A beautiful idea has to be tested by everyday life
Imagine a society where no one attacks anyone. Where people don't feel there isn't enough to go around. Where shared goals are clear, and disputed questions are settled so that everyone agrees.
Sounds good. I know the most common objection by heart: "That's a utopia, people will always be people." And honestly, on paper I can't refute it myself. A beautiful scheme always looks smooth until you try it.
That's why I think there's no point discussing an idea like this in theory. It has to be tested by everyday life: who washes the dishes, what to do when two people want different things, how to tell someone something they won't enjoy hearing. That's where you see where the scheme cracks: where friction appears, what the small arguments are and how they actually get resolved.
I started small.
Three of us
There were three of us. Essentially a small co-living: that's what people call it when several adults who aren't related rent one place together and share the household. We were united by a common goal. Each of us understood why we had come together: to test whether you can live by the principle of non-aggression and still grow.
Non-aggression is a simple agreement: no one uses force, pressure or threats against another. No coercion, no humiliation, no revenge. Everything else is open for discussion.
The first thing that came to my mind in that house was the word "sangha."
Here's what I liked. When everyone understands the goal, it's very easy to notice when someone gets stuck. A person suddenly starts reacting according to an old program: takes offense, gets defensive, withdraws. It's a habitual reaction, learned long ago, and the person usually doesn't see it.
But others do. And they say so right away, calmly, with no hidden meaning. The person stops, figures out where the reaction comes from and finds a way to deal with it. Something that in ordinary life could drag on for a long time was resolved here in a single conversation.
I think this is a very fast way to change. Habits that live unnoticed between people for years come to the surface here.
But it all rests on one condition, and it deserves a section of its own.
What would you tell the people close to you if you knew for sure you wouldn't be judged?
Feedback as a gift
In ordinary life we often keep quiet about how we feel about people. We're afraid of offending, hurting, damaging the relationship. Dissatisfaction builds up and then bursts out at the worst possible moment, already in the form of a reproach.
In a house where everyone has agreed not to attack, there is no fear of giving offense. You know that no one wants to hurt you. So the words "you're being defensive right now" sound not like an accusation but like a hint. It's useful information about yourself that you can't see from the outside.
Everything depends on why the words are said. Here, feedback is there for growth. Nobody is out to win an argument or put someone in their place. And when both people understand that, the same words land completely differently.
Where no one attacks, feedback stops hurting.
-
An ordinary house: We stay silent so as not to offend.
A house without aggression: We speak to help.
-
An ordinary house: A remark sounds like a reproach.
A house without aggression: A remark is a useful hint.
-
An ordinary house: In an argument we find out who's right.
A house without aggression: We look for a solution that works for everyone.
-
An ordinary house: Dissatisfaction builds up and bursts out.
A house without aggression: Dissatisfaction is named right away, while it's still small.
-
An ordinary house: Weak spots are hidden.
A house without aggression: A weak spot can be shown without risk.
An ordinary day
When I talk about this, people sometimes imagine something exotic. In reality, an ordinary day in a house like this can look perfectly ordinary. The routine isn't the main thing at all.
In the morning there might be a short stand-up, like in any team: who's working on what, who needs help. Then a shared meal, exercise, work. The difference is in what happens between these things.
People are constantly discussing something. They share experience, give each other tips, help with projects. They look for where their work overlaps and what they could do together. One is stuck on a problem, another knows how to solve it, a third sees how to turn two ideas into one big one.
I think of whatever grows out of this kind of joint work as a shared result: everyone who took part in it can count on it. This isn't a rule handed down from above but an agreement the participants accept themselves. And that immediately raises a question: how do you reach agreement at all when there are more than two people?
How to reach agreement
A question brought up for discussion is decided by everyone's consent. Not by majority vote, but so that no one is left whose opinion wasn't taken into account.
It sounds slow. But my hypothesis is that in the end it's faster. When everyone knows they've been heard and understands the goals and state of the others, no one quietly sabotages the decision. Energy goes into the work, not into hidden resistance.
Reaching agreement takes openness. Anyone can bring up whatever is bothering them: worries, doubts, irritation. Nothing threatens them here, so there's no reason to hide it. The sooner a mismatch is named, the easier it is to fix, both for one person and for the whole group.
An important caveat: openness is each person's choice, not a requirement. People decide for themselves what to share and when. Personal boundaries stay personal. And everyone has the right to leave at any moment, without explanations or hard feelings. I'm not interested in a circle that's scary to leave: a place like that contradicts the very idea of non-aggression.
AI helps too. In an argument, people usually cling to their position, while a language model can lay out the question without emotion, weigh all the pros and cons and suggest options. People make the decision. But with such an impartial helper, reaching agreement is noticeably easier, and I think that's why circles like this are becoming possible right now.
There's one question people ask almost every time: what if someone contributes less than the others?
If someone contributes differently
I don't see it as a reason for conflict. People are different: everyone has their own experience, their own body, their own brain. Someone may be brilliant with systems and abstract things but bad at making money. Someone else is the opposite.
Limiting such a person's rights would mean missing the point of why we came together. The whole point of living together is specialization: everyone does what they're best at, and people complement each other. Like in a good team, where no one asks the designer to draft contracts or the lawyer to draw mockups.
Technology helps here as well: it makes it easier to see who is strong at what and to bring people together into a system where one person's strengths cover another's weaknesses.
So far all of this is just reasoning. Which means it needs an honest way to be tested.
How to tell if it worked
I want to measure, not believe. I'm interested in concrete numbers and how they change over time.
What I count as signs of success. How many people reconsider their beliefs in favor of cooperation: start combining efforts instead of each pulling their own way. How many projects are born in such an environment. If these numbers grow, the idea is worth developing further.
What I count as signs of failure. Conflicts become more frequent. People start hiding information. Games behind people's backs, things left unsaid and factions appear.
Failure is knowledge too. It will mean one of two things: either we did a poor job of explaining what all this is for, or people aren't ready to live this way yet. Both answers are useful, because they suggest what to change.
-
There's no point discussing the idea of a society without aggression in theory: everyday life is what tests it.
-
When the goal is shared and no one attacks, a remark becomes a hint rather than an insult.
-
Disputed questions are decided by everyone's consent, and AI helps lay out the pros and cons.
-
Openness and participation are each person's choice, and everyone has the right to leave.
-
Success and failure can be measured: by the number of projects, by whether trust or secrecy is growing.
Next: more people
Three people is a good start, but a small sample. I want to see whether the scheme holds up with more people: a house, then a place where many people live, and over time, perhaps, a whole settlement. People who share common meta-principles: a few basic agreements that everything else rests on.
The main one for me is this. Each of us is more than our habitual reactions. We have a body with its own reflexes, and these reactions can be changed so that we understand each other better and work together.
For now, such a place is just a plan. I'm looking for places that already exist where people live by similar values, and I already have one in mind. I want to go there and test the same scheme with more people: to see how viable it is among those who, it seems to me, are ready for it. You'll probably ask where it is, but I'll tell you when there's something to tell.
Who I'm looking for
I'm interested in open-minded people. People who are ready to notice their reactions and change them. Who know how to reach agreements and keep them. Who don't stick to their opinion on principle but look for a solution that works for everyone.
And especially those who, like me, believe it's possible to live this way, that "utopia" is simply something that hasn't yet been tested by everyday life.
If you think so too, let's get to know each other. I'll share how the experiment is going, what works and what doesn't. And maybe one day you'll want to come and see for yourself.
