✦ A self-improving paradigm

UNIVERSAL
PRAGMATISM

A way for people to solve shared problems together, using evidence and technology, for the health, happiness and wellbeing of all living things.

Anyone can take part. UP checks its own results and corrects itself as it learns. It keeps power spread out, so that no person, group or machine gathers control over everyone else. And it never crosses a small set of floors that protect people and the living world.

Look around you

What exists does not reach the people who need it

The lights come on and there is food in the shops. Look a little further, past your own street, and keep looking for a minute longer than is comfortable. Every figure below is footnoted in the book to its source.

An empty hospital corridor

Children under five who die on an ordinary day

≈13,000

4.9 million young children died in 2024. The WHO and UNICEF say most of those deaths could have been prevented with proven, low-cost care.

Source
WHO and UNICEF, "Progress in reducing child deaths slows as 4.9 million children die before age five" (18 Mar 2026), on the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation report. The daily figure is the yearly figure divided by 365, an average.
Discarded fruit and vegetables

People who went hungry in 2025 (estimate)

645million

Yet the world's households throw away more than a billion meals a day, and on paper the global food supply comes to more than 3,000 kilocalories for every person alive, every day. The food exists.

Source
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026 (range 608 to 696 million). UNEP, Food Waste Index Report 2024. FAO, "Food balance sheets 2010–2023" (2025): food supply available per person, not what people eat.
An elderly man alone on a park bench

People in Japan who died alone at home in 2025

76,941

In an economy of more than $4 trillion a year, more than 7,000 of them were not found until a month or more after death. Worldwide, the WHO estimates that one person in six is lonely, and that loneliness accounts for about 871,000 deaths a year.

one person in six is lonely
Source
National Police Agency of Japan, people living alone who died at home, 2025 (April 2026). WHO Commission on Social Connection, From loneliness to social connection (30 June 2025); model-based estimates.
Tents pitched under a concrete overpass

People living in extreme poverty in 2024, on less than $3 a day

824million

About 2.1 billion people lack safely managed drinking water, 3.4 billion lack safe sanitation and some 4.6 billion cannot get essential health services. Each is something everyone needs and the world already knows how to provide.

Source
World Bank, "September 2026 Global Poverty Update" ($3.00 a day, 2021 PPP). WHO and UNICEF, drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000–2024 (26 Aug 2025). WHO and World Bank, UHC Global Monitoring Report 2025 (6 Dec 2025).

From the book · Introduction, Figure 1

Billions of people still go without the basics

People who lack each of these, latest estimate.

Essential health services4.6 billion
Safe sanitation3.4 billion
An affordable healthy diet2.7 billion
Safe drinking water2.1 billion
Over $3 a day (extreme poverty)824 million
Enough food (hunger)645 million
Each bar is a separate count of people. The groups overlap, so the bars cannot be added together. Sources: WHO and World Bank (2025); WHO and UNICEF (2025); FAO et al., SOFI 2026; World Bank (September 2026). The latest year differs by measure. Print version from the book ↗

It would be easier if there were a villain to blame. Mostly there isn't. The farmers, nurses, officials and business owners inside the current system are, for the most part, doing their jobs as the system defines them. That is exactly the trouble: a system made of decent people can still produce outcomes most of those people would call wrong.

The current system is very good at solving the problems that pay someone, and much weaker at the ones that don't. New antibiotics show how. The world needs them kept in reserve and used sparingly, which is exactly what makes them poor business. One company did the work anyway: Achaogen won approval for a new antibiotic in June 2018, the drug brought in $0.8 million in its first year, and in April 2019 the company filed for bankruptcy. Nobody in that story behaved badly. The incentives pointed the wrong way.

There has been real progress, and the book credits it. But on the planet's limits and on most of the major issues of our time, the problems are growing faster than the reforms. It does not have to be this way.

Sources: Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, final report (May 2016); Achaogen, Form 10-K for 2018 and Form 8-K (15 Apr 2019). The book's Chapter 2 measures the race issue by issue.

Better than ever, and still losing the race

From the book · Figure 2.1

Better than ever, on many of the measures that matter most

World, long-run estimates. Note the different time spans.

Life expectancy at birth (years)

higher is better

28.5to731800 to 2023

shaded: reconstructions before 1950

Children dying before age 5 (%)

lower is better

43%to3.8%1800 to 2023

shaded: reconstructions before 1950

Living on under $3 a day (%)

lower is better

43%to10%1990 to 2024

 

Show the numbers
World, long-run estimates
MeasureYearValue
Life expectancy at birth (years)180028.5
Life expectancy at birth (years)185029.3
Life expectancy at birth (years)190032
Life expectancy at birth (years)195046.4
Life expectancy at birth (years)200066.4
Life expectancy at birth (years)202373.2
Children dying before age 5 (%)180042.8
Children dying before age 5 (%)190040.9
Children dying before age 5 (%)195024.7
Children dying before age 5 (%)19909.35
Children dying before age 5 (%)20007.67
Children dying before age 5 (%)20233.83
Living on under $3 a day (%)199043.4
Living on under $3 a day (%)200036.2
Living on under $3 a day (%)201021
Living on under $3 a day (%)202011.4
Living on under $3 a day (%)202410.4
Sources: Our World in Data (life expectancy: Riley 2005 and UN WPP; child mortality: Gapminder and UN IGME); World Bank WDI, SI.POV.DDAY ($3.00 a day, 2021 prices; July 2026 data). Figures before 1950 are reconstructions. Print version from the book ↗

From the book · Figure 2.2

The path that was needed, and the path taken

Global CO2 from fossil fuels and cement, billion tonnes a year

Actual emissions (2025, projected)Illustrative 1.5 °C path: a 48% cut from 2019 by 2030

Show the numbers
Global CO2 from fossil fuels and cement, billion tonnes a year
YearActual emissions, billion tonnesIllustrative 1.5 °C path
199022.5
200025.2
201032.8
201534.7
201936.336.3
202034.4
202136
202236.7
202337.3
202437.8
202538.1 (projected)
203018.9
Sources: Global Carbon Budget 2025 (Friedlingstein et al. 2026; net of cement carbonation; 2025 projected). Path: IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report, Table SPM.1 (median CO2 cut for 1.5 °C pathways, applied to fossil CO2 for illustration). Print version from the book ↗

From the book · Figure 2.3

Electronic waste is growing faster than recycling

Million tonnes a year

GeneratedDocumented as properly collected and recycled

34
8

2010

24% documented

62
13.8

2022

22% documented

82
16.4

2030 (projected)

20% documented

Show the numbers
Million tonnes a year
YearGenerated, million tonnesDocumented as collected and recycledShare documented
201034824%
20226213.822%
2030 (projected)8216.420%
Source: Global E-waste Monitor 2024 (ITU and UNITAR). 2030 recycled = 20% of 82 Mt, the documented rate the monitor projects. 'Documented' means formally collected and recycled; informal recycling is not counted. Shares are the documented tonnes divided by the generated tonnes. The 2030 bars are lighter because they are projected. Print version from the book ↗

From the book · Chapter 12

The scoreboard: twelve failures, one measure each, today

The record from the book's Table 12.1, with the direction each is moving and the chapter that answers it.

F1

Climate and planetary limits

Energy-related CO2: a new high of nearly 38.4 billion tonnes in 2025

Getting worseStill rising, more slowly (about 0.4% in 2025)

Answered in Ch 18

F2

Unmet basic needs

More than 824 million people below $3.00 a day (2024)

StuckAt a standstill since the pandemic

Answered in Ch 13

F3

Inequality and concentrated wealth

The poorest half of adults hold about 2% of the world's wealth

StuckUnchanged since the early 2000s

Answered in Ch 13

F4

Capture of government by money

US federal lobbying: $5.24 billion in 2025

Getting worseThe highest ever recorded, in money of the day

Answered in Ch 5; Ch 6

F5

Work

708 million women outside the labour force because of unpaid care, against 40 million men (2023)

No comparable trendNo comparable trend: the method changed

Answered in Ch 14

F6

Health

1.14 million deaths attributable to drug-resistant bacteria (2021)

Getting worseForecast 1.91 million a year by 2050

Answered in Ch 16

F7

Education

273 million children and young people out of school

Improving slowlyBarely falling: 17.4% (2015) to 16.8% (2024)

Answered in Ch 15

F8

Housing

745,652 people homeless in the US on one night (January 2025)

Improving slowlyDown 3% from the record of 771,480 in 2024

Answered in Ch 13; Ch 18

F9

Information disorder

English Wikipedia's active editors peaked at 56,400 (March 2007); one language edition captured, 2011 to 2020

Getting worseThe volunteer base of its largest edition shrank after 2007

Answered in Ch 11; Ch 20

F10

War, violence and crime

9,745 nuclear warheads in stockpiles (January 2026); military spending $2,887 billion (2025)

Getting worseRising: stockpiles up from 9,614; spending up eleven years running

Answered in Ch 7; Ch 19

F11

Waste and planned obsolescence

62 billion kg of electronic waste (2022)

Getting worseGrowing five times faster than documented recycling since 2010

Answered in Ch 18

F12

AI and technology concentrating power

Over 90% of notable AI models made by industry (2026 report)

Getting worseIndustry's share rising (60% in 2023)

Answered in Ch 11; Ch 20

The scoreboard: twelve failures, one measure each, today, with their direction and the chapter that answers each (Chapter 12). Source: Table 12.1 and its notes, row by row. The arrow summarises the direction column of the table; it is a reading of each measure's latest trend, not a forecast. Print version from the book ↗

What UP is

UP in one sentence

Universal Pragmatism is a way for people to solve shared problems together, using evidence and technology, for the health, happiness and wellbeing of all living things: open to everyone, correcting itself as it learns, keeping power spread out, and never crossing a small set of floors that protect people and the living world.

If that sounds abstract, it shouldn't for long, because you have almost certainly used something built this way. When you look something up on Wikipedia, you rely on strangers who solved a shared problem together, in the open, and checked one another's work. UP takes that way of working and extends it from shared knowledge to the whole of shared life: meeting needs, making decisions and caring for the living world.

Instead of asking what will pay, UP asks what will improve the health, happiness and wellbeing of each person, counted one by one, so that no one's wellbeing is traded away to raise an average. Its main activity is inventing solutions together. Anyone may take on a problem, propose a fix with the evidence for it, and see it tested against the alternatives, and a solution rises because it works, whether or not a funder or a boss would have backed it.

From the book · Introduction, Figure 2

How a problem moves through UP

The loop never closes: every result, good or bad, becomes the next piece of work.

Under every stepNever crossing the floorsneeds, freedoms, a fair hearing, the living world

Step 6 feeds step 1: a failure is not the end of a decision but the start of the next problem.

The loop at the heart of UP. Every step is open to anyone, and no step may cross the floors at the centre. Drawn from UP's core tenets on the method and on self-correction; full wording in the core of UP. Print version from the book ↗

01

Anyone can take part

Anyone may take part in any problem, and the people it affects decide its outcome. There are no offices to hold: work is shared out, not owned, so no one gathers power by holding a position.

02

Evidence proposes; people decide

Problems are named, measured and offered as work. Solutions are proposed with their evidence, tested and compared, and a better idea replaces a worse one. Matters of taste are never made rules for others.

03

It corrects itself

Every failure of UP is fed back into it as a new problem to solve, so it keeps improving without revolution. Every part of UP, its core included, can be improved through its own method.

04

Power is kept spread out

Concentration of power in any form, whether wealth, position, information, access, expertise or machines, is treated as a standing danger. Everyone watches for it; the threat is never declared gone.

05

Floors no decision may cross

Everyone's basic needs and protected freedoms, the living world's capacity to recover, the right to leave, a truthful shared record, freedom of the mind and a fair hearing.

06

Technology serves; people decide

AI and automation coordinate, propose and do work. They never govern: people can always correct, pause or switch them off. No single AI system or operator controls coordination.

From the book · Figure 4.2 · Why an average hides people

Average income rose; the bottom half's barely moved

Growth in pretax income per adult, United States, 1980 to 2014.

Average, all adults+60%
Bottom half of adults+1%

The bottom half's income per adult:

Source: Piketty, Saez and Zucman, Quarterly Journal of Economics 2018: average pretax real national income per adult +60%; bottom half about $16,000 in 1980 and $16,200 in 2014 (about +1%). Authors' estimates. Before taxes and transfers. Print version from the book ↗

From the book · Figure 5.2 · Learning from every failure, in the open

Flying became far safer, decade after decade

Commercial airline passengers worldwide: boardings per death, by decade (higher is safer).

1 in 350,000

1968–77

1 in 750,000

1978–87

1 in 1.3 million

1988–97

1 in 2.7 million

1998–2007

1 in 7.9 million

2008–17

About 22 times safer than 1968–77. Many changes contributed to the fall; the chart does not show which of them caused it.

Show the numbers
Commercial airline passengers worldwide
DecadeRisk of death per boarding
1968–771 in 350,000
1978–871 in 750,000
1988–971 in 1.3 million
1998–20071 in 2.7 million
2008–171 in 7.9 million
Source: Arnold Barnett, "Aviation Safety: A Whole New World?", Transportation Science (2020), as reported by MIT News, 23 January 2020. The ratio (7.9 million ÷ 0.35 million) is calculated from the same figures. Print version from the book ↗

Part One · Is this real?

More of what already works

None of this requires inventing a civilisation from scratch. UP is less a revolution than a way of naming the best of what civilisation already does, so that we get more of the good and less of the harm.

1977 – 1980

A disease ends

In October 1977 Ali Maow Maalin, a 23-year-old hospital cook in Merca, Somalia, became the last person on Earth to catch smallpox naturally. The WHO estimates smallpox killed about 300 million people in the twentieth century alone. It was certified eradicated on 9 December 1979. Maalin later worked for the WHO's polio eradication campaign in Somalia.

≈300 millionpeople killed by smallpox in the twentieth century (WHO estimate)

  1. October 1977the last natural case
  2. 9 December 1979certified eradicated
Source
WHO, 40th anniversary of smallpox eradication (13 Dec 2019); WHO Director-General, World Health Assembly address (21 May 2023).

1985 – 2009

Every country, one treaty

In May 1985 three British Antarctic Survey scientists reported large ozone losses over Antarctica. In September 1987 governments agreed the Montreal Protocol, and by 2009 every country had joined. If current policies hold, the ozone layer is expected to recover by around 2040 over most of the world and around 2066 over Antarctica.

  1. 1985large ozone losses reported over Antarctica
  2. 1987governments agree the Montreal Protocol
  3. 2009every country has joined
  4. around 2040recovery over most of the worldexpected, if current policies hold
  5. around 2066recovery over Antarcticaexpected, if current policies hold
Source
Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin, Nature 315 (1985); UN Secretary-General, SG/SM/12449 (2009); UNEP and WMO, ozone assessment (9 Jan 2023).
A corridor of servers in a data centre

Since 1991

"Just a hobby"

500 of 500

In August 1991 a 21-year-old student, Linus Torvalds, shared the code of a "hobby" operating system so others could use, study and improve it. Since November 2017, Linux has run every one of the world's 500 fastest supercomputers.

Source
TOP500.org list statistics, Nov 2017 – Jun 2026; Torvalds, post to comp.os.minix (25 Aug 1991).
A great library reading room full of people

Since 2001

An encyclopaedia by strangers

68 million+

Articles in 348 languages, written largely by volunteers, and viewed about 508 million times a day over the past decade. Public libraries in the United States alone recorded more than 800 million visits in 2023.

Source
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, "List of Wikipedias" (31 Oct 2026); Pew Research Center, "Wikipedia at 25" (13 Jan 2026); IMLS Public Libraries Survey FY2023.
A farmer harvesting among tall crops

Today

Owned by the people who use them

3 million

more than 12% of humanity

More than 12% of humanity belongs to one of the world's 3 million co-operatives, businesses owned and run by their own members. In Valencia, farmers who share irrigation channels still settle disputes at a public water tribunal every Thursday at noon. Elinor Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for showing how shared resources can be managed by the people who use them.

Source
International Co-operative Alliance, "Facts and figures" (members of several co-operatives may be counted more than once); UNESCO; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (12 Oct 2009).
Workers installing solar panels

2024

The tools exist

91%

91 of every 100 new projects

Of new renewable power projects commissioned in 2024 were cheaper than any new fossil-fuel alternative. AI can find patterns, match people to problems and help coordinate work, while people keep the decisions.

Source
IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, press release (22 July 2025).

From the book · Figure 1.1 · Amul and Operation Flood

India's milk production grew more than tenfold

Million tonnes a year, 1950-51 to 2024-25.

Many things drove this growth. The shading marks when the Anand pattern of village co-operatives was copied across India, not a single cause.

Show the numbers
India, 1950-51 to 2024-25
YearMilk production, million tonnes
1950-5117.0
196020.0
197022.0
198031.6
199053.9
200080.6
2010121.8
2022230.6
2024-25247.9
Sources: Economic Survey 2023-24, Statistical Appendix Table 1.23; NDDB; Press Information Bureau (2024-25). Print version from the book ↗

From the book · Figure 7.2 · Finland's floor and Housing First

Homeless people living alone in Finland, 1986–2025

From the yearly municipal survey. A long fall, part of it from a 2018 change in Helsinki's counting, then two years of rises.

  • 2018: Helsinki specified its counting method, which lowered its count, so earlier and later years are not comparable (shaded).
  • 2024 and 2025: rising again.
Show the numbers
Finland, yearly municipal survey
YearHomeless people living alone
198617,958
198717,110
198816,000
198916,190
199015,250
199114,100
199212,880
199311,670
199410,560
199510,430
19969,610
19979,820
19989,990
19999,990
200010,000
200110,000
20029,560
20038,190
20047,650
20057,430
20067,400
20077,530
20087,960
20098,150
20107,880
20117,572
20127,852
20137,510
20147,107
20156,785
20166,700
20176,615
20184,882
20194,600
20204,341
20213,948
20223,686
20233,429
20243,806
20254,579
Sources: Ara, Homeless people 2023 (Report 2/2024), Appendix 2, for 1986–2023; Ara, Homeless people 2024; Varke, Homeless people 2025. The count includes people staying temporarily with friends or relatives. Print version from the book ↗

People want to solve problems because they are there, often without reward or punishment and sometimes in spite of them. In one study, 22 of 24 infants aged 18 months helped a struggling adult in at least one of ten tasks, though the adult never asked and no one rewarded them; in a later study, toddlers given a material reward for helping were less likely to help again. When disaster strikes, research finds panic rare and helping the norm: people run toward it.

22 of 24 infants helped

None of these needed a revolution. Each is a case of people solving a shared problem together, openly and with evidence. And each is held back in the same ways: it works largely alone, it lacks the tools to connect with the others, and it has to compete inside a system built for other goals. UP names this existing system, connects its parts and gives it the tools to grow.

Sources: Warneken and Tomasello, Science 311 (2006) and Developmental Psychology 44 (2008); Quarantelli, Disaster Research Center (1993).

From the book · Figure 1.5

What UP adds is the connection

The practices stay what they are; UP offers shared tools, records and problems that any of them may choose to use.

With UP: linked to each other

Co-operativeLibraryWikiSchoolCommonsMutualaidTownbudget

Shared tools · open records · a public list of problemsused by choice; no centre, no owner

Schematic. Drawn from UP's agreed position that it names a system people already use, connects its parts and gives it the tools to grow. UP has no central operator, funder or gatekeeper, so the links run between the practices and through shared tools, not through a hub. Print version from the book ↗

Clearing away the labels

What UP is not

People meeting UP for the first time often reach for a familiar label. UP is not any of them, and it is built, openly, on what many traditions got right.

Not communism or a central plan

Because UP talks about meeting everyone's needs, it is easy to mistake for state socialism. But it has no central plan and no state that owns everything. Power is kept spread out, no one is forced to join, and each person controls their own information.

Not abolishing money or government overnight

Money, companies and governments made large-scale cooperation possible and served a great purpose. UP keeps such shared arrangements for as long as they serve people's health, happiness and wellbeing, and replaces them gradually, wherever technology can do their job without obvious downsides.

Not rule by machines or experts

AI coordinates, proposes and does work, but it never governs, and people can always correct it, pause it or switch it off. There are no offices to hold. Where work needs skill, skill is shown by open standards anyone can work toward, and the people a problem affects decide its outcome.

Not a utopia, a revolution or a leader

UP's aim can never be fully reached, though every step toward it counts, and it promises no world without problems. It is never imposed: no one has to join, to work or to give up what is theirs. It has no leader or founder at the top; every part of it can be improved through its own method.

From the book · Figure 3.2 · Freely joined

Three questions to ask of any system

The look-alikes that were put into practice, and what UP's core requires.

Free not to join?Free in the work they do?Free to leave, taking what is theirs?
Soviet collective farms, 1929-33Free not to join?No. No: peasants forced inFree in the work they do?No. No: set to collective workFree to leave, taking what is theirs?No. No: farms taken; no passports for villagers
Peoples Temple at Jonestown, 1977-78Free not to join?Not shown by this evidence. Not shown by the evidence hereFree in the work they do?Not shown by this evidence. Not shown by the evidence hereFree to leave, taking what is theirs?No. No: passports taken, guards posted (sworn account)
The kibbutzFree not to join?Yes. Yes: entrants applied and were screenedFree in the work they do?In part, or with a cost. Work expected; social sanctions for shirkingFree to leave, taking what is theirs?In part, or with a cost. Free to leave, but not with a share of the assets
Twin Oaks, VirginiaFree not to join?Yes. Yes: people join by choiceFree in the work they do?In part, or with a cost. Quota of about 38.5 hours a weekFree to leave, taking what is theirs?In part, or with a cost. Leaving fund; own clothing and personal effects
Markets on their ownFree not to join?Yes. Yes: no one is made to buyFree in the work they do?Yes. Yes: no one is made to take a particular jobFree to leave, taking what is theirs?Yes. Yes, but no floor for those who cannot pay
UP, as its core requiresFree not to join?Yes. Never imposedFree in the work they do?Yes. Labour is never forcedFree to leave, taking what is theirs?Yes. A floor no decision may cross

YesIn part, or with a costNoNot shown by this evidence

Sources: Britannica, "collectivization"; Yeltsin Presidential Library on the passport decree of 27 December 1932; affidavit of Yolanda Crawford, 10 April 1978 (Jonestown Institute); Abramitzky, JEP 2011 and The Mystery of the Kibbutz (2018); Twin Oaks website and policies; UP core, tenets 6 and 10, and UP's agreed position on labour. Details in the chapter notes (Chapter 3). Print version from the book ↗

From the book · Figure 3.1

The shoulders UP stands on

Some of the traditions UP builds on, what each got right, and the part of UP that keeps it.

WhenTradition, and what it got rightWhat UP keeps it as
508 BCEAthenian democracy (Cleisthenes)Equal rights for citizens deciding togetherThose affected decide; one voice per person
1776Markets (Adam Smith)Order from free exchange, without a commandFreely joined: no one forced to join, work or give up what is theirs
1844Co-operatives (the Rochdale Pioneers)Voluntary membership; members' own rulesNever imposed; the right to leave, taking what is theirs
1875Communism (Karl Marx)"To each according to his needs"A floor of basic needs for everyone, with labour never forced
1907Maria MontessoriChildren's own drive to learn and to solve problemsProblems open to anyone who wants to take them up; recognition, never power
1910The kibbutz (Degania)Sharing income and work for generationsPhysical goods shared within the communities that make them (an illustration)
1932TechnocracyCounting energy and materials, not only moneyPhysical accounting sets the planet's limits; people choose inside them
1945Friedrich HayekPrices carry knowledge scattered across millionsAn open record of problems carries the signal; bigger problems draw more effort
1948Universal Declaration of Human RightsRights that belong to every personFloors that no decision may cross
1970Paolo Soleri (Arcosanti)Dense, walkable places joined to ecologyBeautiful commons first, modest private space
1990Elinor OstromUsers governing their own commonsThe people a problem affects decide its outcome; contributions kept visible
1991Linux and open sourceCode that anyone may use, study and improveUP's technology stays in UP, open to all who take part
1994The Venus Project (Jacque Fresco)Needs met without money; machines coordinatingAI coordinates, proposes and does work; it never governs
1995The wiki (Ward Cunningham) and WikipediaAnyone may edit (1995); Wikipedia decides by consensus, not by vote (2001)Anyone may improve a problem, solution or method; the result carries the power
Dates: Britannica (Cleisthenes, 508 BCE); Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776); Rochdale Pioneers Museum (1844); Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875); AMI (1907); Abramitzky (Degania, 1910); Britannica (Committee on Technocracy, 1932); Hayek (1945); United Nations (1948); SAH Archipedia (1970); Nobel committee (Ostrom, 1990); Torvalds (25 Aug 1991); the Venus Project (name from 1994, roots from 1971); Cunningham (1995); Britannica (Wikipedia, 2001). UP's column paraphrases its core and agreed positions (Chapter 3). Print version from the book ↗

Part Two · What is UP?

The core: ten tenets

A few core ideas make chemistry what it is; ten make UP what it is. Below is the core in its settled words. Examples elsewhere are possibilities, not directives: the people who take part decide the rest.

Definition

Universal Pragmatism is a way for people to solve shared problems together, using evidence and technology, for the health, happiness and wellbeing of all living things: open to everyone, correcting itself as it learns, keeping power spread out, and never crossing a small set of floors that protect people and the living world. It takes the way people already build shared knowledge together and extends it to the whole of shared life: meeting needs, making decisions and caring for the living world.

T1The aim: the health, happiness and wellbeing of all living things⌄

UP aims at the health, happiness and wellbeing of all living things. The aim is a chosen direction, not a scientific discovery and not a promise: it can never be fully reached, and every step toward it counts. For people it is measured person by person, not as a total, so no one's wellbeing is traded away to raise an average.

T2The method: shared problem solving with evidence⌄

Everything in UP runs through one method. Problems are named, measured and offered as work to anyone willing to take them on, whether or not they are affected; the people a problem affects decide its outcome. No problem, solution or method belongs to the person who raised it: anyone may update, reframe or improve it. Solutions are proposed with their evidence, tested and compared, and a better idea replaces a worse one. Every claim that guides shared action can be tested and is open to being proved wrong. Work on the roots of problems is worth the most, but a problem can be worked from any angle. Facts are checked, unknowns become shared work, and matters of taste are never made rules for others. Evidence proposes; people decide.

T3Self-correction: nothing is final, including this⌄

Every failure of UP is fed back into it as a new problem to solve, so it keeps improving without revolution. Every part of UP, these tenets included, can be improved through its own method. UP is judged against both today's system and the ideal it aims at: the ideal shows the direction and the gap still to close, and today's record shows whether UP is already doing better. Downsides, risks and fringe problems are named openly and treated as work, never as reasons to keep a status quo that fails so many.

T4Open participation: anyone may take part; those affected decide⌄

Anyone may take part in any problem, and the people it affects decide its outcome. There are no offices to hold: work is shared out, not owned, so no one gathers power by holding a position. Where work needs skill, skill is shown by open, testable standards that anyone can work toward and anyone can propose to change, and education is open to everyone, at every age, so anyone can gain the skills any work requires.

T5Power kept spread out⌄

Concentration of power, in any form (wealth, position, information, access, expertise or machines), is treated as a standing danger. People tend to gather power and to hand it to whoever seems accomplished, and history shows few good endings. Everyone in UP watches for concentrations of power and spreads them out again. The threat is never declared gone; it is watched and answered.

T6Floors that are never crossed⌄

UP keeps a set of floors that no decision may cross: everyone's basic needs and protected freedoms, which no gain for others can buy; the living world's capacity to recover, so damage that cannot be undone is never traded for a short-term need; the right to leave any group or community at any time, taking what is theirs; a truthful shared record, so facts, measures and decisions are never falsified; freedom of the mind, so no one's thinking is manipulated without their knowledge or consent; and a fair hearing, so no one's freedom is restricted without a fair, evidence-based hearing, with the evidence open to them and a way to appeal. UP guarantees needs, not every want. The collective defines and refines the floors through UP's method; it may clarify or raise them, but no decision may lower them or push anyone below them. As a starting example for the collective to refine: needs such as food, water, shelter, health care, education and connection; freedoms such as thought, belief, speech, movement and privacy.

A protected freedom such as movement may be restricted only to protect others or the person, only through an evidence-based court process, for the shortest time needed, and never below the needs floor. The hearing comes first, except briefly, to stop harm in progress, with a hearing promptly after. Leaving a group or community does not end a restriction set by a fair hearing. These limits are an open problem: they are the best that can be imagined now, and UP is built to find better and better solutions. Above the floors, everything is open to the method.

T7Reality over fiction⌄

Decisions rest on real resources, real needs and measured outcomes. Shared fictions (money, corporations, governments, borders) made large-scale cooperation possible and served a great purpose. UP keeps a fiction while it serves health, happiness and wellbeing, and replaces it gradually where technology can do its job without obvious downsides.

T8Open systems, shared knowledge, private persons⌄

The rules, code, records, decisions and reasons of UP are public, so anyone can check them. UP's technology (the knowledge, code, data and designs UP produces) stays only in UP: everyone taking part in UP may use, study and improve it, and no one may enclose it. Each person controls their own information and chooses what to share. Openness helps people find problems, but it will not find all of them, so UP also names the risks that openness alone cannot catch and keeps working on them.

T9Technology serves; people decide⌄

AI and automation coordinate, propose and do work. They never govern: people can always correct, pause or switch them off. No single AI system or operator controls coordination: the AI systems UP uses are open, more than one, checked against each other, and watched for concentrated power like everything else. Because an AI may one day be shown to have experiences of its own, UP studies the question carefully and would extend its aim to any being shown to feel.

T10Freely joined, ethically grown⌄

UP is never imposed. No one is forced to join, to work or to give up what is theirs. It grows by being useful, building on what people already do, and it acts only by ethical means. A means is ethical when it serves the health, happiness and wellbeing of all and crosses none of the floors; UP never starts harm against anyone. What counts as ethical is defined and refined by the collective through UP's method.

Like everything in UP, the core can be improved through UP's own method; the floors may be clarified or raised, never lowered. Whoever defines the idea does not rule over it.

From the book · Figure 7.1

The floors under every decision

Above the floors, UP decides by its method. Below them, no decision may go.

Above the floors: everything is open to UP's method

An evidence-based proposal, published with its data
An open question: does anyone have a better idea?
Redesign or new technology to break any real trade-off
Only as a last resortA vote of those affected, with guards

The floors: no decision may cross them

Needs and protected freedomsno gain for others can buy them
The living world's capacity to recoverdamage that cannot be undone is never traded
The right to leaveany group, at any time, taking what is theirs
A truthful shared recordfacts, measures and decisions never falsified
Freedom of the mindno manipulation without knowledge or consent
A fair hearingevidence open to them and a way to appeal

The collective defines and refines the floors through UP's method: it may clarify or raise them.

No decision may lower them, or push anyone below them.

Any restriction of a protected freedom: only to protect others or the person, only by an evidence-based court process, for the shortest time needed, never below the needs floor. The hearing comes first, except briefly to stop harm in progress, with a hearing promptly after. Leaving does not end a restriction set by a fair hearing. The core marks these limits as an open problem.

The floors under every decision (Chapter 7). Source: UP's core, tenet Floors that are never crossed (as amended 28 October 2026), and UP's agreed decision steps. Print version from the book ↗

The method

How UP decides when people disagree

Some assume "evidence proposes; people decide" means a vote on everything; others that data settles every argument. It means neither. Voting is the last step, a last resort, not a forbidden one.

From the book · Figure 5.1

The decision steps

Voting is the last step, not the first, and every step stays open to a better idea.

  1. 1A problem is named, measured and offered as work

    Anyone may work on it, affected or not; the people it affects decide its outcome.

    1. 2A proposal is published with its data

      Anyone may write the first proposal. It ends with an open question: does anyone have a better idea? People can always add options.

    2. 3Look for a design that meets both goals

      Most conflicts that look like either/or are not. A busy highway through Banff National Park looked like a choice between traffic and wildlife; 44 crossing structures and fencing cut wildlife collisions by more than 80%.wildlife collisions cut by more than 80%

    3. 4A real trade-off remains? Break it if possible

      Try new technology or a new design, and bring in more people. Sometimes the person who breaks a deadlock is someone nobody thought to ask.

    Settled without a voteInput from everyone affected is gathered and considered; judgements rest on facts and evidence. Most decisions in UP are not made by voting. The result is published and stays open to a better idea.

  2. 5Last resortOnly then: a guarded vote of those affected

    Everyone materially affected has a say, including people downstream and future residents, and no vote may override the protected freedoms. A minimum share must take part, a random sample of those who did not is asked to confirm, and a decision made by a narrow group reopens automatically after a set time.

  3. 6The losing side's case is recorded

    Every vote records it, and the decision reopens when new evidence or technology changes the options.

Guards on the steps

  • anyone may write the first proposal; its measures are public
  • a deadline set by urgency
  • all materially affected count; no vote may cross the floors

Guards on a vote

  • a minimum share of those affected
  • a random sample of non-voters confirms
  • who took part, and how typical, published; narrow decisions reopen
One way it could run · an illustration

A town needs more electricity, and the best site for a solar field is a meadow families walk in. Someone posts the proposal with its data and asks for better ideas. One person points to warehouse roofs; another proposes panels mounted high enough for the meadow to stay a meadow underneath; a town downstream points out the drainage would foul its stream. The second idea meets both goals, the third becomes part of the design, and no vote is needed.

How UP decides when people disagree. An outline of the steps and guards, not a procedure: how each step is carried out is open to the collective, and many methods can be tried and compared (Chapter 5). Drawn from UP's agreed positions on how UP decides when people disagree and on who decides. Source for Banff: Parks Canada. Print version from the book ↗

From the book · Chapter 5

Fact, unknown and taste

How UP's agreed position on public discourse sorts what people say, as a starting guide that is itself open to improvement.

Something is said in UP

A claim that can be checked

It is checked, with its sources and confidence shown.

Evidence: after a Community Note was attached, reposts fell by 46% and likes by 44% on average (study of 40,000 posts, 2025).

A claim that cannot yet be settled

It is marked as unknown, and the unknown becomes work for people and AI together: what data or study would settle it. While it is studied, decisions go ahead through the decision steps.

Evidence: the RECOVERY trial announced its dexamethasone result nearly 100 days after its protocol was first drafted.

A matter of taste

It is marked as such and can never be made a rule for others. A community may still choose a colour for its shared hall; it cannot make that choice a rule for anyone's own home or mind.

Belief has a stronger protection still: it is one of the protected freedoms in UP's floors.

Two more duties of UP's AI. It flags true statements combined in a misleading way (paltering). It makes concerns raised by many people visible, so they become problems to measure. It does not rule on everything said.

Fact, unknown and taste: how UP keeps the conversation honest (Chapter 5). Drawn from UP's agreed position on public discourse and the decision steps; evidence from the studies cited in the chapter notes. Print version from the book ↗

Part Three · How could it run?

UP at work: one need, followed through

Take a man who is working, has been offered a job, and has no room. What follows is one way UP could run, built from its tenets and agreed positions. It is not a procedure UP has adopted; the people who take part would shape the details.

From the book · Chapter 13

One need, followed through

UP at work, from start to finish. One way UP could run, built from its tenets and agreed positions; not a procedure UP has adopted, and the collective would shape the details.

  1. The need is named

    He can name it himself; so can a neighbour or a stranger. He does not have to prove he deserves a room: everyone's basic needs are a floor, not a reward, and the floor does not depend on work or conduct. What he shares about himself is his own choice.

  2. The people affected decide how

    He is affected, and so are the people whose space, homes or work the answer would touch. Anyone else may help and bring evidence. Physical accounting checks the answer against real limits of energy, water and materials.

  3. The room comes from what is shared

    Early on, it may be a member's spare room or help to reach the current system's services. Later, homes would come from UP's own production and from buildings whose owners chose to convert them. No one is forced to give up what is theirs.

  4. Everything is on the record

    The decision, its reasons and the evidence are public, and the community publishes the needs it met and what it used. A truthful shared record is a floor, so a need cannot be met on paper and missed in fact.

  5. When it goes wrong, the failure becomes work

    A damp room or an unfair allocation is fed back as a new problem anyone may take up. No one's freedom is restricted without a fair hearing, and he may leave any group, taking what is his.

One need, followed through: UP at work, step by step (Chapter 13). Chapters 14 to 19 follow a task, a learner, an illness, a disagreement, a wind turbine and a harm the same way. Print version from the book ↗

The difference is not that people in UP would care more. It is what the room would rest on: not on paying for it, on keeping a shelter's rules or on a budget the next policy can cut, but on a floor no decision may lower and a record that shows whether the floor was met. Whether UP can meet that floor, for how many people and how soon, has to be shown, and the book sets it out stage by stage.

How UP grows

Beside the current system, stage by stage

UP grows alongside the current system rather than replacing it in one stroke. It is never imposed and never tears the current system down; it grows by being useful.

Shelves of tools in a tool lending library
Today's evidence

Early

A network of people inside the current system. Members keep their jobs and homes, and add things they do together through UP's method: a food co-operative, a tool library, a repair table, an open course. Each is already common somewhere in the world.

A community maker space with machines
Projection

Middle

UP has its own productive base, and most of its members' needs are met from what it produces. A reasoned projection from mechanisms the book cites, labelled as such.

Aerial view of a forest with a path running through it
Projection · modelled

Completed

Most people live mainly within UP. The book labels this stage "modelled": a projection, not a forecast of size or timing.

From the book · Introduction, Figure 3

UP grows beside the current system, stage by stage

A network of people that meets more of its members' needs at each stage. No one is moved before they choose.

current systemToday's evidence

Early

A network of people inside the current system

current systemProjection

Middle

Its own productive base; most members' needs met

current systemProjection (modelled)

Completed

Most people live mainly within UP

a person or group taking part in UPthe current systemdashed outline: a projection

Schematic, not to scale and not a forecast of size or timing: each dot is a person or a group taking part. The early stage rests on today's evidence; the middle and completed stages are projections (drawn with a dashed outline), and the completed stage is modelled. Print version from the book ↗

Who moves: people, not UP

In the reading UP's author has set out, now going through UP's own method, UP's own system does not run on money at any stage. What moves gradually is people. Think of two curves. Inside each life, a person who joins keeps their job, home and bank account; at first UP meets a small part of their needs, then more, and whether they ever stop relying on money is their choice. And in the number of people: each person who finds UP meets their needs better is one more adding to what UP can make and share. Neither curve is pushed. Nobody is moved before they choose.

How quickly UP grows is not anyone's to decide. What matters is that it keeps the quality of its core values and tenets as it grows, so the growth stays healthy, and that the aim is a transition, not a collapse. At every stage UP is held to two standards at once: the ideal it aims at, which shows the direction and the distance still to go, and the record of the current system, which shows whether UP is already doing better.

From the book · Chapter 8

Two curves, neither pushed

In the reading UP's author has set out, now going through UP's method.

1Inside one life Schematic, not data

How a member's needs are met, over the years after joining

through moneymet inside UP joinsyears later

through money: job, shop, bankmet inside UP: food, energy, transport, learning

Keeps their job, home and bank account. Whether they ever stop relying on money is their choice; some keep a foot in both worlds for good.

2The number of people Schematic, not data

Each person who finds UP meets their needs better

people taking part a fewover time

Neighbours see what works and join. As more people in a place move, more of what that place needs can be met inside UP, which makes the next move easier.

UP's own system does not run on money at any stage.No one is moved before they choose; nothing is shut down to hurry them.

Who moves: people, not UP. A schematic, not data: the curves show shape, not amounts or dates. Drawn from Chapter 8, which sets out the reading of UP's author (14 November 2026), labelled as his position until UP's Moderator enters the clarification. Print version from the book ↗

The strongest doubts

Hard questions, honest answers

UP names its downsides, risks and open problems in the open and treats them as work, never as reasons to keep a status quo that fails so many.

Question"If no one has to work, no one will."

It deserves a serious answer: people do respond to incentives.

⌄
  • 7 million+articles in Wikipedia's English edition, written by volunteers
  • 2.1 billionpeople doing volunteer work every month (UN and ILO estimate)
  • 2,500+men's sheds in 12 countries, begun in 1993
  • 128studies in the 1999 review of rewards and interest

In UP no one is forced to work, and neither merit nor a share of necessary work ever decides whose needs are met. The evidence shows that money is not the only reason people work. Wikipedia's English edition alone holds more than seven million articles written by volunteers. The United Nations and the International Labour Organization estimate that about 2.1 billion people do volunteer work every month. The men's shed movement, begun in Goolwa, South Australia, in 1993, grew to more than 2,500 sheds in 12 countries. A 1999 review of 128 studies found that rewards people expect, and that feel like control, weaken the interest they bring to a task themselves.

What UP does not claim: none of that shows that unpaid work would be enough to run a whole society. So a community does not assume it: it publishes a labour budget, the work that needs doing, and asks.

Hands shaping wood at a craft bench
Question"Who will do the work nobody wants?"

Someone has to clean the drains and sit up through the night with the dying.

⌄

Unwanted work is posted and asked for, and any shortfall is met with visibility, recognition, fair rotas and automation. One possible way, offered as such, is a published rota people sign up for. Work that is important but unwanted is a target for automation. Sharing like this has a long record: on the kibbutz, kitchen duty rotated; at Twin Oaks in Virginia, when too few people signed up for dishwashing, the credit it earned was raised until enough did.

In UP a rota is an expectation, not a law, and it never affects whether anyone's needs are met. Whether feedback and support, without penalties, can do the work that sanctions did elsewhere is measured, not assumed. Who does care and unpleasant work, fairly, is named as open work.

Two mechanics repairing a part at a workbench
Question"Won't someone seize power?"

Power gathers in every movement, open ones included.

⌄

UP does not claim to abolish that pull. It removes the office that power usually gathers around, so work is shared out, not held, and skill is shown by open standards. The people a problem affects decide its outcome. Each real person has one voice. Time and money earn recognition, never power. The record of every decision is public, everyone is a watcher, and anyone may leave, taking what is theirs.

The threat is never declared gone; it is watched and answered.

A community meeting with a presenter
Question"Won't the AI end up in charge?"

"Coordination" can sound like rule by machine.

⌄

In UP, AI proposes and people decide. AI and automation coordinate, propose and do work, but they never govern: people can always correct, pause or switch them off, and the AI may not assign work or compel anyone. No single AI system or operator controls coordination; the systems are open, more than one, checked against each other and watched for concentrated power like everything else. Working fallbacks without the AI are kept.

Ask of any system that uses AI or your data: can I see the rules and the reasons? Can a person overrule it? Does it still work if the AI is switched off?

A corridor of servers in a data centre
Question"Isn't this utopian?"

A promise that cannot be kept loses the people it is meant to help.

⌄

UP does not promise a world without problems. What persists is named openly as work, because no system works by magic and suffering continues even while its biggest causes fall. It promises needs, not every want. It does not promise that its machines will be free of error, that openness will catch every abuse, or that power will stop trying to gather; it promises to watch, to make abuse much harder and more visible, and to treat what it finds as work.

And it does not ask to be judged against perfection, but against both the current system and the ideal it aims at, counting wellbeing person by person.

Hands repairing a phone at a repair café

Sources for this section are in the book's Chapters 6, 11 and 14 and the Conclusion: Wikipedia statistics; UN Volunteers and ILO; Australian Men's Shed Association; Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999); Twin Oaks Community.

The book · version one

Universal Pragmatism, in three parts

An Introduction, twenty-four chapters, a Conclusion and the back matter, free to read below. It is a living text: the effort of one independent researcher so far, meant to become a wiki anyone can improve.

The book keeps four kinds of statement apart, so you always know which one you are reading:

What UP is

Its definition and ten core tenets. When the text rests on one, a note names it.

The case, with evidence

Real cases, real numbers, sources you can check. Where an argument reaches beyond today's evidence, it says so.

How UP could run

Illustrations, set apart and marked as one way it could work. Never instructions.

Questions left open

Left on purpose for the people a problem affects to settle together through UP's method.

From the book · Introduction

A map of the book

Three parts, the question each answers, and its chapters.

Introduction first; each chapter ends with a chapter card that sums up its claim, its core lines and its open questions.

Part One

Is this real?

  1. 1It already exists
  2. 2Better than ever, still losing the race
  3. 3What UP is not, and what it builds on

Part Two

What is UP?

  1. 4The aim
  2. 5The method
  3. 6Open to everyone, power spread out
  4. 7The floors
  5. 8Money
  6. 9Government
  7. 10Corporations
  8. 11Open systems; technology serves

Part Three

How could it run, and how do we get there?

  1. 12The scoreboard: twelve failures
  2. 13Meeting needs
  3. 14Work and contribution
  4. 15Learning
  5. 16Health and wellbeing
  6. 17Family, meaning and morality
  7. 18Settlement and the living world
  8. 19Justice, safety, emergencies
  9. 20The shared tools
  10. 21The whole system
  11. 22Who: those affected decide
  12. 23When: the stages and the transition
  13. 24What this book leaves open
  14. CConclusion: an invitation
A map of the book: three parts, the question each answers, and its chapters. Every chapter ends with a card: its claim, a rule of thumb and questions to check yourself. Chapter titles shortened. Print version from the book ↗

Introduction

Why we must get this right

Start here

⌄
  • Intro

    Why We Must Get This Right

    Does this proposal help people solve a shared problem together, openly, without anyone falling below the floor?

Part One

Is this real?

Chapters 1–3

⌄
  • 1

    It Already Exists: The Best of What Civilisation Does

    Before inventing something new, ask where it already works, and in how many other places.

  • 2

    Better Than Ever, and Still Losing the Race

    Ask three questions of any problem: is it getting better, is it getting better fast enough, and who gains if it stays?

  • 3

    What UP Is Not, and What It Builds On

    Ask of any tradition, and of UP: What did it get right? What harm did it do? Can I say no, leave taking what is mine, see every decision and its reasons, and change the rules?

Part Two

What is UP?

Chapters 4–11

⌄
  • 4

    The Aim: Health, Happiness and Wellbeing for All Living Things

    Ask of any measure: whose health, happiness and wellbeing does it count, whom does it leave out, and what happens when it becomes the goal?

  • 5

    The Method: Solving Shared Problems with Evidence

    Before anyone votes, ask: Is the proposal public, with its data? Has anyone found a design that meets both goals? Who is affected, and were they asked? Is this a fact, an unknown or a matter of taste?

  • 6

    Open to Everyone, Power Kept Spread Out

    Ask of any shared work: Who is doing it, within what scope and for how long? Who can see what they did? How could they be replaced? And who is affected, and so decides?

  • 7

    The Floors No Decision May Cross

    Before any decision, ask: does it push anyone below a floor, or trade away something that can never be restored? If so, look for another way.

  • 8

    Money: Why Its Jobs Can Be Done Without It, and How People Move Off It

    For any job money does in your life, ask: what is it standing in for, can that now be known or done directly, what does the evidence show, and would you choose to rely on the new way?

  • 9

    Government: Why Its Jobs Can Be Done by People Deciding Together, and How People Move Off It

    For any job government does in your life, ask: who is it standing in for, could the people affected now do it themselves, with evidence and under the floors, what does the evidence show, and would you choose to rely on the new way?

  • 10

    Corporations: Why Their Jobs Can Be Done Without Them, and How People Move Off Them

    For anything you get from a company, or do for one, ask: which of the six jobs is the company doing here, what does that job stand in for, is anything already doing it in the open without an owner, what does the evidence show, and would you choose to rely on it?

  • 11

    Open Systems, Private Persons; Technology Serves, People Decide

    Ask of any system that uses AI or your data: Can I see the rules and the reasons? Can a person overrule it? Does it still work if the AI is switched off? Who controls my data, and does anything about me leave it without my permission?

Part Three

How could it run, and how do we get there?

Chapters 12–24 and the Conclusion

⌄
  • 12

    The Scoreboard: Twelve Failures and Where Each Is Answered

    For any failure, ask: what is the measure, which way is it moving, who is working on it, and is a stand-in for the real world part of the cause?

  • 13

    Meeting Needs: Abundance Shown in the Open

    Is this a need or a want, is the scarcity physical, positional or made, and which job of a price is being replaced?

  • 14

    Work and Contribution: Asked For, Shared and Never Forced

    Is the work asked for, shared and visible, never forced, and is survival kept out of it?

  • 15

    Learning, Open to Everyone

    Does it teach, or does it do the work for the learner, and does it count what a person can do or only what they hold?

  • 16

    Health and Wellbeing

    Does the medicine reach the person who needs it, and is the condition behind the illness being met too?

  • 17

    Family, Meaning and Morality: Matters of Taste Are Never Rules

    Is this a matter of taste? Then it is never a rule for others.

  • 18

    Settlement and the Living World

    Can the damage be undone? If not, it is never traded. And does the decision count the real cost, or only the price?

  • 19

    Justice, Safety and Emergencies

    Is it open, evidence-based, and aimed at repair?

  • 20

    The Shared Tools: Information, Data and AI

    Can anyone check it, can anyone leave it, and does it still work if the AI is switched off?

  • 21

    The Whole System: Why the Parts Compound

    Ask of any proposal: Which other parts does it need, and which does it feed? What still works if it arrives late? Does it bring the decision closer to real resources and real needs?

  • 22

    Who: Everyone, and Those Affected Decide

    Who does this affect, and were they asked?

  • 23

    When: The Stages and the Transition

    Does this step keep the core intact while it grows?

  • 24

    What This Book Leaves Open, and How to Improve It

    Can it be tested? Then propose it.

  • End

    An Invitation

    The invitation: test it, improve it, try it.

Read the whole book

Universal Pragmatism, version one: the working manuscript as revised on 15 November 2026, in three parts, with every figure and footnote. 636 pages.

A working manuscript: the Introduction and Chapters 1 to 7 have been approved by the author; the later chapters are drafts still under his review, and corrections are being made. If you find an error, a weak argument or a better source, say so through Get involved.

If you have ten minutes, the rules of thumb above are the shortest way through the book.

Start today

It can begin with you, today

UP's early stage is not something to wait for. It begins wherever a few people take up a shared problem together through UP's method.

There is no fee to join and no office to hold. Work in UP is shared out, not owned, and every kind of work is open to everyone. No one is forced to join, to work or to give up what is theirs, and anyone may leave at any time, taking what is theirs.

  1. Read the coreRead the core of UP so that you know exactly what you are joining and what you are not.
  2. Choose "Get involved" and joinSay what you are good at and what you would like to help with. You do not need a qualification to begin. If you are not sure yet, say so, and change your answer whenever you like. You decide what information you give and how it is used.
  3. Take a first taskChecking a source in the book, mapping what your neighbourhood already shares, helping to set up a tool library, a repair table, a food co-operative or an open course, or teaching what you know. Pick one small task you can finish.
  4. Name a problem near youSomewhere close by there is a shared problem that nobody's department owns. Describe it, measure it if you can, and offer it as work. The people a problem affects decide its outcome, and anyone can help to solve it.
  5. Improve the textIf you find an error, a weak argument, a better source or a danger no one has named, propose the change. Finding and fixing it is UP working as intended.

Ask UP

Ask anything

Ask any question about what UP is, how it decides, how it could run, or what it does not claim.

Ask UP answers from version one of the book and names the chapters it draws on. It can still make mistakes: the book is the reference.

Suggested questions

Background