Anyway, most of human behavior and interactions can only be understood through an understanding of how the handicap principle and its two sides work. It’s maybe wrong of me to give “value” to these two sides as a “dark” and a “bright” side, as evolution has no values. Still, what should be grown in a resilient society is what I call the “bright” side of this force, as understood through Zahavi’s observation of the Arabian Babbler, a thrush bird, for 40 years.

Bongard’s IGD (In-Group Democracy) is a direct transmission of Zahavi’s observations of this flock bird, the Arabian Babbler, into human system design. People interact through the same forces as found for this bird, just more subtle and complex because of our brain as our “peacock tail”.

Bongard’s book, “The Biological Human Being”, has references to Zahavi’s work throughout the book.

The Satin Bowerbird does in his book represent the opposite side of the handicap principle, the “dark” side, and this “dark” power is what is nourished in capitalist- and modernist society. This is the true “tragedy of the commons”, as in large out-group societies the “good” powers of the handicap principle breaks down.

Here is a reference to an email-correspondence with Bongard:

“As I see it Bongard’s in-group-model is just the backbone for a new and deeper democracy. What I love about it is that it is essentially fractal, as any resilient system: http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/March-2013/Toward-Resilient-Architectures-1-Biology-Lessons/
SVÆRT INTERESSANT OBSERVASJON OG SAMMENLIGNING. DET ER NETTOPP NOE AV HOVEDPOENGET MED Å UTVIDE DEMOKRATIET HELT NED: DET BLIR IKKE ROM FOR INDIVIDER SOM RIVER OPP, MELER EGEN KAKE, KORRUMPERES OSV. LEGG MERKE TIL AT “INVASIVE SPECIES”-PROBLEMET HENGER SAMMEN MED DETTE: EN ART SOM IKKE FANGES INN AV NETTVERKET KAN ØDELEGGE DET I STEDET.”

My translation of Bongard’s text: “VERY INTERESTING OBSERVATION AND COMPARISON. THIS IS SOME OF THE MAIN POINT OF EXTENDING DEMOCRACY ALL WAY DOWN: IT WILL BE NO ROOM FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT RIP UP, MAKES THEIR OWN CAKE, CORRUPTS ETC. NOTICE THAT THE “INVASIVE SPECIES”-PROBLEM IS LINKED WITH THIS: A SPECIE THAT NOT IS CAUGHT BY THE NETWORK CAN END UP DESTROYING IT.”

My claim, and I’m sure Bongard agrees with me, is that if you don’t understand the handicap principle and how the forces within this principle directs human behaviour, you don’t have a foundation to build a resilient society or civilization upon.

and who is he?

“In this context it is important to notice that a political economist, Thomas Robert Malthus, delivered the crucial cornerstone for the modern concept of biology as evolution. Malthus was obsessed by the idea of scarcity as explanation for social change – there would never be enough resources to feed a population which steadily multiplies. Charles Darwin, the biologist, adapted that piece of theory which had clearly derived from the observation of Victorian industrial society and applied it to a comprehensive theory of natural change and development. In its wake such concepts as “struggle for existence,” “competition,” “growth” and “optimization” tacitly became centerpieces of our self-understanding: biological, technological, and social progress is brought forth by the sum of individual egoisms. In perennial competition, fit species (powerful corporations) exploit niches (markets) and multiply their survival rate (return margins), whereas weaker (less efficient) ones go extinct (bankrupt). The resulting metaphysics of economy and nature, however, are less an objective picture of the world than society’s opinion about its own premises.” – Dr. Andreas Weber: http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/economy-wastefulness-biology-commons

See more on the subject in Weber’s essay Enlivenment: http://www.boell.de/publications/publications-enlivenment-publication-series-ecology-17364.html

The point is that today’s societies and economical thinking is built upon individualism and competition, ie. Darwinism. Only in the 70ies sexual selection and the two sides of the handicap principles was understood, after Zahavi’s study of the Arabian Babbler. So the Sinai Desert and the Arabian Babbler has been just as important for understanding evolutionary biology as the Darwin Finches on the Galapagos Islands. Not many people have realized this.

Another point is that humans, unlike other animals, can choose which side of the handicap principle we prefer to utilize depending on the zetting. Modernism and capitalism have together designed a society which give us no choice, to grow only the “dark”, individualistic and egoistic sides of the handicap principle. An in-group society will become the exact opposite.

Here I was not very precise, as evolution works in two ways, this is through natural selection and sexual selection.

Natural selection is the way founded by Darwin, i.e. the survival of the fittest.

Sexual selection is founded by Amotz Zahavi and works through the handicap principle, which is double sided, i.e. to show how unique wonderful you are (egoism), the peacock tail or ferrari car, or to show how generous and kind you are, like the Arabian Babbler (a kind of hidden egoism), which Zahavi studied for 40 years in the Sinai Desert.

People can choose, unlike other animals, which side of the handicap principle they prefer to utilize according to the situation they are into, which has a LOT to do with design and organization.

At the right side under “dokumenter” you can download some English documents and an illustration modelling the ingroup-democracy-model.

This model has its source of the meta-pattern found by Amotz Zahavi, the handicap principle, which is the strongest force of evolution, and which has formed human behaviour and how we interact.

The handicap principle is a force with a dark and a bright side, where today’s mass-society grows the dark side of the force (almost like Star Wars(-;) through capitalism and modernism.

F.ex. is the Alexandrine pattern 37, HOUSE CLUSTER, a superb illustration on how we can grow an ingroup-society and utilize the bright side of this force: http://www.patternlanguage.com/apl/aplsample/apl37/apl37.htm

Also there are more patterns found in A Pattern Language with a direct link to the metapattern of the handicap principle.

Anyway, it will take a long time before we can create a new society entirely centered around growing the enormous powers found in the bright side of the handicap principle.

This is why we have to start with a democracy model linking this force to the most essential of society, production and the utilization of natural resources, as these are the very foundation of our existence and are today operating outside any democratic control.

Another metapattern utilized in Bongard’s ingroup-democracy-model is the fractal like diversion of scales found in every sustainable natural system: http://kjpermaculture.blogspot.no/2013/03/toward-resilient-architectures-i.html

This is a true bottom-up democracy carried by a diversion of scales, where the smallest scale, the in-group, is the very foundation.

A democratic model reflecting at least two metapatterns of such importance is indeed very promising.

Personally I hope to influence Bongard to utilize Alexander’s pattern-technology to incorporate the good forces found in the handicap principle on every aspect of society.

I also hope to use biophilic design to “substitute” for today’s mindless consumerism: http://permaculturenews.org/2010/10/14/life-and-the-geometry-of-the-environment/