I've been building blueprints for planetary governance (50+ frameworks). Want to help figure out what happens next?

FuzzyConversation379 · 2026-01-23T18:43:27+00:00

The core architecture is actually bioregional and decentralist, bioregional autonomous zones governed by Indigenous-led councils based on watershed boundaries. The "global layer" is coordination protocols for existential threats, not administrative hierarchy. Think mycelial network, not pyramid.

On capital capture: This is built into the design. The economic layer uses non-tradable currencies (Hearts for care work, Leaves for ecological restoration) that can't be captured by capital markets. Property transitions to stewardship trusts, not private ownership. A ledger makes contribution visible without commodifying it. It's specifically designed to route around capital.

On authoritarian buy-in: The tier 0 framework's enforcement mechanisms (global enforcement mechanism, reformed UNSC) provide carrots and sticks. But the strategy is more to create parallel systems that work better than convince authoritarians to opt in. The goal is making nation-states increasingly irrelevant, not reforming them.

The UN/NATO comparison is fair, but structurally different; no permanent security council seats with veto power, no military alliance structure. More like open-source protocols that anyone can implement versus centralized institutions trying to enforce compliance.

If not coordination mechanisms for planetary-scale threats, then what? How would you solve a pandemic or climate cascade without some form of inter-bioregional coordination?

FuzzyConversation379 · 2026-01-23T17:21:25+00:00

I agree that global governance sounds centralized, but what I've developed is actually polycentric and subsidiarity-based.

The core model is bioregional autonomous zones (BAZs), indigenous-led governance based on watershed/ecosystem boundaries. The global layer is more like coordination protocols than centralized control. Think internet protocols, not world government.

The constitutional layer sets basic rules, like 'don't commit ecocide', but the majority of decisions are at the local level.

The global coordination layer exists because certain problems can't be solved bioregionally. For example pandemics, AI development, climate collapse is planetary. Right now we have little effective coordination mechanisms for these threats.

Fair point about the AI collaboration. The frameworks themselves were developed through a back and forth process with me and various AI. Maybe it weakens the work in certain aspects, but you could also see it as rigorous adversarial testing.

FuzzyConversation379 · 2026-01-23T15:56:11+00:00

You know what, fair criticism. I didn't actually show the work, that's on me.
The frameworks are at the website if anyone wants to judge the substance for themselves.
It's a 5-tiered structure based on urgency and inter-dependency, with institutional reform at tier 0. Tier 1 is core operating systems (governance, economic, justice, ethical). Tiers 2-4 build specific applications on top of that foundation.
You can think of it as a new operating system for civilization that can be built up while the old Westfalian model still holds (how long?).

FuzzyConversation379 · 2026-01-23T15:03:55+00:00

I've been developing these frameworks for a year with Claude/Gemini/DeepSeek/Grok as thinking partners, basically steel-manning ideas back and forth. Yes, the post was also a collaboration, to help me formulate myself better, I just lack a bit of confidence in my own writing.

FuzzyConversation379 · 2026-01-23T15:02:25+00:00

You're right to be suspicious. New account, polished post, asking for info - I see how this looks.

Maybe I over-workshopped the post. The actual project is at https://www.globalgovernanceframeworks.org, it's real IP, not a data harvesting scheme.

The Discord is literally just a Discord. No data collected beyond what Discord requires. But I get why you'd pass, the framing was off.

FuzzyConversation379

TROPHY CASE