labor, trans-locally, at a global scale. For example, this capacity strongly contributed to the emergence of Chinese manufacturing dominance through the Shanzhai production system which is based on open-source collaboration ‘inside’ the Chinese networks. The market-state synthesis of China has strong cybernetic features as well. The challenge posed by cybernetics has previously destroyed the Soviet system, which had failed to adapt to the cybernetic potential. (see Red Plenty, by Francis Spufford, for how the Russians invented and then destroyed their internet, signing their death warrant; and Evgeny Morozov’s podcast series on the Santiago Boys, and their failed Cybersin experiment in Chile, which nevertheless created the basis for the neoliberal globalization of supply chains). In a second period, the Digital created the Crypto Upgrade. Despite, or perhaps ‘because of’ its libertarian and propertarian biases, it has created the first of many socially sovereign currencies that operate non-territorially outside of single state and corporate control; it has created a powerful business model to supercharge open source modes of production. It signifies the shift towards open ecosystemic collaboration across borders. What Crypto, i.e. Web3 has brought to the table, is the financing of globally coordinated work. Bitcoin at first created the first global currency that was not dependent on a State or a private market player, but it also created the blockchain, the first ever universal ledger, i.e. a open accounting system that everyone can join and allows for the mutual coordination of not just flows of money, but also of work and material resources. This work if of course far from over, as the overwhelming majority of Web3 (i.e. Crypto) practices are not yet involved in physical production but rather in globalizing the mutual production of open code. Nevertheless, the Digital Sphere creates the conditions for a civilizational shift towards a ‘fourth’ form of Civilization (after hunter-gathering, craft-agrarian, industrial), or ‘Post-Civilization’, what I’d like to call the Cosmo-Local Civilization, where ‘everything that is heavy is local, and everything that is light is global and shared’, i.e. the combination of relocalized distributed manufacturing, thermodynamically informed of its material limitations, coupled with trans-local protocols that govern the common rules of cooperation. What has Chiang Mai, the wonderful city in the North of Thailand to do with these momentous historical developments? It is not just, in a way, the geographic center of the most populated part of the world. It is also, right now, the spiritual capital of digital nomadism. The best way to explain this is to point out that the emergence and growth of cosmically coordinated work, has created a new sociology, that of digital nomads, which are estimated to be at 34 million at present. Within that sphere, at least 5 million, but probably a lot more, have access to digital wallets using crypto currencies through which they get paid for their work. That amount of people is NOT trivial. For the non-technical people, I should perhaps also explain that, once the blockchain was created as a side effect of the Bitcoin currency, a network project was created, to create an entire computing infrastructure based on this blockchain. This was the work of a Russian coder, Vitalik Buterin, and it has evolved to a very large community of coders. While being a digital nomad has many advantages, i.e. the freedom to work in the nicer places of our world, it comes with psychological and social challenges, one of them being the need for friendships, relationships, and a common culture. It is this challenge that Vitalik Buterin wanted to address by creating the first ‘Pop Up’ village, in Montenegro, in April 2023, called Zuzalu. Even as I was quite skeptical and critical at the time about the Web3 community, I was also quite taken by the level of cooperation, mutual solidarity and pluralistic exchange that I witnessed in this first temporary village, which lasted for two months. Afterwards, I attended ZuConnect? in Istanbul, and Edge City Esmeralda in Healdsburg, California. In that last experience, one thousand people gathered for a whole month, with on average seventeen events per day. Imagine the level of interconnection, and mutual learning that takes place in such a context. In other words, we now center back to the topic which started this article: these popup villages have emerged as a specific form taken by the Civium. The success of this model was such that the number of villages started exploding, and it is out of this explosion that the Chiang Mai gathering emerged in turn. For those not familiar with Chiang Mai, it was already a favorite place for digital nomads before the Covid years, but once Covid subsided, its attractiveness exploded again. So this October, at least a dozen of such popup villages converged towards the city, not just organizing events ‘on their own’, but interconnecting in a ‘confederation’ following the Archipelago model, once theorized by Edouard Glissant. So think again of the 17 learning experiences per day that were organized by Edge City Esmeralda; think of a dozen groups doing the same, and think about their interconnection. Chiang Mai, as we speak, is a cauldron of collaboration, creating friendships, a common culture, and intensive collective learning. In other words, perhaps never before has such an intense ‘scenius’ been created, the concept used by Kevin Kelly and Brian Eno to denote the collective conditions necessary for individual innovation to emerge. Here is Brian Eno on the characteristics of Scenius: "Scenius stands for the intelligence and the intuition of a whole cultural scene. It is the communal form of the concept of the genius. Individuals immersed in a productive scenes will blossom and produce their best work. When buoyed by scenes, you act like genius. Your like-minded peers, and the entire environment inspire you." The geography of a scenes is nurtured by several factors: Mutual appreciation — Risky moves are applauded by the group, subtlety is appreciated, and friendly competition goads the shy. Scenius can be thought of as the best of peer pressure. Rapid exchange of tools and techniques — As soon as something is invented, it is flaunted and then shared. Ideas flow quickly because they are flowing inside a common language and sensibility. Network effects of success — When a record is broken, a hit happens, or breakthrough erupts, the success is claimed by the entire scene. This empowers the scene to further success. (Collective Epic Wins!) Local tolerance for the novelties — The local “outside” does not push back too hard against the transgressions of the scene. The renegades and mavericks are protected by this buffer zone." So this is my conclusion about what is happening in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand: we have witnessed the birth and the consolidation of the Scenius of the Civium. With several dozen events per day, it’s hard to settle on common themes, but I want to give a sense of what is being discussed here, by the emerging Network Nations that are present. I specifically mention Network Nations to indicate the ambition of various groups, to be much more than just communities of professionals, but that they desire to experiment and create new ways of life, a new culture, and yes, a new form of civilization. Of course, many challenges remain, and Web3 is still largely divorced from the necessary link to productive communities and real physical production, but nevertheless, there is a high awareness of the seriousness of the task ahead. Here is just one example, the concerns of one of the groups present there, the Lovepunks (not to be confused with the Solarpunks and Lunarpunk communities, also present). We are not talking of geeks here, but of a complex population engaged in early forms of civilizational and culture creation: “How can art serve as a bridge between modern globalized culture and indigenous traditions that are at risk of being erased? In what ways can cultural rituals help us reclaim collective memory in a world dominated by technology and short attention spans? How do ancient rituals around love and community bonding hold relevance in today’s fast-paced, individualistic societies? What role does love play in shaping collective movements for social change, especially in times of crisis? How can models of cooperativism and collectivism survive and thrive in a system dominated by capitalism? Can they be effectively scaled globally? What are the potential synergies between collectivism and modern technology, like decentralized systems or DAOs? How do you envision a post-capitalist world, and what steps can we take to get closer to it without replicating the same power structures? In an age of global crisis, is the role of the state becoming obsolete, or does it need to be redefined? How can states evolve to support more cooperative forms of governance? How should states navigate their responsibilities in preserving cultural traditions while also embracing modernity? How can religious traditions coexist and evolve with modern spiritual movements, especially in secular or multicultural contexts? What role does spirituality play in the collective consciousness of societies facing identity crises? As global identities shift, how can we foster a sense of unity while respecting the diversity of cultures and identities around the world? How does the rise of individual identity politics impact collective action and movements for systemic change? In an age of identity fragmentation, how do you think we can cultivate a more unified global consciousness without erasing individual or cultural identities? How can we use art, traditions, and rituals to help individuals and communities navigate existential or identity crises?” I am of course not claiming that all present here in my home town of Chiang Mai, have all the answers, but that they are seeking answers to such deep questions of the future life on Earth, is not trivial. So I’ll end with this suggesting: Imagine the emergence of hundreds of such groups on the planet Imagine a substantial fraction of these groups converging in Chiang Mai, learning from each other in intense ways, creating friendships, a common culture, and seeking for worldview convergence Imagine these re-energized individuals and communities going back to their nomadic homes, intensely re-energized by what they have experienced, further seeding the culture amongst their friends and associates. This hopefully gives you an idea of the power of the experience that has happened here, Elsewhere, I have provoked some by calling Web3 a community of faith, but hear me out: Civilizations can only be based on spirituality, because rationality can only be based on fundamental non-rational axioms, which religions provided for their civilization constructors When, originally in the West, we became secular, these values were at first translated by messianic secular movements, which wanted to created a better world on earth, in the future; this gave rise to the mass movements of industrial society; and they were, in a sense, secular communities of faith, moved by unconscious spiritual drives Today, we see the emergence of networked and constructive communities, writing the very code that determines their lifestyles, economics, and self-governance, with a shared belief in the need for decentralization. They are the current form of a pluralistic coalition and in some fundamental way, the present form of a community of faith. They are constructing, in substantial ways, the world of tomorrow. The people here, despite the bad reputation of crypto in the mainstream press, were not people seeking profit, they were and are in the business of world-creation. You better pay attention. The Civium has been born. And it will continue to grow."

• Article: The Construction of the Post-Civilizational Civium Has Begun. Why the confederation of more than a dozen translocal popup villages in Chiang Mai is a historical pivot. Michel Bauwens, Oct 23, 2024 ˧

https://4thgenerationcivilization.substack.com/p/the-construction-of-the-post-civilizational

Text ˧

Der Bau des postzivilisatorischen Civium hat begonnen

zusammenfassung durch Chat GPT ˧

„Civium“ ist ein Konzept, das von Jordan Greenhall entwickelt wurde und das ich als eine trans-lokale, postzivilisatorische Weltordnung interpretiere, die durch trans-lokale statt lokale Prinzipien organisiert ist. ˧

Jordan erklärt es wie folgt: ˧

„Die Erfindung des Buchdrucks erhöhte massiv die kommunikative Kapazität der westlichen Zivilisation und balancierte die psychokulturelle Sensibilität des Westens radikal neu aus. Aber selbst dann war der Großteil der Kommunikation von Angesicht zu Angesicht, und das Zentrum der Zusammenarbeit war in physischer Nähe verankert. Bis vor Kurzem. … Die Erfindung und Entwicklung des ‚Digitalen‘ beendet die kulturelle Logik der Stadt, die die Zivilisation seit ihrem Beginn antreibt. Wir verlassen jetzt die Epoche der Stadt und treten in die Epoche einer neuen Beziehung ein: das Civium.“ ˧

„Civium ist eine Art, Städte zu betrachten, und speziell, wie eine Welt nach der Stadt aussehen könnte. Es stellt sich eine Allianz zwischen Technologie und dem Land vor, die die Stadt als Fokus von Kreativität und Wohlstandserzeugung ersetzt. Es ist die Idee, dass es keinen großen Sinn mehr macht, in der Mitte einer großen Ballungsregion zu leben, wenn man jetzt ausziehen, durch sein Fenster auf Felder schauen, saubere Luft atmen und all seine Meetings per Videokonferenz abhalten kann.“ ˧

West unterscheidet zwischen sublinearen Beziehungen, bei denen Skalierung zu einem Effizienzverlust führt, und superlinearen Beziehungen, bei denen Skalierung die Effizienz erhöht. Ein Beispiel für ersteres ist der menschliche Körper, bei dem eine Verdopplung der Körpergröße eines Babys nur zu einer 85%igen Zunahme der Gehirngröße führt. Aber eine Stadt ist superlinear in Bezug auf ihre Innovationskapazität, was natürlich mit dem exponentiellen Anstieg vernetzter Beziehungen zusammenhängt, den sie ermöglicht. Eine Verdopplung der Stadtbevölkerung führt zu einer 115%igen Steigerung von Innovation und Produktivität. ˧

Deshalb waren Städte der entscheidende Aspekt des Zivilisationsaufbaus, seit sie vor etwa 5.000 Jahren entstanden sind. ˧

Das ist NICHT trivial. Zivilisation ist eine geografische Beziehung zwischen einem ländlichen Hinterland, das Nahrung produziert, und einer Stadt, die diese Nahrung nutzt, um eine Verwaltungsklasse zu erzeugen. Wir können ein zivilisatorisches Regime auch als eine bestimmte Anordnung zwischen Materie und Energie betrachten, die durch Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie gebunden ist. Deshalb haben die Entwicklung der Medien – von der Erfindung der Schrift über das Alphabet, den Buchdruck, elektronische Medien bis hin zu den digitalen Netzwerken des Internets – zu enormen Produktivitätssteigerungen, allgemeinem menschlichem Wohlstand und einer Beschleunigung der Innovation geführt. ˧

Zivilisation ist natürlich viel mehr als das. Wie Keith Chandler in seinem wunderbaren Buch „Beyond Civilization“ feststellt, das bereits postzivilisatorische Potenziale diskutiert, besitzt eine Zivilisation die folgenden Merkmale: ˧

„Es gibt mindestens acht Hauptmerkmale, die alle zivilisierten Gesellschaften eindeutig charakterisieren: ˧

1. Eine hierarchische soziale Organisation, dominiert von einer Machtelite, die gegenüber der machtlosen Mehrheit nicht rechenschaftspflichtig ist und deren Handlungen kaum oder gar nicht geahndet werden. ˧

2.Konzentration von Macht und Reichtum in befestigten urbanen Zentren. ˧

3.Schriftsprache, deren Verständnis und Nutzung von der Elite und ihren Funktionären monopolisiert wird. ˧

4. Ein Wirtschaftssystem, das das Eigentum an dem von der Gesellschaft produzierten Reichtum in der Elite verankert und diesen Reichtum durch eine streng bemessene Zuteilung aller industriellen, landwirtschaftlichen, forstwirtschaftlichen und bergbaulichen Ressourcen innerhalb der Kontrolle der Zentralmacht steuert. ˧

5.Fähigkeiten, Ausbildung und Arbeitsspezialisierung, die darauf ausgerichtet sind, die Ziele der Machtelite zu dienen. ˧

6. Umfangreiche Sklaverei oder Leibeigenschaft. ˧

7. Eine große Mythologie, die die Gesellschaft als von übermenschlichen Kräften stammend und weiterhin beeinflusst darstellt, wobei die Elite als Vermittler dieses Einflusses fungiert. ˧

8. Eine militärische Einrichtung, die nicht nur für äußere Verteidigung und Aggression, sondern auch für innere Kontrolle und Unterdrückung der entrechteten Mehrheit genutzt wird.“ ˧

Es entstand aus einer Notwendigkeit, einem Wunsch und einer Entscheidung, natürliche Prozesse zu beherrschen. Aber die Markt- und Staatsform der Zivilisation hat immer zu einer Übernutzung ihrer lokalen Ressourcenbasis geführt, was zu Zyklen von Aufstieg und Niedergang führte. Die Planetarisierung hat zu einer Krise der globalen Übernutzung geführt, die spezifische Lösungen erfordert und wahrscheinlich sowohl einen globalen Gesellschaftsvertrag, neue Formen multilateraler Governance als auch eine neue Beziehung zur nicht-menschlichen natürlichen Welt notwendig macht. ˧

Die Zivilisation begünstigt Kernpopulationen zum Nachteil der Peripherie, was zu Proletarisierung, Unzufriedenheit und sozialer Unruhe führt. Derzeit stellt der Wettbewerb zwischen der marktorientierten westlichen Allianz und der staatszentrierten ost-eurasischen Allianz von Russland und China mit den BRICS-Ländern des globalen Südens die aktuelle geopolitische Weltordnung in Frage. ˧

Die aktuelle Krise der von den USA geführten hegemonialen Weltordnung, die letzte Phase eines Modells westlicher Dominanz, das im 16. Jahrhundert entstand, erfordert daher eine soziale, ökologische und geopolitische Neuorganisation. Aber in unserem Kontext ist die neue Anpassung, die zwischen der geografischen Ordnung der Zivilisation und der trans-lokalen Ordnung des Civium erforderlich ist, von Bedeutung. Unsere Zukunft hängt von einer neuen Artikulation beider ab. Natürlich ist diese Herausforderung nicht ganz neu. Religionen waren bereits trans-lokale Strukturen und hatten Gemeindeleiter, die für eine Glaubensgemeinschaft verantwortlich waren, die nicht mit der territorialen Logik übereinstimmte. Denken Sie an den katholischen Papst, der nicht nur die Christen innerhalb des Römischen Reiches, sondern auch darüber hinaus leitete, und an die ähnliche Rolle eines Kalifen. Das mittelalterliche Europa stellte eine potenzielle Durchdringung geografischer und nicht-territorialer kultureller Herrschaft dar, die jedoch durch das Modell des Nationalstaats umgestoßen wurde. Wir stehen am Rande einer neuen Iteration dieses Modells, daher die häufige Rede von ‚Neo-Mittelalterlichkeit‘. ˧

Hier ist meine Interpretation der drei derzeit in unserer geopolitischen Weltordnung bestehenden Modelle, inspiriert von der Theoretisierung von Mark Stahlman vom Center for the Study of Digital Life und von der Arbeit von Michael Hudson: ˧

• Der Osten ist die staats-souveränistische Option, geboren mit den zivilisatorischen Staaten, die die stammesbasierte Verwandtschaft ersetzen, und ihren ethischen Prinzipien des Achsenzeitalters. In diesem Modell ist eine öffentliche Institution, der Staat, entscheidend, um den Frieden in einer auf Klassen und Arbeitsteilung basierenden Gesellschaft zu wahren. Michael Hudson zeigt, wie die imperiale Form die östliche Seite des eurasischen Kontinents über mehrere Jahrtausende dominierte, manchmal dynamische Märkte ermöglichte, aber sie in Schach hielt, insbesondere die ‚Gläubigerklasse‘, indem sie Gesetze zur Schuldenstreichung und Jubeljahre einführte, die die Binnenbevölkerung vor Sklaverei und Knechtschaft schützten. Selbst heute haben Russland und China starke Staaten, die die kapitalistischen Kräfte erheblich kontrollieren und deren volle Autonomie verhindern. Dieser Block könnte dabei sein, das ‚westliche‘ westfälische Modell des Nationalstaats mit dem angepassten Modell des ‚Zivilisationsstaats‘ zu aktualisieren. ˧
• Der ‚westliche‘ Weg begann, als die Gläubigerklasse in Griechenland an die Macht kam, was eine Revolte auslöste, die die politische Demokratie in der griechischen Polis erfand. Mit anderen Worten, das System basierte auf maritimer Macht, der Dominanz von Handelsrouten, der Macht der Gläubigerklasse, aber gemildert durch die Gegeninstitutionen des Plebs, was ein System von Versammlungen und Demokratie schuf. Roms Tribunat koexistierte mit der Dominanz der eigentumsorientierten Patrizierklasse und hielt sich im mittelalterlichen Recht, was schließlich der Bourgeoisie ermöglichte, sich in den freien Städten zu emanzipieren und eine kapitalistische Welt nach ihrem Bild zu schaffen. Dieser fortwährende Kampf führte zum Ersten Weltkrieg, der die imperiale Form eliminierte; zum Zweiten Weltkrieg, in dem neue staats-souveränistische Herausforderungen die Hegemonie der parlamentarischen Demokratie gefährdeten (Faschismus und Stalinismus). Der Westen unterwarf zunächst das sowjetische System, aber China fand die Formel, die Vorteile marktwirtschaftlicher Dynamik zu nutzen, ohne dass sein Staat davon überrannt wurde ˧
• Die dritte Möglichkeit ist die Civium-Option – also eine nichtstaatliche Form der Governance, wie sie durch Netzwerke ermöglicht wird, in denen sich pluralistische, wertorientierte und zivilgesellschaftlich verbundene Kosmopoliten selbst organisieren. ˧

Wir befinden uns heute im Übergang zu dieser neuen Konstellation. Die Zivilisation in ihrer bisherigen Form – organisiert um imperiale Städte, nationale Staaten, extraktive Märkte – hat die Grenzen ihrer eigenen Logik erreicht. Sie ist zunehmend unfähig, die ökologischen, sozialen und geopolitischen Herausforderungen der Gegenwart zu bewältigen. ˧

Das Civium ist keine Utopie. Es beginnt bereits jetzt. Überall auf der Welt entstehen Netzwerke von gemeinschaftsorientierten Akteuren – Kooperativen, Open-Source-Projekte, regenerative landwirtschaftliche Initiativen, dezentrale autonome Organisationen (DAOs), solidarische Wirtschaftsmodelle –, die sich nicht länger auf die alte urbane und staatliche Logik verlassen. Sie sind durch gemeinsame Prinzipien verbunden, nicht durch geographische Nähe. Ihr Ziel ist nicht Kontrolle, sondern Koordination. Nicht Wachstum um jeden Preis, sondern Gleichgewicht. Nicht Zentralisierung, sondern Konvergenz. ˧

Dies ist die eigentliche Bedeutung von post-zivilisatorisch: nicht das Ende aller Ordnung, sondern der Übergang zu einer neuen, tiefer eingebetteten Ordnung, die auf anderen Grundlagen ruht – relational statt territorial, funktional statt extraktiv, vernetzt statt zentralisiert. ˧

Natürlich wird dieser Übergang nicht einfach sein. Die alten Kräfte der Zivilisation – Märkte, Staaten, Imperien – werden nicht kampflos weichen. Aber sie verlieren bereits ihre Fähigkeit, Sinn zu stiften, Legitimität zu erzeugen und kooperative Handlungsfähigkeit zu fördern. ˧

Das Civium entsteht nicht durch Revolution, sondern durch Mutation. Es wächst in den Zwischenräumen, in den Grenzzonen, in den digitalen und physischen Peripherien. Es ist ein neues Muster, das das alte nicht frontal angreift, sondern unterläuft, überflüssig macht, ersetzt. ˧

Wir müssen uns daher als Zivilisationstransformatoren verstehen: Menschen, die nicht mehr an die alten Spielregeln gebunden sind, sondern neue Spielräume schaffen. Menschen, die wissen, dass die wahren Hebel des Wandels in den Mustern des Miteinanders, der Ressourcenteilung und der Sinnstiftung liegen. ˧

Der Bau des Civium hat begonnen. Nicht durch Dekrete von oben, sondern durch gemeinsames Handeln von unten. Nicht durch Abriss, sondern durch Aufwachsen. Nicht durch Zwang, sondern durch Einladung. ˧

Wir alle sind eingeladen, an dieser neuen Welt mitzubauen." ˧

"Civium is a concept developed by Jordan Greenhall, which I interpret as meaning a trans-local, post-civilizational world order that is organized through trans-local instead of local principles. ˧

Jordan explains it as follows: ˧

- "The innovation of the printing press massively increased the communicative capacity of Western civilization and radically rebalanced the psychocultural sensibility of the West. But, even then, the majority of communication was face to face and the center of collaboration was grounded in physical proximity. Until recently. … The invention and development of “the digital” brings an end to the cultural logic of the city that has been driving civilization since the beginning. We are now exiting the epoch of the city and entering the epoch of a new relationship. The civium.” ˧

Giles Fraser puts it somewhat more prosaically: ˧

- "Civium is a way of looking at cities, and specifically what a post-city world might look like. It imagines an alliance between technology and the countryside replacing the city as the focus of creativity and wealth-creation. It is the idea that there is no longer much point living in the middle of a large conurbation when you can now move out, look at fields through your window, breathe clean air, and do all your meetings with video conferencing. " ˧

Jordan Greenhall's rationale for the shift to this model refers to the landmark book by Geoffrey West, called Scale. ˧

West distinguishes sublinear relationships, in which scaling leads to a loss of efficiency, from superlinear relationships, in which scaling increases efficiency. An example of the first is the human body, whereby a doubling of a baby’s bodily size, only creates an 85% increase in the size of the brain. But a city is super-linear, as regards its innovation capacity, and this is of course related to the exponential rise in networked relationships that it enables. Doubling a city’s population leads to a 115% increase in innovation and productivity. ˧

This is why cities have been the crucial aspect of civilization-building, once it made its appearance about 5,000 years ago. ˧

This is NOT trivial. Civilization <is> a geographic relationship, between a rural hinterland producing food, and a city using that food to produce a managerial class. We can also consider a civilizational regime as a particular arrangement between matter and energy, which is bound by information and communication technology. This is why the evolution of media, from the invention of writing, through the invention of the alphabet, through printing, electronic media and finally the digital networks of the internet, have led to huge increases in productivity, overall human wealth, and the speed of innovation. ˧

Civilization is of course much more than that. As Keith Chandler would have it, in his marvelous book ‘Beyond Civilization’, which already discusses post-civilizational potentials, a civilization possesses the following characteristics: ˧

"There are at least eight principal attributes that clearly characterize all civilized societies: ˧

1. A hierarchical social organization dominated by a power elite which is not accountable to the powerless majority and for whose actions there is little or no redress. ˧

2. Concentration of power and wealth in fortified urban centers. ˧

3. Written language, the understanding and use of which are monopolized by the elite and its functionaries. ˧

4. An economic system which vests title to the wealth produced by the society in the elite and controls that wealth by a strictly measured allocation of all industrial, agricultural, forestry, and mining resources within the control of the central power. ˧

5. Skills, training, and labor specialization designed to serve the goals of the power elite. ˧

6. Extensive slavery or serfdom. ˧

7. A grand mythology portraying society as originating from and continuing to be influenced by suprahuman powers with the elite as the conduit of that influence. ˧

8. A military establishment which is utilized not only for external defense and aggression but also for internal control and repression of the dispossessed majority." ˧

Changing the territorial logic of a civilization, will have effects on many of these characteristics, and I would outline some of the current challenges to the civilizational model: ˧

It was born out of a necessity, desire and choice, to master natural processes. But the market and state form of civilization has always led to an overuse of its local resource bases, hence cycles of emergence of decline. Planetarization has led to a crisis of global overuse, which will require specific solutions, and likely both a global social contract, new forms of multilateral governance, and a new relationship to the non-human natural world. ˧

Civilization benefits core populations at the detriment of a periphery, which leads to proletarianization, discontent and social unrest. The current competition between the market-centric Western alliance and the state-centric East Eurasian alliance of Russia and China with the BRICS countries of the Global South, is challenging the current geopolitical world order. ˧

The current crisis of the U.S.-led hegemonic world order, the last phase of a model of Western domination that emerged in the 16th century, therefore requires social, ecological, and geopolitical reorganization. But in our context, what matters is the new adjustment that is required between the geographic order of civilization, and the trans-local order of the Civium. Our future depends on a new articulation of both. Note of course that this challenge is not entirely new. Religions were already trans-local structures, and had community leaders that were responsible for a community of faith, which didn’t coincide with territorial logic. Think of the Catholic Pope, heading not just the Christians within the Roman Empire, but also beyond, and the similar role of a Caliph. Medieval Europe represented a potential interpenetration of geographic and non-territorial cultural rule, but which was upended by the nation-state model. We are at the cusp of a new iteration of that model, hence the frequent talk of ‘neo-medievalism’. ˧

Here is my interpretation of the three models current at play in our geopolitical world order, inspired by the theoretization of Mark Stahlman of the Center for the Study of Digital Life, and by the work of Michael Hudson: ˧

• The East is the state-sovereignist option, born with the civilizational states that replace kinship-based tribalism, and their Axial Age ethics. In this model, a public institution, the state, is paramount to keep the peace in a society based on classes and a division of labor. Michael Hudson shows how the imperial form dominated the eastern side of the Eurasian continent for several millennia, allowing for sometimes dynamic markets, but keeping them in check, especially the ‘creditor class’, by instituting Clean State Legislation and Jubilees which protected the internal populations from slavery and bondage. Even today, Russia and China have strong states that substantially control the capitalist forces and prevent their full autonomy. This bloc may be in the process of updating the ‘Western’ Wesphalian model of the nation-state, with the adapted model of the ‘Civilization State’. ˧

• The ‘Western’ way started when the creditor class took power in Greece, and this created a revolt that invented political democracy in the Greek polis. In other words, the system was based on maritime power, the domination of trade routes, the power of the creditor class but mitigated by the counter-institutions of the plebs, creating a system of assemblies and democracy. Rome’s tribunate co-existed with the domination of the propertarian patrician class, and persisted in medieval law, eventually allowing the bourgeoisie to emancipate itself in the free cities, and to create a capitalist world in its image. This ongoing struggle has produced WWI, which eliminated the imperial form; WWII in which new state sovereignist challenges endangered the hegemony of parliamentary democracy (fascism and Stalinism). The West at first subdued the Soviet system, but China found the formula to use the benefits of market dynamics without its state being overrun with it. With the capitalist crisis of 2008, western neoliberalism’s hegemony ended, creating a ‘multi-polar’ world, where again, the two systems are battling it out in Ukraine, and Russia has joined the state-sovereignist axis. ˧

• The Digital Sphere however stands for the third coordination system, that of mutual coordination or stigmergy. Stigmergy stands for mutual coordination through signaling in open ecosystems. Its emergence started with the universalization of open-source dynamics, which is the capacity to coordinate human labor, trans-locally, at a global scale. For example, this capacity strongly contributed to the emergence of Chinese manufacturing dominance through the Shanzhai production system which is based on open-source collaboration ‘inside’ the Chinese networks. The market-state synthesis of China has strong cybernetic features as well. The challenge posed by cybernetics has previously destroyed the Soviet system, which had failed to adapt to the cybernetic potential. ˧

(see Red Plenty, by Francis Spufford, for how the Russians invented and then destroyed their internet, signing their death warrant; and Evgeny Morozov’s podcast series on the Santiago Boys, and their failed Cybersin experiment in Chile, which nevertheless created the basis for the neoliberal globalization of supply chains). ˧

In a second period, the Digital created the Crypto Upgrade. Despite, or perhaps ‘because of’ its libertarian and propertarian biases, it has created the first of many socially sovereign currencies that operate non-territorially outside of single state and corporate control; it has created a powerful business model to supercharge open source modes of production. It signifies the shift towards open ecosystemic collaboration across borders. What Crypto, i.e. Web3 has brought to the table, is the financing of globally coordinated work. Bitcoin at first created the first global currency that was not dependent on a State or a private market player, but it also created the blockchain, the first ever universal ledger, i.e. a open accounting system that everyone can join and allows for the mutual coordination of not just flows of money, but also of work and material resources. ˧

This work if of course far from over, as the overwhelming majority of Web3 (i.e. Crypto) practices are not yet involved in physical production but rather in globalizing the mutual production of open code. ˧

Nevertheless, the Digital Sphere creates the conditions for a civilizational shift towards a ‘fourth’ form of Civilization (after hunter-gathering, craft-agrarian, industrial), or ‘Post-Civilization’, what I’d like to call the Cosmo-Local Civilization, where ‘everything that is heavy is local, and everything that is light is global and shared’, i.e. the combination of relocalized distributed manufacturing, thermodynamically informed of its material limitations, coupled with trans-local protocols that govern the common rules of cooperation. ˧

What has Chiang Mai, the wonderful city in the North of Thailand to do with these momentous historical developments? It is not just, in a way, the geographic center of the most populated part of the world. It is also, right now, the spiritual capital of digital nomadism. ˧

The best way to explain this is to point out that the emergence and growth of cosmically coordinated work, has created a new sociology, that of digital nomads, which are estimated to be at 34 million at present. Within that sphere, at least 5 million, but probably a lot more, have access to digital wallets using crypto currencies through which they get paid for their work. That amount of people is NOT trivial. For the non-technical people, I should perhaps also explain that, once the blockchain was created as a side effect of the Bitcoin currency, a network project was created, to create an entire computing infrastructure based on this blockchain. This was the work of a Russian coder, Vitalik Buterin, and it has evolved to a very large community of coders. ˧

While being a digital nomad has many advantages, i.e. the freedom to work in the nicer places of our world, it comes with psychological and social challenges, one of them being the need for friendships, relationships, and a common culture. It is this challenge that Vitalik Buterin wanted to address by creating the first ‘Pop Up’ village, in Montenegro, in April 2023, called Zuzalu. Even as I was quite skeptical and critical at the time about the Web3 community, I was also quite taken by the level of cooperation, mutual solidarity and pluralistic exchange that I witnessed in this first temporary village, which lasted for two months. Afterwards, I attended ZuConnect? in Istanbul, and Edge City Esmeralda in Healdsburg, California. In that last experience, one thousand people gathered for a whole month, with on average seventeen events per day. Imagine the level of interconnection, and mutual learning that takes place in such a context. ˧

In other words, we now center back to the topic which started this article: these popup villages have emerged as a specific form taken by the Civium. The success of this model was such that the number of villages started exploding, and it is out of this explosion that the Chiang Mai gathering emerged in turn. ˧

For those not familiar with Chiang Mai, it was already a favorite place for digital nomads before the Covid years, but once Covid subsided, its attractiveness exploded again. So this October, at least a dozen of such popup villages converged towards the city, not just organizing events ‘on their own’, but interconnecting in a ‘confederation’ following the Archipelago model, once theorized by Edouard Glissant. So think again of the 17 learning experiences per day that were organized by Edge City Esmeralda; think of a dozen groups doing the same, and think about their interconnection. Chiang Mai, as we speak, is a cauldron of collaboration, creating friendships, a common culture, and intensive collective learning. In other words, perhaps never before has such an intense ‘scenius’ been created, the concept used by Kevin Kelly and Brian Eno to denote the collective conditions necessary for individual innovation to emerge. ˧

Here is Brian Eno on the characteristics of Scenius: ˧

"Scenius stands for the intelligence and the intuition of a whole cultural scene. It is the communal form of the concept of the genius. ˧

Individuals immersed in a productive scenes will blossom and produce their best work. When buoyed by scenes, you act like genius. Your like-minded peers, and the entire environment inspire you." ˧

The geography of a scenes is nurtured by several factors: ˧

Mutual appreciation — Risky moves are applauded by the group, subtlety is appreciated, and friendly competition goads the shy. Scenius can be thought of as the best of peer pressure. ˧

Rapid exchange of tools and techniques — As soon as something is invented, it is flaunted and then shared. Ideas flow quickly because they are flowing inside a common language and sensibility. ˧

Network effects of success — When a record is broken, a hit happens, or breakthrough erupts, the success is claimed by the entire scene. This empowers the scene to further success. (Collective Epic Wins!) ˧

Local tolerance for the novelties — The local “outside” does not push back too hard against the transgressions of the scene. The renegades and mavericks are protected by this buffer zone." ˧

So this is my conclusion about what is happening in Chiang Mai, northern Thailand: we have witnessed the birth and the consolidation of the Scenius of the Civium. With several dozen events per day, it’s hard to settle on common themes, but I want to give a sense of what is being discussed here, by the emerging Network Nations that are present. I specifically mention Network Nations to indicate the ambition of various groups, to be much more than just communities of professionals, but that they desire to experiment and create new ways of life, a new culture, and yes, a new form of civilization. Of course, many challenges remain, and Web3 is still largely divorced from the necessary link to productive communities and real physical production, but nevertheless, there is a high awareness of the seriousness of the task ahead. ˧

Here is just one example, the concerns of one of the groups present there, the Lovepunks (not to be confused with the Solarpunks and Lunarpunk communities, also present). We are not talking of geeks here, but of a complex population engaged in early forms of civilizational and culture creation: ˧

“How can art serve as a bridge between modern globalized culture and indigenous traditions that are at risk of being erased? ˧

In what ways can cultural rituals help us reclaim collective memory in a world dominated by technology and short attention spans? ˧

How do ancient rituals around love and community bonding hold relevance in today’s fast-paced, individualistic societies? ˧

What role does love play in shaping collective movements for social change, especially in times of crisis? ˧

How can models of cooperativism and collectivism survive and thrive in a system dominated by capitalism? Can they be effectively scaled globally? ˧

What are the potential synergies between collectivism and modern technology, like decentralized systems or DAOs? ˧

How do you envision a post-capitalist world, and what steps can we take to get closer to it without replicating the same power structures? ˧

In an age of global crisis, is the role of the state becoming obsolete, or does it need to be redefined? How can states evolve to support more cooperative forms of governance? ˧

How should states navigate their responsibilities in preserving cultural traditions while also embracing modernity? ˧

How can religious traditions coexist and evolve with modern spiritual movements, especially in secular or multicultural contexts? ˧

What role does spirituality play in the collective consciousness of societies facing identity crises? ˧

As global identities shift, how can we foster a sense of unity while respecting the diversity of cultures and identities around the world? ˧

How does the rise of individual identity politics impact collective action and movements for systemic change? ˧

In an age of identity fragmentation, how do you think we can cultivate a more unified global consciousness without erasing individual or cultural identities? ˧

How can we use art, traditions, and rituals to help individuals and communities navigate existential or identity crises?” ˧

I am of course not claiming that all present here in my home town of Chiang Mai, have all the answers, but that they are seeking answers to such deep questions of the future life on Earth, is not trivial. ˧

So I’ll end with this suggesting: ˧

Imagine the emergence of hundreds of such groups on the planet ˧

Imagine a substantial fraction of these groups converging in Chiang Mai, learning from each other in intense ways, creating friendships, a common culture, and seeking for worldview convergence ˧

Imagine these re-energized individuals and communities going back to their nomadic homes, intensely re-energized by what they have experienced, further seeding the culture amongst their friends and associates. ˧

This hopefully gives you an idea of the power of the experience that has happened here, ˧

Elsewhere, I have provoked some by calling Web3 a community of faith, but hear me out: ˧

Civilizations can only be based on spirituality, because rationality can only be based on fundamental non-rational axioms, which religions provided for their civilization constructors ˧

When, originally in the West, we became secular, these values were at first translated by messianic secular movements, which wanted to created a better world on earth, in the future; this gave rise to the mass movements of industrial society; and they were, in a sense, secular communities of faith, moved by unconscious spiritual drives ˧

Today, we see the emergence of networked and constructive communities, writing the very code that determines their lifestyles, economics, and self-governance, with a shared belief in the need for decentralization. They are the current form of a pluralistic coalition and in some fundamental way, the present form of a community of faith. They are constructing, in substantial ways, the world of tomorrow. ˧

The people here, despite the bad reputation of crypto in the mainstream press, were not people seeking profit, they were and are in the business of world-creation. You better pay attention. ˧

The Civium has been born. And it will continue to grow." ˧