Reflections on exercise 2

1. How hard was it to identify problems? Identifying problems was pretty easy, and I did cheat because I interviewed somebody in the field of TV before doing the exercise. I got ahead of myself in the process, so I didn't quite nail it, but still it was a valuable conversation. (Defining the fields themselves was a little tricky, because they aren't professions or clearly defined areas of focus, I think I'll need some more practice to do that better, but doing it this time was a good learning experience. It's awkward that I ended up with three fields, but I didn't know how to simplify it anymore than that)
2. Was it easy or hard to see them from the perspective of the people they affect? It was pretty easy to see something from their perspective.  I've had a lot of pains that they've suffered. I've kind of been in all three fields in some way.
3. dI'd it get easier with practice?It got easier as I practiced it, but also get harder to think of more problems. Once I exhausted the first obvious ones.
4. Do you think your problems and solutions have much chance to become viable projects? I have a strong sense that there's something in the core of my idea that is really powerful, and I can't be the only one who feels this way. I also doubt that it's really close to being viable; maybe because I'm so used to people, not listening to me, and there's a strong belief that people never will, or that my ideas are too far outside the box. Or that I'm just not that interested in listening to people, and more anxious to grab the microphone myself. But I feel a solid sense of being closer than before I started this process. It really does energize me.  
5. other reflections:I did manipulate the fields and the problems a little bit too orient toward the solution. I want to bring into the world. But on the other hand, I sense that some of the thinking behind the solution that had already come to mind how to deal with recognizing common pain points. And also it's based on an idea that it is very clearly laid out with lots of reasons for it, it's not my own idea so it's informed by a broader intelligence.
6. Some of the problems I described a little two verbosely, and I tried to make it more succinct, but I couldn't really see a place to cut out more.  Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler; some of these things are a nuanced matter.
7. I think I left out a step of explanation: the reason that an intentional community can be a field in which over population is addressed is that there is feedback when a new body is brought into the community. For better for worse, the community has to handle it in someway. They can't simply ignore it. A new baby born in a community of 100 people affect that whole community. The only place I've ever seen anyone address child conception as a collective decision is at Twin oaks, the income sharing community, where you do need the consent of all hundred people before you give birth.  So by extension, all of the problems of over population can be said to be problems of intentional community in some sense, it's just put under a magnifying glass.  On the other hand, I know that there are other solutions that have been created, for better for worse , outside of intentional communities: the "one-child" policy, Thailand's fun-based population, balancing campaigns, often times education is touted as a way of reducing birth rates in developing countries (do I have some skepticism about how sustainable that really is, who is defining "education" here?), and of course, forced to start elations and those other horrors .  But the fact is, it's such a huge field that it makes sense to pick a subfield within it.  I do feel like I'm reading things a little bit, but I'm open to interviewing people in the "field" of over population.  On the other hand, I don't really think there are any real experts at balancing population: there can be experts at identifying the problem, but I don't know anyone who has success with tackled it. If they had, I wouldn't be doing this initiative in the first place, because I wouldn't need to."