Stars Aligning: The Natural Emergence of a Relocalised Society

For most of human history, you knew where your bread came from. You knew the baker's name, the farmer who grew the grain, the miller who ground it into flour. Economic life was woven into the fabric of community, visible and tangible in a way that made sense.

Then came two centuries of relentless centralisation. Today, electricity flows from coal plants hundreds of miles distant, owned by shareholders you'll never meet. Your food travels fifteen hundred miles from soil to table. The land beneath your feet enriches absentee landlords while your community withers. We've built an economy of strangers, extraction, and distance.

But something fundamental is shifting.

Three seemingly unrelated forces are converging—distributed renewable energy, land value taxation, and artificial intelligence. Together with principles of community governance discovered by Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom, they form the architecture of a different future. A future that undoes centuries of centralisation and returns us, in ways both ancient and unprecedented, to economies we can see, touch, and shape together.

To understand why this matters, we must first confront an uncomfortable truth about the system we inhabit.

We call it capitalism. We call it freedom. We celebrate the "free market" as the foundation of prosperity and liberty. But this is a beautiful lie, or at least a profound misunderstanding.

Capitalism isn't actually about free markets. It's about protecting capital from markets.

Consider the limited liability corporation—that cornerstone of modern business that even self-proclaimed libertarians rush to defend. It's pure government intervention, a legal privilege that shields shareholders from accountability. If your company poisons a river or defrauds customers, your personal assets remain untouched, you only lose your shares in the company and no more - you cannot be sued for all the harm done. The state steps in to say: capital shall be protected from the consequences of its own actions. Ultimately we all pay for these 'externalised costs' one way or another but the perpetrator does not.

From a true free market perspective, this is absurd. Why should the government protect anyone from the natural accountability of the marketplace? Yet this market-distorting mechanism is treated as sacrosanct, a necessary foundation rather than the intervention it clearly is.

And it's just one example. The entire architecture of capitalism rests on state interventions designed to preserve artificial social stratifications—stratifications that genuinely free markets would dissolve like salt in water.

The ladder we cannot climb. Most people understand the system instinctively, even if they never voice it explicitly: a ladder of increasing wealth alongside decreasing effort. At the bottom, backbreaking labour for survival wages. At the top, passive income flowing from mere ownership. In between, a precarious middle class clinging to their rung, terrified of falling, resentful of those above, desperate to distance themselves from those below.

This isn't an accident. This is the design.

Capitalism depends on these hierarchies remaining intact. Which is why, despite all the rhetoric about free markets, there's such fierce resistance to truly market-based reforms. Why proposals to tax land value—which economists across the political spectrum acknowledge as highly efficient—meet such fierce opposition. Why we tax labour and productivity while leaving passive income from monopolistic control of resources largely untouched.

Land Value Tax (LVT) is a simple economic proposal to shift tax away from productive activities and onto location values which act as a gateway to the market. LVT will be discussed in more detail later, but in effect it is a variable toll paid to engage in economic activity. However, LVT threatens something more than just a simple shift in revenue streams from post production to pre-production. It threatens, through transparency and the free market, the mechanisms by which wealth accumulates without effort, by which position becomes permanent, by which elites maintain their altitude across generations. It would remove the primary passive income source for the rentier class. It would flatten economic hierarchies that the middle class depends on to maintain their distance from the working class.

LVT is acknowledged by economists and by the left and the right as the most efficient and most fair form of tax. But in the 150 years since it was proposed politicians have shyed away from asking the public to consider it. Most people see it for what it is - an attack on the individualist dream of a chance to find a passive income or generate retirement funds through the 'property ladder' And so we defend the devil we know for the potential of becoming a winner. We cannot imagine the alternative, because imagining it requires us to question whether we truly want what we claim to want, basic comfort and freedom, while there are odds of a potentially better outcome.

Ask someone what they're working toward, and sooner or later, you'll hear it: the dream of escape. Escape from the grindstone. Escape from dependence on wages. The fantasy of passive income, of money that arrives while you sleep, extracted from the labour of others who haven't escaped yet.

We buy lottery tickets—literally and metaphorically—betting against astronomical odds that we might join the ranks of those who no longer have to work. We accept precarity and exhaustion as the price of this distant possibility. We've made peace with a system that promises most of us will lose, because maybe, just maybe, we'll be the exception.

But here's the question we don't ask: Do we actually want to live in a world built on extraction? A world where your gain must be someone else's loss? Where the goal isn't to create value but to capture it, to insert yourself between effort and reward, to collect rent on access to what should be shared?

The alternative sounds almost naive when spoken aloud: a decentralised world of democratically managed commons, where resources are shared equitably, where universal basic income flows from the sale of collectively managed resources, where merit-based rewards still exist but passive extraction doesn't. Where we all get along because there are few opportunities to climb on each other's backs.

It sounds impossible. Utopian. But impossibility isn't the real barrier.

The real barrier is deeper: we're not sure we want it. Yet something is coming that will force the question regardless of our ambivalence.

Beneath the social and economic hierarchies of civilisation lies an even deeper structure, a foundational commons upon which everything else depends. And this commons good is beginning to shift its nature radically. It's becoming resistant to centralised control. Resistant to capture by capital. Resistant to the very mechanisms that have sustained hierarchy for millennia.

As this foundational commons finds the potentials of the new technologies in distributed renewable energy and super-optimising information technology (artificial intelligence), it will either force the adoption of reforms like Land Value Tax and the dismantling of monopolistic rentierism—or it will make them happen by default, as the old extraction mechanisms simply cease to function.

We stand at an inflection point. The centuries-long arc toward centralisation, toward distance, toward extraction, is beginning to bend back toward the local, the shared, the immediate. Not because we've chosen it, necessarily, but because the technological and economic foundations are shifting beneath our feet.

The question is whether we'll navigate this transition deliberately, with intention and care—or whether we'll be dragged into it, clinging to structures that no longer serve us, defending hierarchies that are already dissolving.

The future is coming. What we do with it remains to be seen.

The Four Convergent Forces

To understand why this moment is unique, we need to examine each force individually before seeing how they interact.

Renewable Energy: Breaking the Infrastructure Monopoly

Consider how you currently get electricity. A centralised power plant—perhaps burning coal or splitting atoms—generates power that travels through a vast transmission network controlled by a utility company. You are a consumer, entirely dependent on this infrastructure. You have no choice but to pay whatever rate regulators allow the utility to charge. This arrangement exists because fossil fuel and nuclear power plants only work at massive scale. Building a coal plant in your backyard is neither practical nor efficient.

Solar panels and wind turbines shatter this logic. A solar panel on your roof works just as efficiently as one in a vast solar farm. The sun shines on everyone. Once you've installed panels, the fuel—sunlight—is free. There's no coal to continuously purchase, no pipeline to maintain, no corporation standing between you and energy. The technology is modular: you can start with a few panels and add more as you can afford them.

Maria's neighbourhood in Barcelona provides a concrete example. Her community installed solar panels on their apartment building's roof and shared battery storage in the basement. On sunny days, they generate more electricity than they need. On cloudy days or at night, they draw from the battery or, when necessary, the grid. But here's what's changed: they're no longer just consumers. They're prosumers—producing and consuming. Last month, they sold excess power back to the grid. The monthly savings funded improvements to their building. No utility executive made this decision. No distant shareholders profited. The value stayed local.

This fundamental shift—from centralised energy that must be continuously purchased to distributed energy that can be owned—is the first star aligning.

Land Value Taxation:

The time has come for recapturing nationally created wealth. Walk through any growing city and you'll see it: empty lots in prime locations, old buildings underused, speculation driving housing costs beyond what working people can afford. A property owner near a new subway station watches their land value triple—not because they improved the property, but because the the whole society built infrastructure. They capture this windfall while contributing nothing to it. Meanwhile, someone who builds a beautiful home or opens a thriving business gets taxed on their improvements—punished, essentially, for contributing value.

Land Value Tax flips this logic. It taxes the value of land itself—the location—while exempting the buildings and improvements. If you own a vacant lot in a desirable neighbourhood, you pay the same tax as someone with a productive business on an identical lot next door. Suddenly, speculation becomes expensive. Holding land vacant while waiting for prices to rise means paying significant annual taxes with no income to cover them. The incentive shifts dramatically toward putting land to its most productive use.

Consider the town of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which implemented a two-rate property tax system (a step toward pure LVT). Within years, vacant lots downtown were redeveloped. Why? Because sitting on empty land became costly while improving property was no longer penalised. The tax revenue didn't flow to distant landowners but stayed in the community, funding schools and infrastructure.

Here's the deeper insight: land value is created by the Nation. When a neighbourhood becomes safer, when schools improve, when shops and parks emerge, land values rise. Under current systems, this community-created wealth flows to whoever holds the title deed. Under LVT, it flows back to the community that created it. This circular flow—community investment creating value that returns to the community for further investment—is the second star aligning.

The Proof that Communities Can Govern Commons

Conventional economics long insisted that shared resources face inevitable tragedy. Either privatise them (creating owners with incentive to preserve value) or nationalise them (imposing top-down rules), economists argued. Communities managing their own resources supposedly always failed because individuals would overexploit them.

Elinor Ostrom spent decades studying actual communities managing actual resources—forests in Nepal, fisheries in Maine, irrigation systems in Spain—and discovered this was wrong. Communities could successfully manage shared resources, but only under specific conditions. She identified key principles: clear boundaries defining who has rights, rules adapted to local conditions, community participation in modifying rules, monitoring by accountable community members, graduated sanctions for violations, accessible conflict resolution, and nested layers of governance for larger systems.

The Swiss village of Törbel, which has successfully managed communal alpine meadows for over five centuries, illustrates her findings. Families have rights to graze cattle and harvest timber, but these rights are carefully bounded. Grazing is permitted only during specific seasons. Each family can harvest timber, but only for their own use, not for sale. Community members monitor each other—not through intrusive surveillance but through the natural accountability that comes from living together. When someone takes too much, graduated sanctions apply: first a warning, then a fine, then temporary suspension of rights. Conflicts are resolved in community meetings. This system persisted through wars, plagues, economic transformations, and political upheavals.

Ostrom's work revealed something profound: the right scale for governance isn't necessarily the largest scale. For many resources, community-level management outperforms both markets and states because local people have better information, stronger incentives to preserve long-term value, and face-to-face accountability. But her research also showed the limitations. Complex technical challenges sometimes exceeded community capacity. Monitoring costs could become burdensome. As communities grew larger or resources more complicated, these systems sometimes broke down.

This is where the third star enters.

Artificial Intelligence: Democratising Sophisticated Coordination

Imagine you're part of a community energy cooperative managing a microgrid. Solar panels on fifty buildings generate electricity. Battery systems in thirty locations store it. Two hundred households consume power on different schedules. Weather constantly changes. Prices in the larger grid fluctuate. Optimally managing this system—deciding when to charge batteries, when to sell excess, when to buy from the grid, how to balance load across the network—involves thousands of decisions daily, each requiring analysis of multiple variables.

Twenty years ago, this required a control room with engineers monitoring screens, making decisions, coordinating operations. Only large utilities could afford such sophistication. Today, an AI system handles all of it automatically, with sophistication exceeding any human operator, at a fraction of the cost. The AI monitors generation and consumption in real-time, predicts weather patterns, forecasts demand, optimises battery charging, balances the grid, and flags maintenance needs before failures occur. It does all this transparently—every decision auditable by democratically.

This exemplifies AI's revolutionary impact: it eliminates the scale advantages that made centralisation necessary. Small communities can now coordinate complex systems with the same sophistication as large corporations or government agencies. The expertise that was once scarce and expensive—affordable only to large organisations—becomes accessible to everyone.

Consider transaction costs. Economist Ronald Coase explained that companies exist because organising activities internally is cheaper than coordinating through markets. Every market transaction involves costs: finding partners, negotiating terms, writing contracts, monitoring performance, enforcing agreements. When these transaction costs are high, it makes sense to bring activities under one organisational roof. This drove corporate consolidation and vertical integration.

AI collapses these transaction costs. Smart contracts automatically execute when conditions are met—no lawyers needed. Matching algorithms connect buyers and sellers instantly—no intermediaries required. Reputation systems provide trust without centralised verification. In Maria's Barcelona neighbourhood, when her apartment generates excess solar power, an AI system automatically finds neighbours who need it at that moment, negotiates a fair price based on current conditions, executes the transaction, and settles payments—all in seconds, with no human intervention, no utility company taking a cut.

Expertise becomes democratised. Maria's community wanted to expand their solar installation but needed technical analysis: optimal panel placement, storage capacity sising, grid interconnection design, financial modeling. Previously, they would have hired expensive consultants. Instead, they used an open-source AI trained on thousands of similar projects. It analysed their building's specifications, local weather patterns, consumption data, and utility rates, then generated a comprehensive plan with multiple scenarios. The analysis rivaled anything a major engineering firm would produce, at essentially zero marginal cost.

The community still made the decisions—the AI didn't replace human judgment. But it eliminated the expertise gap that previously forced communities to either hire expensive specialists or remain dependent on utility companies.

The Integration: How Four Forces Become One System

These four elements—distributed renewable energy, land value taxation, Ostrom's governance principles, and artificial intelligence—aren't just compatible. They're synergistic, each amplifying the others' effects.

Physical Layer: Energy Infrastructure

Start with the foundation. A community—let's say a town of 8,000 people—decides to build energy independence. They begin modestly: solar panels on the community centre and school. These generate enough power to cover those buildings' needs with some excess. Revenue from selling excess power funds additional panels. Within two years, they've expanded to several apartment buildings and a small solar farm on former industrial land.

Battery storage comes next, allowing them to time-shift energy—storing midday solar abundance for evening use. An AI system optimises everything: when to charge batteries, when to draw from storage, when to buy from the external grid at low prices, when to sell at high prices. The system learns patterns—school electricity needs during weekdays, residential peaks in evenings, seasonal variations.

This physical infrastructure creates energy abundance. Electricity costs drop dramatically because, after initial investment, the fuel is free. This abundance becomes the foundation for everything else.

Economic Layer: Capturing National Value

As the town invests in energy infrastructure and other improvements—better schools, parks, transit—something predictable happens: property values rise. Under traditional property tax systems, this windfall flows to landowners, many of whom live elsewhere and contributed nothing to the improvements. The town struggles to fund additional improvements because rising property values strain residents' budgets.

The town shifts to land value taxation. Now the increasing land values are captured by the community that created them. This revenue funds more infrastructure, which further enhances land values, creating a virtuous cycle. Critically, this doesn't punish people who improve their properties. The person who builds a beautiful home or opens a thriving business isn't taxed on those improvements—only on the land value, which they didn't create.

Vacant lots, previously held by speculators, become expensive to maintain without income. Owners either develop them or sell to those who will. The town densifies organically, making the energy infrastructure more efficient—more people benefit from the same solar installation.

The economic structure now aligns incentives: productive use is rewarded, speculation is discouraged, community-created value returns to the community.

Governance Layer: Community Decision-Making

Managing these systems requires ongoing decisions. How much to invest in expansion? How to allocate costs and benefits? What rules should govern energy sharing? Where should new development occur? These decisions affect everyone differently—renters and owners, young families and retirees, businesses and residents.

The town implements Ostrom's principles. Boundaries are clear: residents and businesses within the town have rights to participate. Rules are adapted locally—what works for this town might differ from the next one. Importantly, those affected participate in modifying rules through regular town assemblies and working groups.

An AI system helps synthesise input. When proposing a major expansion of solar capacity, the AI models multiple scenarios, visualising impacts on electricity costs, land use, tax revenue, and environmental factors. It doesn't make the decision, but it makes the tradeoffs transparent. Two hundred community members can engage with sophisticated analysis as effectively as a corporate board.

Monitoring happens automatically but accountably. The AI tracks energy usage, land value changes, rule compliance, and budget allocation. This information is publicly accessible—any resident can audit it. When someone violates rules—say, by drawing more than their share during peak periods—graduated sanctions apply automatically: first an alert, then a small fee, then temporary restrictions. These aren't arbitrary punishments but rules the community agreed to, applied consistently.

Conflicts are resolved locally. When a dispute arises about where to site new solar panels, affected parties meet, review AI-generated impact analysis, and negotiate solutions. Because everyone knows they'll continue living together, there's incentive to find mutually acceptable outcomes rather than pursuing winner-take-all victories.

Intelligence Layer: The Coordination Breakthrough

AI doesn't just help manage individual systems—it enables them to work together without centralised control. Multiple towns in a bioregion each have their own energy systems, land value frameworks, and governance structures. Yet they coordinate through AI-enabled protocols that match energy surpluses with deficits across the region, share resources during emergencies, and facilitate trade without requiring a central authority.

The sophistication rivals anything a large utility or government agency could create, but without hierarchy. When one town has excess solar capacity during a heat wave while another faces shortages, AI systems negotiate automatic energy transfers at fair prices, implement them seamlessly, and settle payments—all within seconds. The towns maintain sovereignty while benefiting from coordination.

This is the decisive breakthrough. Historically, complexity required hierarchy. Large-scale coordination meant centralised control, whether corporate or governmental. AI enables complex coordination among equals. The scale advantages that drove centralisation disappear.

The Circular Economy Emerges Naturally

Something remarkable happens in this integrated system: circular flows emerge without being imposed. Consider the cycles:

Energy cycle: Solar energy flows to electricity, powers local activities, stores in batteries for later use, gets traded with neighbours to avoid waste. There's no throughput of fuel, no extraction from distant sources, no disposal of waste products. The cycle is fundamentally circular—energy from the sun continuously renews.

Economic cycle: Community investment enhances land values. LVT captures this value. Revenue funds more community investment. Productivity improvements benefit those who made them, creating incentive for innovation. But windfall gains from community development are socialised. The cycle is circular—value created by the community flows back to the community.

Material cycle: Local production becomes economically viable when energy is cheap and abundant. Manufacturing that was outsourced to distant factories returns because transportation costs matter more when energy and land costs are controlled locally. With production local, material waste streams become visible and valuable. What's waste for one business becomes input for another. The town develops material exchanges, facilitated by AI matching waste streams with production needs. Circular material flows emerge organically because proximity makes them economically sensible.

Knowledge cycle: The town learns from experience, successes and failures. This knowledge, synthesised by AI, is shared with other communities through open protocols. They contribute their learnings, which flow back. Global knowledge circulation enables local application. Each community experiments, and the collective learns rapidly. Knowledge doesn't extract value from communities—it circulates freely, enriching all.

These circular flows contrast sharply with linear extractive systems: extract resources from the earth, process them far from their source, consume them, dispose of waste elsewhere, concentrate profits in distant corporate headquarters. The integrated system's circularity isn't ideological—it's emergent from the technologies and structures.

Spatial Patterns: The Polycentric Region

This system doesn't produce uniform space but a polycentric pattern—multiple centres of varying sizes, each substantially autonomous yet networked.

A neighbourhood of 500 households forms the basic unit. Apartment buildings and houses with solar panels and shared battery storage create a microgrid. An AI system optimises generation, storage, and consumption within the neighbourhood. Most energy needs are met locally. The neighbourhood captures land values from its improvements and makes decisions about local public spaces, facilities, and rules through participatory processes.

Several neighbourhoods aggregate into a town of 8,000. The town coordinates larger infrastructure: a community solar farm, water treatment, a recycling centre, schools, parks, and a town centre with shops and services. Energy surplus from neighbourhoods flows through the town grid. Land value taxation occurs at this level, funding town-wide services. Governance involves elected councils and working groups, augmented by AI systems that synthesise input and model scenarios.

Multiple towns form a bioregion of perhaps 100,000 people, organised around watershed boundaries or other ecological features. The bioregion coordinates what individual towns cannot: a regional hospital, specialised education, larger manufacturing, energy balancing across towns, watershed management, and conflict resolution between towns. An AI coordination layer matches resources across the region—energy, materials, specialised labour—without requiring central bureaucratic control.

This nested structure follows Ostrom's eighth principle: for larger systems, governance must be organised in multiple nested layers. But unlike traditional hierarchies where higher levels command lower ones, here each level handles what it can best manage. Higher levels coordinate and facilitate but don't command. Authority flows from consent, not imposition.

The spatial pattern this creates differs from both sprawling suburbs and dense megacities. Towns are compact enough for bicycling but large enough for diverse amenities. They're separated by productive landscapes—farms, forests, renewable energy installations—rather than endless development. Between towns, land serves ecological and productive functions rather than speculation.

Social Structure: Stable Local Hierarchy

A persistent question: doesn't this eliminate hierarchy entirely? And if not, how can limited hierarchy remain stable rather than concentrating over time?

The answer is nuanced. Hierarchy doesn't disappear, but it transforms fundamentally in character and scale.

Within the town, differential contributions create recognition. Elena has deep expertise in solar technology from years of work—the community naturally defers to her judgment on technical energy questions. Marcus runs a successful carpentry business, employing several people—he has more economic resources than most. Yuki manages the park, and everyone recognises her organisational talent. These create hierarchy—Elena, Marcus, and Yuki have more influence in their domains than average residents.

But several factors prevent this hierarchy from calcifying into permanent class divisions:

Functional and temporary: Elena has authority on energy questions but not on school curriculum. Her expertise is recognised while it remains relevant. If she stops contributing effectively, recognition fades.

Transparent and accountable: AI systems track contributions and outcomes. If Elena starts making poor recommendations, the data reveals it. If Marcus underpays his workers, everyone knows—his social capital erodes.

Limited accumulation: LVT prevents Marcus from buying property throughout town and collecting rents. He can build wealth through his business, but he can't leverage that into passive income from land ownership that would compound across generations.

Material sufficiency floor: Cheap energy and access to community resources mean everyone has dignified living standards. Hierarchy affects social recognition and some material comforts, but not survival or basic dignity.

Exit options: If hierarchy in one town becomes oppressive, residents can move to another. This isn't always easy, but it's vastly easier than emigrating from a nation. The existence of alternatives disciplines local power.

The result is moderate, stable, functional hierarchy. Some people have more influence, more resources, more recognition than others. But these differences are bounded, earned through contribution, transparent, and accountable. The contrast with contemporary capitalism is stark—where hierarchy is often inherited, opaque, self-reinforcing, and produces vast disparities in both dignity and material conditions.

Economic Character: Transformed Capitalism

Is this still capitalism? The question matters because labels shape political possibilities.

In crucial respects, yes. Markets still allocate most resources—when Maria wants to buy furniture, she compares offerings from different producers and chooses based on price, quality, and her preferences. Private ownership persists—Marcus owns his carpentry tools and business. Profit incentives drive innovation—Elena's solar consulting thrives because she's excellent at it. Competition spurs efficiency—two cafés in town centre compete for customers.

But it's capitalism transformed in fundamental ways:

No rentier class: The passive extraction of wealth from land ownership is eliminated. You can build wealth through enterprise, but not through mere ownership of location.

No infrastructure monopolies: Energy, water, and other essential services are community-owned or cooperatively managed. No corporation sits between you and survival necessities, extracting monopoly rents.

Circular not extractive: Resource flows loop locally rather than draining from periphery to centre. Value created in the community largely stays in the community.

Polycentric not hierarchical: Multiple centres of decision-making and economic activity rather than one corporation or government dominating.

Commons alongside markets: Some resources—energy infrastructure, land value, knowledge—are managed as commons with Ostrom governance, while others remain market-allocated.

Perhaps we should call it circular localism or commons-augmented capitalism or distributed market economy. The label matters less than recognising that something qualitatively distinct emerges from this integration—neither the centralised corporate capitalism we know nor the state socialism of the twentieth century, but a third form that synthesises elements of markets, commons, and community governance.

Why This Time Might Succeed

Decentralisation has been predicted before and failed to materialise. The internet was supposed to democratise information but produced Google and Facebook. Personal computers were supposed to empower individuals but led to cloud computing concentration. Why would this convergence succeed where previous technologies failed?

Three reasons suggest different outcomes:

First, no network effects driving consolidation. Social media centralised because everyone wanted to be on the same platform as everyone else. Energy systems have the opposite dynamic—local microgrids are more resilient than being connected to distant generators. The technology naturally favours distribution.

Second, physical constraints favour local. You can't transport sunshine efficiently over long distances—it must be captured and used locally or stored. This physical reality prevents the kind of consolidation that occurred with digital technologies.

Third, data advantages are local. Big tech concentrated because more data made services better, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. But for energy systems, hyperlocal data beats aggregate data. Knowing weather patterns, building thermal characteristics, and consumption habits for your specific community produces better optimisation than general models. The data advantage favors distributed systems.

Additionally, material pressures are mounting. Climate change makes renewable energy necessary regardless of other considerations. Housing unaffordability in major cities makes land value taxation politically viable as solution. Economic stagnation and inequality create openness to alternative arrangements. These pressures create windows of opportunity that didn't exist before.

The Bootstrap Sequence

How does a community actually begin this transition? The sequence matters because it determines political feasibility.

Phase One: Energy Independence begins modestly. A community—perhaps starting as just one neighbourhood or housing cooperative—installs solar panels and battery storage. Initial motivation might be cost savings, climate concern, or simply desire for resilience. This requires capital but increasingly affordable capital, and it starts generating immediate returns through reduced electricity costs.

Phase Two: Optimisation and Expansion follows as savings accumulate. An AI system, perhaps initially a simple one, begins optimising energy use. The obvious benefits attract more participants. Additional panels and storage get installed. The system becomes more efficient with scale—not because of traditional economies of scale but because of better matching between generation and consumption across more diverse buildings.

Phase Three: Governance Structures emerge as the system grows. When it's five households sharing panels, informal coordination works. When it's fifty buildings, formal structures become necessary. The community develops rules for cost-sharing, contribution requirements, and decision-making processes, drawing on Ostrom's principles and examples from other communities.

Phase Four: Economic Integration happens as energy independence produces savings that can fund other improvements. The community invests in shared facilities, horticulture, technology spin-offs, workshops. As property values in the community rise from these improvements, the community advocates for land value taxation—pointing out that the community created this value and should capture it. In a city where housing affordability is politically salient, this argument gains traction.

Phase Five: Full Integration occurs when energy abundance, captured land value, sophisticated AI coordination, and robust governance structures all work together. The community becomes substantially autonomous for basic needs while remaining connected to broader markets and knowledge networks for specialised goods and services.

Each phase builds on the previous, creating constituencies with interests in deepening the transformation. Crucially, no phase requires revolution—each step is incremental and demonstrably beneficial, making political resistance harder to mobilise.

Challenges and Risks

Honest assessment requires acknowledging significant challenges:

Incumbent resistance will be fierce. Utility companies face existential threat from distributed generation. Large landowners oppose LVT. Centralised governments resist fiscal autonomy of localities. Financial institutions depend on real estate as collateral. These are powerful actors with resources to obstruct change through regulatory capture, lobbying, and shaping public discourse.

Technical complexity shouldn't be underestimated. While AI makes sophisticated coordination accessible, communities still need capacity to deploy and maintain these systems. Not every community has members with relevant skills. Technical dependence on AI systems creates vulnerability if those systems fail or are compromised.

Social capital requirements exceed what many communities currently possess. Ostrom's governance principles work best with high trust, social cohesion, and willingness to participate in collective decision-making. Atomised, transient, diverse urban neighbourhoods often lack these qualities. Building them takes time and effort.

Exclusionary risks are real. Communities with strong internal solidarity might exclude outsiders, creating prosperous enclaves surrounded by struggling areas. Without conscious effort toward inclusion and mutual aid across communities, localism could fragment into parochialism.

Transitional disruption will hurt some people. Workers in fossil fuel industries, corporate utility employees, and real estate investors face job losses and wealth reduction. Even if the long-term outcome is better for most people, managing transition fairly matters both ethically and politically.

AI governance challenges loom large. Who writes the algorithms? Whose values do they embed? How do we prevent algorithmic systems from encoding biases or becoming inflexible? What happens when AI makes a serious error? The technology enables new forms of coordination but also creates new risks.

None of these challenges are insurmountable, but neither are they trivial. Success requires not just technological capability but political mobilisation, institution-building, and cultural adaptation.

The Stars Aligning

We stand at a unique historical juncture. Four elements that developed independently for different reasons have reached maturity simultaneously:

Renewable energy technology developed primarily to address climate change, driven by environmental concern and technological innovation. The decentralising potential was secondary to the carbon-reduction goal, but it's now undeniable.

Land value taxation is an old idea from nineteenth-century political economy, kept alive by small groups of advocates, never implemented at scale but theoretically sound. Rising housing costs and inequality make it newly politically relevant.

Ostrom's governance principles emerged from academic research into why common-pool resource management sometimes succeeded against conventional economic predictions. They provided intellectual validation for community-scale governance but seemed limited to small, simple contexts.

Artificial intelligence developed primarily for commercial applications—search engines, recommendation systems, autonomous vehicles. The capability to enable sophisticated community-scale coordination was largely unintended.

None were designed to work together. Yet they fit with remarkable precision, each compensating for others' limitations:

Renewable energy provides the physical infrastructure for independence but requires sophisticated coordination → AI provides that coordination
AI enables complexity but requires energy to run → Renewable abundance provides cheap, clean electricity
Ostrom governance works at community scale but needed technical capacity → AI democratises technical capability
LVT captures community value but requires accurate assessment → AI enables transparent, continuous valuation

This convergence creates possibility unprecedented in human history: complex, sophisticated, efficient economic organisation at community scale, with genuine democratic governance, ecological sustainability, and material abundance.

The centralisation of the past two centuries wasn't inevitable human destiny but response to technological and organisational limitations that made large scale necessary for efficiency. As those limitations dissolve, the rationale for centralisation disappears. We can choose to organise economic life differently—not returning to pre-industrial localism with its poverty and isolation, but moving forward to technologically-advanced localism with global knowledge networks and material abundance.

The stars are aligning. Whether we grasp the opportunity they present depends on political will, cultural imagination, and the courage to build institutions matching our technological possibilities.

The future is not determined. But for the first time in generations, a genuinely different future is not just imaginable but practically achievable. Communities around the world are already building pieces of it. The question is whether these pieces will remain isolated experiments or coalesce into transformation.

The answer will be written in the coming decades, by communities making choices about energy, land, governance, and technology. The tools are available. The principles are proven. The need is urgent. What remains is the collective will to build something new from elements that have, quite remarkably, aligned.

Search This Blog

Amergent