The Mycelium's governance cycle's cause and effect

Based on the existing awareness they have in society, people are motivated to individually or as part of a group, implement projects with the aim of manifesting the change they see needed. By providing platforms and tools where they can connect with others that interested to work on these shared aims, they can use stronger synergies of cooperation and are more likely to succeed to manifest that change.

To the extent that such change manifests in society, people in society become more aware of related challenges. Also, based on the level of awareness in society people will feel motivated to gather to explore other existing challenges. Organisational structures and tools can continue to be improved, that allow the people interested in these challenges to gather and through the nurturing of best practices for the consensus development, come up with breakthrough consensus outcome statements, for which the awareness in society at large did not exists before.

Based on this higher awareness of collective consensus in society at large, again people motivated to start or join a project with that aim will look for others to cooperate with. Since their plan of action is based on a wider consensus in society, they are now more likely to find others with a synergetic motivation to join in manifesting the projects.

As this circle repeats, this leads to change with a wider consensus in society to be exponentially more likely to manifest.

Implementation of the model and its challenges

The challenge of the model is to motivate people to gather and invest the time in the consensus processes. This becomes easier as they see the effect that the shared outcomes have in society. The shared outcomes in turn are payed more attention to, if they have a high probability of being representative of wide spread consensus in society. This in turn is dependent on the quality of best practices and methods used in the consensus development processes.

So, the main need for the successful evolution of a mycelium governance culture is to nurture and cultivate the quality of the ways in which 1) people gather, 2) the consensing processes used and 3) the ways the outcomes are shared.

Progress can be made separately in all these three areas. Many existing groups and projects are working on increasingly better solutions for these three aspects. This ranges from online platforms where people with shared motivation can more easily organize to gather, either in offline venues or using online tools, it includes the evolution of better facilitation methods for working with gathered groups of people, new social media technologies and media platforms or distributed databases for the sharing of outcomes.

It is the groups of people that chose and evolve these tools and best practices, they are not given by the model itself. Hence, their diverse evolution is encouraged and will self regulate towards higher quality and transparency.

The people participating in this governance culture do not need a mandate to participate. Nor do they have any decision authority as a result of their participation. They simply share their resulting consensus, which through good sharing practices raises awareness in society. It is society, its individual members, its organisations and institutions, that will act as a result of that higher awareness, through the usual mandates and accountability.

Manifesting change through existing governance structures

As new challenges and risks are emerging, the self-empowered culture of the evolving and curated consensus will be ready for organisations and institutions to tap into. It will be a self-regulating reality that consensus outcomes are produced and collected ahead of existing and emerging decision making structures starting to be paying attention to these challenges. This essentially means that in a mycelium governance culture it is likely that when a need to act emerges, the awareness for what that action should be is already there.

The Mycelium model suggests the transformation of the old order with a progressive and dynamic way that increases and improves our democracies in a comprehensive manner. It is a metamorphosis without an overthrow of existing order; but a pragmatic approach of consensus building with everyone concerned.
Once collective realization arises, there should be no need for making "decisions" anymore because everyone will know what has to be done when the time comes to do it. This awareness strongly forces those governmental decision making structures to abide by what the people have in their collective wisdom through open discussion and debate worked out.

To the extent that there is resistence to implementing such change, the Mycelium governance culture would also lead to a much faster emergence of new bottom up governance structures that replace old top down structures that resist this change. Therefore, where decisions would be made in other existing or newly emerging governance structures, this collective realization is increasinly likely to be taken into account when agreeing on a path forward.

In some ways these changes have already been taking place across the world in various communities and nation states and are ongoing. The aim simply needs to be to nurture and curate the key facilitating aspects of this emerging governance ecosystem.

Conclusion

The mycelium model addresses the current and future challenges in society through its decentralized structure and its open, transparent democracy encourraging culture. By creating and accelerating awareness or consciousness and redistributing responsibility, it focusses strongly on the solution and how it can be implemented. It encourages a culture that moves away from decision making, which just gives an opportunity to point fingers at others, who made decisions, to avoid responsibility. It leaves the actual doing, along with the ultimate responsibility that comes with that doing, to society at large, where both is in much better hands.