Milliongenerations:Meeting 23 Mar 09: Difference between revisions
MGxWikiSysop (talk | contribs) m (Protected "Milliongenerations:Meeting 23 Mar 09" [edit=sysop:move=sysop] [cascading]) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
'''Whatever MG does, there should be a link to 'a million'!''' | '''Whatever MG does, there should be a link to 'a million'!''' | ||
'''What could be guidelines for a prize?''' | '''What could be guidelines for a prize?''' | ||
| Line 26: | Line 27: | ||
Before giving more thoughts about the prize itself, these boundaries should be set. | Before giving more thoughts about the prize itself, these boundaries should be set. | ||
'''What should the foundation do?''' | '''What should the foundation do?''' | ||
| Line 36: | Line 38: | ||
Sharing and stimulating can be done by organising/realising (out of the million things being organised by MG) scenarios/games/communities/prizes/etc. | Sharing and stimulating can be done by organising/realising (out of the million things being organised by MG) scenarios/games/communities/prizes/etc. | ||
'''Boundaries for MG''' | '''Boundaries for MG''' | ||
- People are | - People are and will be | ||
- Civilisation | - Civilisation | ||
| Line 46: | Line 49: | ||
- Happiness | - Happiness | ||
'''Continuation''' | |||
Civilisation continues, so what aspects are needed that create happiness? | |||
Which parts of civilisation did not change and are not likely to change? Energy, for example, could be considered a given (was never a problem, will never be a problem). But what is not given? How does that shape civilisation and the happiness of people living in this civilisation? | |||
'''Extrapolation vs Jumping''' | |||
The big catch of MG is not to extrapolate, but to jump. This is what makes it all the different from existing innitiatives that predict and try to save the world. Filling in the boundaries of the jump is what could be considered the/a major task of MG. | |||
'''Target groups''' | |||
This seems to be an issue with a lot of different opinions. It will help to write down the aspects, not naming the target groups per se. One could also do the mind experiment of not defining target groups at all. This obviously has problems (non targetted communication is difficult to reach anything), but also potential benefits (unexpected contributions and linkages). It could well be that MG will benefit most of the latter. | |||
Latest revision as of 00:16, 18 November 2009
23 Mar 09 in Amsterdam, The Hub
Participatns: C, O, J-T, R, M, Z, J (don't publish names, please)
Notes from Whiteboard (in Dutch):
Conclusions:
- to follow
Afterthoughts about Meeting 23 Mar 09
Whatever MG does, there should be a link to 'a million'!
What could be guidelines for a prize?
- Should not have monetary vallue
- Should be attrative for everybody
- Should be selflessness
- Et cetera
Before giving more thoughts about the prize itself, these boundaries should be set.
What should the foundation do?
- Share
- Stimulate (competition, combining, connecting) (3C's)
- ... (3 S's)
Sharing and stimulating can be done by organising/realising (out of the million things being organised by MG) scenarios/games/communities/prizes/etc.
Boundaries for MG
- People are and will be
- Civilisation
- A million generations
- Happiness
Continuation
Civilisation continues, so what aspects are needed that create happiness?
Which parts of civilisation did not change and are not likely to change? Energy, for example, could be considered a given (was never a problem, will never be a problem). But what is not given? How does that shape civilisation and the happiness of people living in this civilisation?
Extrapolation vs Jumping
The big catch of MG is not to extrapolate, but to jump. This is what makes it all the different from existing innitiatives that predict and try to save the world. Filling in the boundaries of the jump is what could be considered the/a major task of MG.
Target groups
This seems to be an issue with a lot of different opinions. It will help to write down the aspects, not naming the target groups per se. One could also do the mind experiment of not defining target groups at all. This obviously has problems (non targetted communication is difficult to reach anything), but also potential benefits (unexpected contributions and linkages). It could well be that MG will benefit most of the latter.