The Missing Piece

A  new format for public debate by way of the Schematic for Sustainability is what we will be discussing today.   (PDF available at www.holisticsoul.com  and click on “Sustainability.”)  Using it will have several positive effects:  1) It provides a non-traditional process for the discussion of public issues that also educates the public concerning issues of sustainability;  2)  it effectively separates the design process from funding debates;  3)  it moves public issues from polarized “yes-no” funding options to a continuum of options; and, 4) it will provide a check on the influence of lobbies and attendant corporate ethos behind profit making.

This “Missing Piece” is a format that enables public debate to become effective — effective to help move our nation its societies and communities into a sustainable future.  The missing piece is needed to move public bodies around immovable partisan positions and attendant discussions to action plans that move communities and the nation into social sustainability.

By using the Schematic for Sustainability, and  Schematic for Sustainability — Instructions rational, and progressive public debate can be achieved.  The Schematic provides a logical and rational process based upon the fundamental values that are the raison d’etre of this American democracy and all democracies.  Using the Schematic, all discussion pivots on the Intention of Sustainability, with action plans being developed in the Criteria for Fulfillment, both of which are qualified by the primary values of  the sustainability:  Life (qualified as “the quality of life”), Equality, and Growth.  These values are not arbitrary.  No civilization is sustainable without all three values being in place operationally, in societies.

Most traditional public debates has been “my plan is better than your plan” without having a qualifying standard for comparison.   Using the format for sustainability, debaters must be able to qualify their points of argument/discussion by showing how the points contribute to social sustainability, and support the fundamental values of a sustainable society.  Whether it is funding for a new school, a weather station outpost, or a voluntary program for immunization, debaters must validate their answers by qualifying them through the Schematic.

Conclusion:  If you compare this process of public debate to traditional public debate that has been going on between the bitter partisan camps in this early part of the 21st century in the United States, you will see that what is being proposed has far more potential for social progress.  Traditional bi-partisan debate is competitive, divisive, and position-held that contributes to the grid-lock of public issues from moving from proposals to action through Congress and state legislatures.  If our democracy is to evolve and become more mature and productive, new processes of public debate must be explored so that the business of the public is engaged and fulfilled.  //Daniel Raphael

Advertisement