Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/681523ee-5b68-8005-a71c-649a08051a88
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Assistant: Yes β factoring in your critique and the new insights, it does justify adjusting the ranking, especially regarding the β¦ === Yes β factoring in your critique and the new insights, it does justify adjusting the ranking, especially regarding the BahΓ‘'Γ Faith, RBE, and tech-agnostic, scalable systems like your Conceivia model. Hereβs the revised list with a short rationale for each shift: ==== Score: 9.5/10 β Stays at #1 ==== β Testable, scalable, tech-agnostic β Built on both structural and ethical principles β Offers a real plan for transition without mass harm : ==== Score: 8.5/10 β Stays ==== β Real-world viability, increasingly adopted β Low risk, adaptable β Doesnβt replace global systemsβsupplements them : ==== Score: 7.5/10 β Slight bump to 8.0 ==== β Real policy tools β Businesses and communities are adopting it β Still within money-driven structures : ==== Score: 5.5/10 β Now 7/10 ==== β Now recognized as distinct from communes β Addresses structural economic causes β Lacks implementation path and fallback mechanisms : ==== Score: 7/10 β Drops to 6.5 ==== β Proven at small scale β Limited scalability and cultural retention : ==== Score: 6 β Drops to 5.5 ==== β Long track record of humanitarian effort β No clear strategy for replacing economic injustice β Impact likely comparable to other values-driven groups : ==== Score: 6.5 β Stays ==== β Policy-based, measurable β Relies heavily on political cooperation : ==== Score: 4 β Drops to 3.5 ==== β Extremely limited in systemic reform : ==== Score: 4.5 β Drops to 3.5 ==== β High dependency on ideology β No structural solutions : ==== Score: 3.5 β Stays ==== β Good for personal transformation β Lacks evidence of large-scale societal change : ==== Score: 2 β Still last ==== β Not testable or democratic β High failure risk with zero fallback : ==== | | | | ==== | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Would you like this turned into a shareable chart or infographic to help present your own system alongside the others?
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)