Addendum 2 _ Questions and Answers

New ideas are often a bit strange, especially at first. Here are some questions and answers that can help you frame NARDIS correctly. Some you may have made yourself. Others will be new.

… on NARDIS

NARDIS is quite complex, isn’t it?

“NARDIS isn’t a simple story, that’s true. But neither are the ecological, economic and social challenges we face. Coming up with new NARDIS ideas does require some thinking and effort, but it is still very doable. ”

Why use this strange name "NARDIS"?

“NARDIS ultimately made it because SARDIN sounded even sillier. And also because NARDIS is the title of a famous jazz song. Trumpet player Miles Davis composed the song but never recorded it himself. It is said he preferred the interpretation of jazz pianist Bill Evans and his trio. ”

Why does NARDIS focus on the ecological, the economic and the social? Surely, there are other challenges too?

“You are right that the ecological, economic and social challenges are by no means the only ones. But in these three domains we, as ordinary citizens, can still generate direct impact. In some other domains, like politics and technology for example, that is a lot more difficult.

To us, citizens, political and technological solutions are often indirect solutions: they happen to us rather than that we make them happen. All too often, they’re non-inclusive. Almost all political decisions are made above our heads.

But we do have a direct impact on the ecological, economic and social domains. Especially in our close, immediate environment. That is why it’s sensible to focus on those three domains.

Sustainability in these three domains works like communicating vessels: ecologically sustainable ideas are often also socially sustainable, while economically sustainable ideas are also ecologically and socially sustainable. Initiatives in these three domains reinforce each other, creating a win-win-win situation.”

Isn't this too little? Shouldn’t NARDIS aim higher?

“Hard to tell. Who’s to say. There are optimists as well as pessimists in this debate. Some even consider themselves to be “realists”!

At first glance it seems logical to try and solve these enormous challenges with equally enormous solutions. And so we try to halt global warming through, for example, global climate agreements. But the reality is that, although many of those current solutions may seem enormous, they often fall short. All too often, they turn out to have insufficient impact, or they are too complex to be truly impactful, or they are pushed aside whenever the next economic or geopolitical

crisis erupts. Or they are cast aside whenever the political spectrum shifts from one side to the other.

If we truly want to increase our chances of success, we will need as many actors as possible chipping in. We need many more hands than we have had so far. And we, ordinary citizens, play a crucial role in this. If we succeed in realizing a whole series of NARDIS ideas the world over, we can generate immediate results globally. If we’re with many to do so, we could even create far more substantial impact than all those enormous projects that take so long to generate tangible results. Said differently, we need a sustainable counter-hegemony to change the current (unsustainable) hegemony. And honestly, when it comes to solving these wicked problems, every little bit helps!”

Shouldn’t we think bigger?

“In light of a gigantic global problem such as global warming, ideas like #1_in_7 and the community garden 2.0 do indeed seem like minuscule solutions. And of course, one group of seven people who eat vegetarian or vegan one day a week and one organic community garden 2.0 are just tiny drops on an ever-hotter plate. But it is not supposed to stop there. #1_in_7 is accessible and achievable for just about anyone and community gardens 2.0 can be started anywhere in the world, both in the city and in the countryside. The step from one #1_in_7 group and one community garden 2.0 to many thousands is not so big. And those thousands of groups and gardens do generate a lot of impact. Besides, these aren’t just the only ones, there are a whole lot of other ecological NARDIS ideas that can be devised, as well as other economic and social ideas. All of these efforts combined, can generate real, tangible, global impact! Together, we are the lever that can save our world.”

Is this not too late?

“Whether there is still time to turn things around or not is not very relevant. The alternative - doing nothing and just bide our time - is not really an alternative. The band may continue to play but the music won’t stop the ship from sinking. We are definitely late to respond but it is never too late to do something. ”

How do we know if this will even work?

“We will only know for sure when we start to put NARDIS ideas into practice and we begin to see and feel the impact of our activities. But that we need to do more than we do now is beyond dispute. ”

How fixed are these NARDIS ideas anyway?

“Each of us is free to interpret these NARDIS ideas as we see fit. Some general guidelines have been laid out, but how NARDIS ideas are conceived and put into practice, depends on the people who are involved. Each of us will have to give it our own interpretation. Some NARDIS ideas will emphasize certain elements more and others less. A similar NARDIS idea could just as well be given a different meaning by another group in another region. And that’s OK. A one-size-fits-allapproach usually means that it doesn’t really fit anyone. We don’t need a new straitjacket. Besides, an overly narrow framework would not be very democratic either. NARDIS wants to introduce more variation and that implies more room for interpretation and improvisation. So NARDIS ideas will very likely change a lot as we put them into practice. We are embarking on a journey without exactly knowing where it will take us. And that's OK.”

Is NARDIS not too innovative? Too revolutionary?

“NARDIS ideas are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Much of what we are already doing today, we can still do tomorrow, be it more sustainably and more direct democratically. NARDIS is a logical next step in how we think and act. It’s also a necessary step as our current ways of thinking and acting are incapable of realizing the changes we so urgently need.”

Is NARDIS intended to become this new, big story?

“Oh dear, absolutely not. It’s highly doubtful that we would need a new, grand story or that it would even be able to get a foothold. The many isms (communism, socialism, liberalism, neoliberalism, fascism) sound very trite, frankly. Our world has become too complex for one grand vision to explain everything or to provide an answer to everything. What we need are millions of little stories, written and realized by ordinary citizens, like you and me. NARDIS offers us the tools to realize just that.”

… on current and new ideas.

What about the current ideas and organizations?

“Many of the current ideas will simply continue. What’s important is that we not only rely on current ideas and organizations but also work out new ones. The current ideas seem to be unable to realize the kind of change that is needed. That’s why we have to leave the current, beaten path and venture into new directions. Of course, that takes time and we will have to keep both new and current ideas going for a while. The aim and hope is to gradually and increasingly replace the current ideas with new ones. NARDIS is ultimately an and-and kind of story. It’s not an or-or story.”

How about the current political and technological ideas?

“We will still need political and technological solutions. Many of the current political and technological ideas and initiatives will simply continue.

Technological innovations will continue to play an important role and political agreements will remain necessary to steer the world in a better direction. But it is naive to believe that we will get there with technology and politics alone. If we really want to increase our chances of success, each of us will have to do her or his part: citizens, politicians and innovators alike. We all have a role to play in bringing about the changes we need! NARDIS is about our role as citizens.

To tackle the major challenges that we face, we will have to do a lot more than we do today. Coming up with many new NARDIS ideas and realizing these, is a logical next step.”

Will these new ideas replace the current ones in the long term?

“No idea. Making predictions is very difficult. Especially about the future. What we need first of all is many more new ideas. The lack of ingenuity of the current ideas is a key part of the problem: we keep trying to tackle the big challenges in the same ways but with far too little results.

NARDIS ideas question the status quo and help us to actively look for different approaches. New NARDIS ideas and organizations, therefore, are not outside of the current reality but form an integral part of it and try to steer the current course in a different direction. Replacing current dogmatic thinking with a new dogmatic approach will not really help us. Replacing all the current ideas with new ideas is probably not only impossible, it would more than likely not be desirable either.

We need more variety, not less. By coming up with new ideas and realizing these, we can infuse more variation into the current, onesided ideas landscape and thus enlarge our chances of truly changing our world. ”

Won't the current and new ideas clash?

“Occasionally they will clash but that does not have to be bad per se. There will be continuous interaction anyway. New NARDIS ideas and organizations will have to be able to stand their ground alongside the current ideas and organizations. Economic NARDIS ideas will have to be realized within the current economic reality. New companies should therefore be able to operate alongside current ones. Just as new ecological and social NARDIS ideas should be able to operate within the current social and ecological reality. If we succeed in coming up with many new NARDIS ideas and realizing these, in time, they could begin to influence current ideas. Current

ideas and organizations could gradually become more direct democratic and more sustainable...

Who knows, if we are able to realize a lot of NARDIS ideas and we persist over a longer period of time, then the balance could gradually shift and doing things direct democratically and more sustainably could become the new normal.

Without a doubt, not everyone will agree. There will be resistance from within the current ideas and organisations and not everyone will want to or be able to join in. It will undoubtedly cause friction from time to time. After all, every change faces resistance. Changes in the past have also had their fair share of opposition and this will also be the case today and tomorrow. How will this friction manifest itself? That is still a matter of conjecture. Let's first get as many NARDIS ideas on the rails as possible!"

What is the main difference between new and current ideas?

“NARDIS ideas are new, action-oriented, realizable and impactful, but above all they are direct democratic and sustainable. That’s probably the main difference with the current ideas.

When we, ordinary people, realize ideas in a direct democratic and sustainable manner, we create a better and more humane world. When we do that within our local communities, then the people within that community will reap the benefits. When new NARDIS initiatives start to blossom all around the world, we can over time create substantial global impact.”

Shouldn’t we try to introduce newness in as many areas as possible?

“Doing everything anew will probably not work. Creating and realizing a whole series of new economic, ecological and social NARDIS ideas is already a good place to start. Even though NARDIS focuses on the economic, the ecological and the social, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pursue your fantastic new technological or political idea. Got an idea like that? Great. Go for it. The more new ideas we try to realize, the better. Although it can be good though to be on your guard in the pursuit of an idea that fits in closely with the current ideas. Before you know it, you might get stuck again in the current merry-go-round. Beware that your idea doesn’t contribute to the problem rather than the solution.”

… on direct democracy.

Does direct democracy even work?

“Why wouldn’t it? As humans, we are perfectly capable of making decisions based on equality. Such decisions are usually more qualitative even! But admittedly, direct democracy is easier to organize when the group isn’t all that sizable. A good indicator is this: as long as all individuals within an organization can still know each other personally, direct democratic decision-making is very well achievable. 150 seems to be the magic number. Within a group of fewer than 150 people, you can relatively easily organize workable direct democratic decision-making. As groups grow larger, it becomes a bit more difficult and cumbersome.

When a group becomes too large, it may be good to divide it into several smaller groups. You could also decide to begin using a deliberative democratic model: a representative group of individuals is then assembled from the larger organization. This group is given a mandate to reach a decision on a certain topic with the outcome being accepted by the rest of the organization. Another approach could be to set up a structure of delegation: different direct democratic groups could then appoint a delegate to represent the group. Different (direct) democratic models could be tested, but in general the adagio in direct democracy is: “small is beautiful. ”

Why are small groups better?

“The evolutionary biologist and anthropologist Robin Dunbar states that people are able to maintain stable social relationships with around 150 people. As a group grows beyond this, the need for more rules and standards typically arises.

Communities of hunters and gatherers - from prehistoric times to the present day - therefore had and have usually between 75 and 150 members. The strength of the group lies within the number: large enough to survive but not too large to become alienated from each other.

Our early ancestors survived for millennia like this: in mini-societies that were very egalitarian. Very... direct democratically, actually.”

Doesn’t direct democracy lead to chaos?”

“Running things direct democratically doesn’t mean there is no more authority. But authority is interpreted differently. Within the direct democratic organization, authority is obtained based on expertise, not on title or hierarchical function or even ownership. Anyone with more expertise or knowledge within a certain domain can therefore weigh more on the discussion. As such, decision-making can be influenced by expert views, even though individuals still get to decide independently. In that respect, the direct democratic organization is genuinely meritocratic.”

If direct democracy is so wonderful, shouldn’t we try to apply this to as many domains as possible? Also within politics?

“More direct democracy in as many different domains as possible is a good idea for sure. Both within our current companies and other organizations there are fewer and fewer reasons to stick to the current hierarchical model.

More direct democracy, also in politics, does seem like a good idea, although it is somewhat outside the scope of “How we can save our world” and NARDIS. NARDIS focuses on new organizations in the economic, ecological and social domain. The current political structures and institutions could be harder nuts to crack. But if you

think you’ve spotted an opportunity in the political domain, feel free to do your thing.”

… on sustainability

Are we even still allowed to do anything if we want to live an ecologically sustainable life?

“Whatever we do, there will always be impact on the environment. Taking into account any possible ecological impact on all future generations is simply not workable or viable. If that would be the objective, it would soon become clear that we are not able to do anything anymore. But we can definitely set a time horizon for doing things much more sustainably, namely the next two generations, our children and grandchildren. Two generations is tangible for everyone. Look at the previous generations that have had a direct impact on your personal development and life: your parents and your grandparents. A perspective that takes into account the next two generations is therefore also very useful, tangible and concrete. The positive impact that you create for them, you can still partly experience yourself. If you do that for your children and grandchildren, and your children then do that for their children and grandchildren, and then they do it again for their children and grandchildren, and then they again... ... then we’re in for a very long sustainable ride.”

How about economic growth?

“The ability of the planet to renew itself has long been surpassed by economic growth. To compensate for our ecological footprint, we would actually need one and a half earth. Let’s be clear: that we don’t have. There is no planet B. The idea of permanent economic growth is actually quite strange: no system grows infinitely, except our economy?

Perpetual economic growth is more than likely a myth. In itself, that should not be all that problematic. Living a full, happy life in a more static economy is perfectly possible. Although it will require us to adjust our idea of “wealth” and “being rich”. One thing that seems to be unescapable, though: we will have to consume differently and less. Continuing down the current path is no longer an option. We urgently need to become better guardians of our planet. Our current economic system is exhausting the people and the planet. It’s high time to bring the ecological, economic and social domains back in balance. Doing so requires us to rethink the way we work and live. We will have to rethink the way we interpret and redistribute wealth. NARDIS can help with that.”

… on the new company.

What’s so problematic about our current economy?

“The current economic landscape looks a lot like a monoculture. But just like any monoculture, this economic variation too is very vulnerable! It systematically depletes the soil from which it derives its revenue: us (the people) and our planet. If we want to have a more stable and sustainable economy, we need to create more economic variation. Economic NARDIS ideas like the new company do exactly that.”

What about the current companies?

“Not every current company is a bogeyman. Many small and mediumsized (family) businesses are already trying to implement sustainable policies. However, the larger a company becomes, the harder it often turns out to be to operate ecologically, economically and socially sustainable. Just consider the many multinationals that set up fiscal structures to evade taxes. There’s nothing socially sustainable about that, quite the contrary. Such anti-social practices absolutely need to be eradicated. ”

Do we even need new companies? Can't we just transform the current ones?

“Changing a company is a very difficult exercise: the current ways of thinking and doing things is too ingrained. According to experts, one in two change processes in organisations fail. With this in mind, it makes more sense to get things straight right from the start. That will be easier within new companies that we build from the ground up.

Also, there is one element about the new company that is going to be practically impossible to implement in just about every current enterprise: the ownership of the company. The new company is a company without private owners. But I doubt there will be many owners of current companies willing to give up their share in their company. The big separation in most current companies is between shareholders and non-shareholders. In other words: do you own a part of the company or not? But this division creates a strange and sometimes perverse effect: the employees who ensure the company can operate - who create the company’s revenue and profit - depend on the “good will” of the shareholders if any and, if so, how much profit is shared with them. Even though most of these shareholders have very little to nothing to do with the company and its activities: they just own a share. The new company throws that principle overboard.”

What current economic challenges could the new company possibly solve?

“Clearly, we will not be able solve all our economic challenges with new companies alone. But new companies can tackle a wide range of current challenges: • A more equal distribution of wealth within the new companies can help decrease the gap between rich and poor. • By working more sustainably, the negative impact on the ecosystem can be limited. • By constantly looking for the right balance between individual and group interest, individualism can be curbed. In addition, the direct democratic and sustainable nature of the new company can lead to... • More equality in the workplace • More involvement of all employees

• A fairer distribution of wealth

• An internalization of external environmental costs

• Fewer people who drop out due to stress and burnout

New companies will not solve all of our problems, but they can help remedy many. Don’t forget, we can probably come up with a whole host of other economic NARDIS ideas besides the new company as well. ”

… on change.

Isn't it naive to think that ordinary citizens like us can change the world?

“Maybe so. But it is just as naive to believe that we can get the world back on track by relying solely on more technological innovation and more politics. Despite the availability of all these green technologies, our global ecological footprint continues to grow, without any prospect that it will decrease any time soon. Despite all the political decision-making, the ecological, economic and social challenges remain immense. Unless there is intensive, sustained effort from all of us, any attempt for change risks being insufficient.

To achieve real, sustainable change, we need to think and act differently. In "Towards a sustainable society", this is referred to as "hegemony": how we think and what we do, from individual over social organisation to institution. Change within society and the current hegemony is always possible and even inevitable, but at the same time not obvious: hegemonic change usually happens slowly and from the bottom up, not the other way around. We, citizens, are therefore the main lever for change. When we change, hegemony changes. When we think and act more sustainably, our world becomes more sustainable.

"Towards a sustainable society" zooms in on how hegemony determines how we think and what we do, as individuals, social organisations and institutions. It look at the ways a sustainable counter-hegemony can lead us away from the current hegemony and thus put us on the road towards a sustainable society. In a way, it is a preliminary study and theoretical foundation to “How we can save our world” . ”

Is change – especially such radical change –even possible?

“Everything changes. Hardly anything (maybe even nothing) remains static forever.

The world is changing us and we are changing the world. And each of us can make a difference. Many major changes in our history came about when ordinary citizens took action and started to get organized. And many of those big changes started with one individual and one idea that was turned into action. One idea can set off a whole series of dominoes. The more NARDIS ideas we come up with and realize, the better our chances of changing and saving our world.”

What about direct action and protest actions? Are these NARDIS?

“Direct actions – think about local protest groups or movements like Occupy or Extinction Rebellion – can be very useful to create awareness or generate an immediate outcome. For example, direct action can be used to shake up public opinion or to try and stop an unsustainable activity quickly. But direct action and protest actions are not necessarily NARDIS ideas. Direct actions awaken public opinion and often succeed in stopping unsustainable activities in the short term. They often arise out of necessity: for example, the need to respond quickly to an acute problem. Although there are some similarities (both are action-oriented, often sustainable and organised direct democratically), there are also important differences: many direct actions are temporary, which can make them less impactful in the longer term. Many direct actions appeal to a somewhat "alternative" audience, whereas NARDIS aims at the common citizen who is concerned about the state of our world and where it is heading. Ideally, NARDIS ideas are realised and sustained by ordinary people. As such, together, we build a

counterweight to the current ideas and ways of acting. We need to keep doing this for a long time: you don't think and act differently from one day to the next, it takes time. Direct actions and protests are therefore not necessarily NARDIS ideas: besides some similarities, there are also important differences. But direct actions will have to continue to play their role”

Isn’t this a utopian attempt to return to a longgone past?

“No, NARDIS ideas are not an attempt to return to earlier times. Even when we recycle old ideas, it's important to transfer these to today. What once was, cannot be again. The world and context within which we think and act is constantly evolving. NARDIS is future-oriented. However relevant an analysis of the past may be, what matters is what we do today with the aim of achieving a result tomorrow.

NARDIS is not a nostalgic return to a long-gone past: it is an action plan for a new, sustainable and direct democratic world.”