Authority and Evolution

[Technocrat]

This is going in Sciences and Environment because this argument is based on evolution theory, not any philosophy or political ideal.


why would it be "one person's" or "a few individuals?" why can't a community determine their own forms of design, aesthetic and space management together?


(emphasis added) "Goals (or ideals) are not produced by a consensus of the governed, rather a qualified authority determines goals. For example, physical goals for sustainable development must come from "scientific" authority – because no one else knows what they must be. All contemporary political systems are "authoritarian" with the moneyed class ruling the pseudo democracies."

Why didn't the Founding Fathers choose democracy? Because they knew it was inherently unstable. Modern evolutionary scientists can now explain why democracy is unstable: Natural selection and genetic development created a human tendency for dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience, as opposed to equality and democracy. As one political scientist recently put it:

[ Evolutionary scientists ] Somit and Peterson provide an informative account of the evolutionary basis for our historical (and current) opposition to democracy. For many, this will be an unwelcome message – like being told that one’s fly is unzipped. But after a brief bout of anger, we tend to thank the messenger for sparing us further embarrassment. [17]"

(http://dieoff.org/page168.htm)Many people here seem to have a background primarily in social sciences. That's fine, but if your theory ignores evolution theory or biology, then it's worthless. Much progress has been made in recent years in reconciling the social sciences with findings from biology and evolution theory. If you are ignorant of these developments, then you have some learning to do.

Now, it should be noted that nothing in the above is inherently in conflict with Marxism. Everyone should be given equal access to the resources needed to become an 'expert', but this doesn't mean that every person will be an expert in every field - such is an impossibility.

:: proceeds to open can of worms::

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Many people here seem to have a background primarily in social sciences. That's fine, but if your theory ignores evolution theory or biology, then it's worthless.

Some people here do ignore biology or cringe at the notion that it can contribute to a better understanding of how human society functions, but that's probably because social biologists(evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists) frequently tend to make sweeping claims about human behavior with seemingly no humility about the stength of their convictions and sometimes even ignoring evidence from the other social sciences.
For example, there's much evidence found in the field of anthropology that runs contrary to the claim that an "authoritarian elite" that makes all the important decisions is present in all of today's human socieites.

Now I'm not saying an evolutionary perspective is completely without merit like many leftists tend to believe here, but it still needs to be informed by other disciplines like sociology since human behavior is not very simple to understand and the biological reductionism that you seem to be advocating is fruitless and not worth basing public policy on.


Everyone should be given equal access to the resources needed to become an 'expert', but this doesn't mean that every person will be an expert in every field - such is an impossibility.


I think you're setting up a strawman here. Bcbm didn't say anything like that in the post you quoted and I think you would be hard pressed to find many here who adhere to such a inane belief about how a socialist society would work.

[Glenn Beck]

Many people here seem to have a background primarily in social sciences. That's fine, but if your theory ignores evolution theory or biology, then it's worthless. Much progress has been made in recent years in reconciling the social sciences with findings from biology and evolution theory. If you are ignorant of these developments, then you have some learning to do.

Oh please do tell us about these "developments" that it would be folly to ignore. Scientific progress doesn't consist of the vast proliferation of hypotheses that can't fail to attract sensationalistic media attention due to their controversial nature. Sociobiology has generated little to nothing outside of this, but credulous folks like you who fancy themselves experts from voraciously consuming popular science publications presumably can't tell the difference between a cute story about why a certain trait might have evolved given certain assumptions and a well supported theory.

You might be able to make a rather credible evolutionary argument for why we typically don't prefer to eat foods that are certain colors or whatever, but when you get into phenomena like "democracy" which are 1. subject to vague and contested definitions, 2. higher order social phenomena with a myriad of well established non-biological variables, 3. high-stakes, controversial social and political questions with a long history of dishonest appropriation of scientific authority by certain elements to further political agendas; expect to bring along some strong evidence if you want to be taken seriously. The arrogant and authoritative posture you've been taking comes across as comically tone-deaf given the weakness of your position.

[khad]

Many people here seem to have a background primarily in social sciences. That's fine, but if your theory ignores evolution theory or biology, then it's worthless. Much progress has been made in recent years in reconciling the social sciences with findings from biology and evolution theory. If you are ignorant of these developments, then you have some learning to do.
Sociobiology was a hot topic of debate in science studies in the 80s and 90s, and since then it's been more or less discredited for its reactionary nature, since it positioned itself as the new race science. Your "progress in recent years" is already passé, not to mention crypto-fascist.

Even the technocrats on this site generally agree that the technocratic core literature carries too much baggage from outdated scientific paradigms.

[¿Que?]

Theories are all fine and dandy, but eventually you'll have to back it up with some form of data. Saying that human beings have a tendency towards obedience seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. You might point to the Milgram experiment, but that only shows it to be true under certain conditions (for example, where authority is present and the individual lacks expertise). I think for example, that if the individual does not lack expertise, you will have a tendency towards power struggles rather than obedience.

I don't mean to get postmodern, but a bit of context is necessary in cases like this. If genetics and evolution are to explain human behavior, then you have to say specifically what behavior it is trying to explain. To say that it explains dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience is perfectly OK, but don't pretend that that's all that human behavior amounts to.

Remember, Marx for the most part rejected any notion of a fixed and rigid human nature. From your perspective, that is, by saying the aforementioned qualities of human behavior are genetically or evolutionarily determined, is giving them a sort of concreteness that neither exists nor is very Marxist.

[Technocrat]

Some people here do ignore biology or cringe at the notion that it can contribute to a better understanding of how human society functions, but that's probably because social biologists(evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists) frequently tend to make sweeping claims about human behavior with seemingly no humility about the stength of their convictions and sometimes even ignoring evidence from the other social sciences.

Yes, agreed.


For example, there's much evidence found in the field of anthropology that runs contrary to the claim that an "authoritarian elite" that makes all the important decisions is present in all of today's human socieites.Yes, agreed - I wasn't arguing that such was the case, nor does the quote.


Now I'm not saying an evolutionary perspective is completely without merit like many leftists tend to believe here, but it still needs to be informed by other disciplines like sociologyI agree with this - sociology is integrated into my thesis.


since human behavior is not very simple to understand and the biological reductionism that you seem to be advocating is fruitless and not worth basing public policy on. I don't advocate 'biological reductionism' - this is a straw man, though you obviously aren't the only one here guilty of it.


I think you're setting up a strawman here. Bcbm didn't say anything like that in the post you quoted and I think you would be hard pressed to find many here who adhere to such a inane belief about how a socialist society would work.This part wasn't a response to bcbm specifically, it was a qualification of a previous statement in that same post.

[Technocrat]

Sociobiology was a hot topic of debate in science studies in the 80s and 90s, and since then it's been more or less discredited for its reactionary nature, since it positioned itself as the new race science. Your "progress in recent years" is already passé, not to mention crypto-fascist.

Even the technocrats on this site generally agree that the technocratic core literature carries too much baggage from outdated scientific paradigms.

I'm talking about evolution theory, not sociobiology.

I don't think anything in the core literature has necessarily been falsified by more recent theories, but I do think that more recent theories do a better job of explaining things. So yeah, the literature could definitely be updated.

[Technocrat]

I don't mean to get postmodern, but a bit of context is necessary in cases like this. If genetics and evolution are to explain human behavior, then you have to say specifically what behavior it is trying to explain. To say that it explains dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience is perfectly OK, but don't pretend that that's all that human behavior amounts to.

I didn't say that was all human behavior amounted to.


Remember, Marx for the most part rejected any notion of a fixed and rigid human nature. From your perspective, that is, by saying the aforementioned qualities of human behavior are genetically or evolutionarily determined, is giving them a sort of concreteness that neither exists nor is very Marxist.

That can be a problem with Marxism and other social sciences - a tendency to ignore biology/evolution theory.

[Technocrat]

Oh please do tell us about these "developments" that it would be folly to ignore. Scientific progress doesn't consist of the vast proliferation of hypotheses that can't fail to attract sensationalistic media attention due to their controversial nature. Sociobiology has generated little to nothing outside of this, but credulous folks like you who fancy themselves experts from voraciously consuming popular science publications presumably can't tell the difference between a cute story about why a certain trait might have evolved given certain assumptions and a well supported theory.

You might be able to make a rather credible evolutionary argument for why we typically don't prefer to eat foods that are certain colors or whatever, but when you get into phenomena like "democracy" which are 1. subject to vague and contested definitions, 2. higher order social phenomena with a myriad of well established non-biological variables, 3. high-stakes, controversial social and political questions with a long history of dishonest appropriation of scientific authority by certain elements to further political agendas; expect to bring along some strong evidence if you want to be taken seriously. The arrogant and authoritative posture you've been taking comes across as comically tone-deaf given the weakness of your position.

My brevity is not due to a lack of knowledge or evidence, I can provide you with ample evidence if you want it. The problem is that many people don't read anything longer than a couple paragraphs, and then accuse you of being too wordy. Then if you try to be brief, they accuse you of not having evidence.

If you want me to provide evidence, you need to state a specific claim (that I made) that you wish to see evidence for.

Your tone seems to me to be reactionary and hostile. I'm willing to engage in scientific debate, but not a battle of egos.

[Dimentio]

The technocratic core literature from Technocracy Incorporated, namely the TSC, is not based on biological determinism, but rather on vulgar cartesianism, an extreme form of behaviourism which both EOS and also Technocrat here is seeing as outdated, though both Technocrat and another person with the name of Technatezin are prone to draw far-reaching conclusions about human nature.

Humans are primarily adapted - in a biological sense - to live in small hunter-gatherer communities and cooperate in small groups. The establishment of class society could perhaps be explained by the establishment of more and more complex social organisms which tied together larger groups of people, where the logic of the small group - to which the human is instinctively "programmed" to co-exist cannot work any more.

[Technocrat]

The technocratic core literature from Technocracy Incorporated, namely the TSC, is not based on biological determinism, but rather on vulgar cartesianism, an extreme form of behaviourism which both EOS and also Technocrat here is seeing as outdated, though both Technocrat and another person with the name of Technatezin are prone to draw far-reaching conclusions about human nature.

Well, doesn't Marxism make far-reaching conclusions about human nature?

Marxism says everything is determined by material conditions (nurture).

Biological determinism says everything is determined by one's genes (nature).

The reality is somewhere in between, which is what I've been trying to argue.


Humans are primarily adapted - in a biological sense - to live in small hunter-gatherer communities and cooperate in small groups. The establishment of class society could perhaps be explained by the establishment of more and more complex social organisms which tied together larger groups of people, where the logic of the small group - to which the human is instinctively "programmed" to co-exist cannot work any more.Yes, this is something I've studied. That's why I suggest that the closest thing to a natural system of organization among humans is a "hierarchy based on egalitarianism and cooperation, not dominance". A hierarchy is present, but one's position within it isn't determined by their ability to dominate another, it's determined by the rest of the group recognizing the person's position as valid - which could only be the case so long as the individual isn't corrupt (ie acting purely out of self-interest). This type of organization is present among hunter gatherers and primate groups, suggesting it may be hard-wired. If anything this lends additional support to the left; it means that a society based on domination is not natural.

[Dimentio]

Well, doesn't Marxism make far-reaching conclusions about human nature?

Marxism says everything is determined by material conditions (nurture).

Biological determinism says everything is determined by one's genes (nature).

The reality is somewhere in between, which is what I've been trying to argue.

Yes, this is something I've studied. That's why I suggest that the closest thing to a natural system of organization among humans is a "hierarchy based on egalitarianism and cooperation, not dominance". A hierarchy is present, but one's position within it isn't determined by their ability to dominate another, it's determined by the rest of the group recognizing the person's position as valid - which could only be the case so long as the individual isn't corrupt (ie acting purely out of self-interest). This type of organization is present among hunter gatherers and primate groups, suggesting it may be hard-wired. If anything this lends additional support to the left; it means that a society based on domination is not natural.

Actually, Technocracy Incorporated claimed/claims everything is based upon conditioning, which is an extreme variation of the blank slate argument and one which BF Skinner built his behaviourism on.

Hierarchies between individuals tend to emerge socially, but I think that professionally, what should determine the direction of a group should be goals and not individuals. I cannot really understand or appreciate your fixation on the idea that someone always have to be this captain-figure.

[Technocrat]

Actually, Technocracy Incorporated claimed/claims everything is based upon conditioning, which is an extreme variation of the blank slate argument and one which BF Skinner built his behaviourism on.

I think you're mistaken. In the Study Course, they plainly talk about how the "glands and secretions" (they were using 1930s language, remember) played a role in human behavior, and how it was the environment that effected how these glands would respond. So they did acknowledge that there is an inborn "nature", but they suggested that it was primarily the environment which determines human behavior, a view which continues to hold to this day.

What I'm arguing is that both Materialism and Biological Determinism are incomplete theories. Both nature and nurture play a role.


Hierarchies between individuals tend to emerge socially, but I think that professionally, what should determine the direction of a group should be goals and not individuals. I cannot really understand or appreciate your fixation on the idea that someone always have to be this captain-figure.In order for this system to work you have to remove the distinction between 'social' and 'professional' - that's the only way peer accountability would check corruption.

I agree that the goals should determine the direction of the group - I'm not advocating that there should be a "captain figure", but I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing in all circumstances: if someone wanted to learn more/work harder than someone else, they should be given a position commensurate with their abilities, so that they can actually make use of those abilities. This is ignoring the question, though: who determines the goals of the group? I'm saying it should ideally be those with the ability to make such decisions, assuming that not everyone will have the ability to make such decisions. This is a fair assumption because the amount of knowledge required to run a modern society is such that it would be impossible for a single individual to be an expert in all fields, much less all people. For example, to determine "sustainability goals" would require experts in the field of sustainability. How else are you going to determine "sustainability goals"? By "sustainability goals" I mean actual goals that would contribute to sustainability, not ideas that people have about sustainability.

[¿Que?]

I didn't say that was all human behavior amounted to.
the quote I made reference to does suggest that those types of behaviors predominate. That is the whole rationale for the instability of Democracy, no? That's why I suggested a contextual approach. Maybe we can explain the instability of Democracy with these theories, but can we explain Democracy itself?



That can be a problem with Marxism and other social sciences - a tendency to ignore biology/evolution theory.
Yes, but you said yourself there was no inherent conflict with Marxism. I beg to differ.

That's not to say the conflict cannot be resolved, though.

[Technocrat]

the quote I made reference to does suggest that those types of behaviors predominate. That is the whole rationale for the instability of Democracy, no? That's why I suggested a contextual approach. Maybe we can explain the instability of Democracy with these theories, but can we explain Democracy itself?

Which theory? What definition of democracy are you using?

All modern democracies are covert oligarchies where the moneyed class manipulates public opinion to manufacture "consent of the governed". Consent of the governed is an idea that doesn't exist and can't exist because it makes the same mistake that market economics makes: assuming rational actors acting with perfect information - the 'rational man' hypothesis. This is no coincidence; our economic system is really a covert political system meant to legitimize the unequal distribution of resources.


Yes, but you said yourself there was no inherent conflict with Marxism. I beg to differ.

That's not to say the conflict cannot be resolved, though.I think the two can be reconciled.

[bcbm]

so aesthetics are a realm of "scientific authority" now?

[Technocrat]

so aesthetics are a realm of "scientific authority" now?

No, but sustainable urban design is.

[bcbm]

No, but sustainable urban design is.

and somehow evolution makes it impossible for the sustainable urban designers and the community that will live in what they are designing to communicate with each other and work together to create something interesting and unique?

[Technocrat]

and somehow evolution makes it impossible for the sustainable urban designers and the community that will live in what they are designing to communicate with each other and work together to create something interesting and unique?

Why do the urban designers need to communicate with the community they are living in? Have you not been paying attention? Corruption wouldn't be possible under the system I've described, it would be automatically checked through peer accountability. Since the urban designers are the only ones who know anything about urban design, why should anyone else except they have a say in urban design? They are the only ones who have the knowledge required to make such decisions. This is the essence of 'worker's self-management': no one would make decisions except those with the technical knowledge relevant to such decisions, thus each group of workers would decide for themselves how to manage production, with production goals determined by the common interest.

Your alternative is really a covert authoritarian system:


All modern democracies are covert oligarchies where the moneyed class manipulates public opinion to manufacture "consent of the governed". Consent of the governed is an idea that doesn't exist and can't exist because it makes the same mistake that market economics makes: assuming rational actors acting with perfect information - the 'rational man' hypothesis. This is no coincidence; our economic system is really a covert political system meant to legitimize the unequal distribution of resources.

What this means is that in a democracy, special interest groups determine the goals by manufacturing consent. This means that whichever special interest group is the most adept at emotional manipulation will get to determine policy. Real 'consent of the governed' can never exist because of this; you will never have perfect actors acting with perfect information ('rational man' is false).

Need I remind you, there is only one ideal solution to a given problem using the scientific method.

The goal is to provide goods and services with the least possible input of human labor, extraneous energy, and raw materials. So if you made 100 urban designs for a community, and compared them, there would only be one design that used the least amount of human labor, energy, and materials, among all of the designs, to achieve the specifications that have been laid out.

This isn't that complicated.

[bcbm]

Why do the urban designers need to communicate with the community they are living in?

because other people will be living in the same community and may wish to have input on the aesthetics of the structures.


Have you not been paying attention?

you're an arrogant shit.


Corruption wouldn't be possible under the system I've described, it would be automatically checked through peer accountability.

whereas allowing other people to contribute to larger projects that will affect them would be one step away from fascism.


Since the urban designers are the only ones who know anything about urban design, why should anyone else except they have a say in urban design?

because other people will be living in what they design and may not find "rectangle of ugly concrete slabs" especially appealing.


Your alternative is really a covert authoritarian system

my alternative is modern democracy?


Need I remind you, there is only one ideal solution to a given problem using the scientific method.

how deterministic.
The goal is to provide goods and services with the least possible input of human labor, extraneous energy, and raw materials. So if you made 100 urban designs for a community, and compared them, there would only be one design that used the least amount of human labor, energy, and materials, among all of the designs, to achieve the specifications that have been laid out.

This isn't that complicated.

except that humans tend to value things like aesthetics which are completely subjective in addition to efficiency, and i see no reason why designers and community members can't communicate with each other and come up with unique designs and solutions, rather than shitting out identical concrete slabs everywhere.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

bcbm, the "ugly concrete slabs" strawman has already been slapped down:


Dimentio, did you not read my reply to bcbm? I said that the towers could be architecturally varied if desired. The important thing is the location of activity nodes and the distance of their connections. The model is simply showing the overall layout - the relationship between parts. The blocks themselves could be varied to suit the local geography, resulting in an 'organic' appearance.

This means that there is a huge potential for variation in the look and styling of the proposal, because the considerations essential to the design relate to distance and location, not aesthetics.

[Technocrat]

because other people will be living in the same community and may wish to have input on the aesthetics of the structures.

If you drafted 100 plans for housing the community there would be one plan that was most efficient in terms of resources, energy, and labor. Aesthetics can be part of this but ultimately the decision is determined by the functional requirements (specifications) of the building. This is a technical decision.


you're an arrogant shit.You're an ignorant shit.


whereas allowing other people to contribute to larger projects that will affect them would be one step away from fascism.It would be unfair and authoritarian because you would have people other than the workers involved with a particular project deciding how the project should be done. Yeah, special interest control of the workers is basically the essence of authoritarianism in case you haven't figured that out.


because other people will be living in what they design and may not find "rectangle of ugly concrete slabs" especially appealing.See Noxion's reply to this.


my alternative is modern democracy?Your alternative is "democracy". There is no difference between what you propose and modern democracy. As I said, the two theories (capitalism and democracy) go hand in hand - they rely on the same basic assumptions of human behavior that have been proven false (the rational man hypothesis). This is something you've failed to address.


how deterministic.Are you completely ignorant? If you had 100 plans for achieving a given set of specifications, there would be one plan that was most efficient in terms of its use of energy, materials, and human labor.


except that humans tend to value things like aesthetics which are completely subjective in addition to efficiency, and i see no reason why designers and community members can't communicate with each other and come up with unique designs and solutions, rather than shitting out identical concrete slabs everywhere.Yeah, this 'identical concrete slab' bit has already been addressed. You just haven't been paying attention. Like I said earlier, your criticism has more to do with your personal vendetta against me than anything else. I'm interested in figuring out truth, not a battle of egos. I tried to make peace with you earlier and you refused it; if anything, you are the one who is displaying arrogance.

[bcbm]

If you drafted 100 plans for housing the community there would be one plan that was most efficient in terms of resources, energy, and labor. Aesthetics can be part of this but ultimately the decision is determined by the functional requirements (specifications) of the building. This is a technical decision.

there is no way to create different designs that have equal or negligibly different efficiency?


You're an ignorant shit.

nah.


It would be unfair and authoritarian because you would have people other than the workers involved with a particular project deciding how the project should be done. Yeah, special interest control of the workers is basically the essence of authoritarianism in case you haven't figured that out.

i think "living in the structure created" qualifies you as "involved with a particular project." and i'm not suggesting they be given total control, i am saying that they and the design team can communicate with each other and figure out designs that everyone can agree on.


Your alternative is "democracy".

based on...?


There is no difference between what you propose and modern democracy. As I said, the two theories (capitalism and democracy) go hand in hand - they rely on the same basic assumptions of human behavior that have been proven false (the rational man hypothesis). This is something you've failed to address.

i believe people can communicate with each other and solve problems, technical or aesthetic. there is nothing i need to address.


Are you completely ignorant? If you had 100 plans for achieving a given set of specifications, there would be one plan that was most efficient in terms of its use of energy, materials, and human labor.

you're assuming there are only one hundred possible plans and that one functioning design can only be expressed in one way. neither are true.


Yeah, this 'identical concrete slab' bit has already been addressed. You just haven't been paying attention. Like I said earlier, your criticism has more to do with your personal vendetta against me than anything else. I'm interested in figuring out truth, not a battle of egos. I tried to make peace with you earlier and you refused it; if anything, you are the one who is displaying arrogance.

personal vendetta? for what? i don't give a shit about you. i'm interested in creating a society that can be both efficient and sustainable as well as satisfy or allow room for creative and aesthetic expression. i don't see anything standing in the way of that besides your asinine insistence on designers being unable to communicate with the people who will live in what they are designing, because somehow this is "authoritarian."

[Technocrat]

there is no way to create different designs that have equal or negligibly different efficiency?

Aesthetic considerations would not trump more practical concerns (like providing cost effective and comfortable housing). This doesn't mean that aesthetics are excluded, just that any aesthetic considerations have to be weighed against functional concerns - which means that it would have to be analyzed by the people who actually knew what those functional concerns were. Ornamentation tends to increase building costs, but the architects would know how to make a building interesting without increasing its cost. The average Joe doesn't know this.


i think "living in the structure created" qualifies you as "involved with a particular project." and i'm not suggesting they be given total control, i am saying that they and the design team can communicate with each other and figure out designs that everyone can agree on.That's a poor argument, because then you could make the argument that consuming anything "involves" you with the production of it (which is false). The architects and engineers of the building would determine the "aesthetics" of it because they are the ones who are building it. Communities could choose from the plans the architects/engineers drafted, but the plans would still come from the architects/engineers.


based on...?the following:


i believe people can communicate with each other and solve problems, technical or aesthetic. there is nothing i need to address.This is evasive. How do you determine sustainability goals? With experts? Or consent of the governed?


you're assuming there are only one hundred possible plans and that one functioning design can only be expressed in one way. neither are true.No, I'm not suggesting that there are only one hundred possible plans. I'm suggesting that of the plans that are available, there will be one that is ideal in terms of cost (for fulfilling the same requirements). There could be 100 plans, 10,000 plans, or 10 plans, and this would still be true.


personal vendetta? for what? i don't give a shit about you. i'm interested in creating a society that can be both efficient and sustainable as well as satisfy or allow room for creative and aesthetic expression. i don't see anything standing in the way of that besides your asinine insistence on designers being unable to communicate with the people who will live in what they are designing, because somehow this is "authoritarian."I already addressed this: the plans would ultimately come from the architects and engineers responsible for building the structures. If they somehow came up with multiple plans that were the same in terms of cost and fulfilling their functional requirements but had different aesthetics, then the community could decide. It's likely that there would be a great deal of variation anyway owing to differences in local geography, which would necessarily dictate different practical concerns and differences in form.

[bcbm]

Aesthetic considerations would not trump more practical concerns (like providing cost effective and comfortable housing).

who said it would?


Ornamentation tends to increase building costs, but the architects would know how to make a building interesting without increasing its cost. The average Joe doesn't know this.

you don't need a degree in engineering to know whether or not you think something looks good, and comment on it.


The architects and engineers of the building would determine the "aesthetics" of it because they are the ones who are building it. Communities could choose from the plans the architects/engineers drafted, but the plans would still come from the architects/engineers.

why is it impossible for the people living in the communities and the designers to communicate with each other?


This is evasive. How do you determine sustainability goals? With experts? Or consent of the governed?

how are sustainability goals anywhere near the same as aesthetic choices?


No, I'm not suggesting that there are only one hundred possible plans. I'm suggesting that of the plans that are available, there will be one that is ideal in terms of cost (for fulfilling the same requirements). There could be 100 plans, 10,000 plans, or 10 plans, and this would still be true.

it is physically impossible for different design choices to have equally ideal costs?


I already addressed this: the plans would ultimately come from the architects and engineers responsible for building the structures. If they somehow came up with multiple plans that were the same in terms of cost and fulfilling their functional requirements but had different aesthetics, then the community could decide. It's likely that there would be a great deal of variation anyway owing to differences in local geography, which would necessarily dictate different practical concerns and differences in form.

so first only one plan is possible and the community can't communicate with the designers in any way over aesthetic suggestions, but now there can be multiple plans that fulfill requirements and the designers can communicate with the community?

[Technocrat]

you don't need a degree in engineering to know whether or not you think something looks good, and comment on it.

If that is the extent of what you're suggesting, then that's fine. The plans however would not be drafted by community consensus, but by the architects and engineers themselves. If there are multiple competing plans that are the same functionally but differ only aesthetically, then there is no reason why the community shouldn't be able to offer its input. The final decision would be made by the architects, but in matter of aesthetics, there would be no reason to oppose the wishes of the community, and ample reason for them to fulfill them (like retaining their position as architect).


it is physically impossible for different design choices to have equally ideal costs?Sometimes - it depends on the requirements that the design has to meet.