Nick Meador Rotating Header Image

Funding My Existence

Please feel free to share or re-publish the following essay with credit and a link back here, according to the Creative Commons license.

It appears we are living at the dawn of a new era. Throughout our culture we see signs of change, progress, and evolution. A “Creative Class” is on the rise that — with the help of the Internet and other related technologies — will reportedly transform our entire socio-economic system.

And yet, at the same time, something is amiss. Much of this so-called Creative Class can only prosper by finding work within the current corporate infrastructure, resulting in very little actual creativity or innovation. The very ones who might create the necessary change in society must expend their time and energy worrying about “making a living.” Those who can keep a job have to sacrifice ideas that contradict the wishes of bosses and the company’s stockholders.

For those who have been diagnosed “abnormal” by our society, this problem is especially prevalent. Such people are variably labeled anti-social, eccentric, introverted, highly sensitive, ADD, bipolar, neuro-atypical, differently abled, gifted, or one of many other similar terms that have a derogatory effect. The trouble is that the only people who ever made any worthwhile changes in this world belonged to one of these categories.

The most creative visionaries often cannot function adequately in modern society. This makes it extremely hard to avoid unemployment, let alone to feed and shelter oneself. But admit that you feel this way, and you’re instantly labeled lazy, arrogant, elitist, etc. We’re evidently not ready to admit on a mass scale that the current definition of a “normal” human being is not only imaginary, but impossible.

It is time that we break out of this double-bind. One idea how to do that has sat dormant in the cultural underground for the last few decades. In 1969, R. Buckminster Fuller (a.k.a. Bucky Fuller) published his short volume Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. As Fuller writes:

…we must give each human who is or becomes unemployed a life fellowship in research and development or in just simple thinking. Man must be able to dare to think truthfully and to act accordingly without fear of losing his franchise to live. [...] For every 100,000 employed in research and development, or just plain thinking, one probably will make a breakthrough that will more than pay for the other 99,999 fellowships.

This will never be possible in a purely capitalistic system that runs according to the tenets of selfishness and greed — or the misapplied motto “survival of the fittest.” The Internet has allowed for certain non-traditional funding platforms, but the most popular ones are oriented around funding creative projects — not funding a creative life. And taking out any kind of loan seems dangerous when there’s no way to be sure about the possibility of paying it back.

For some of us, a “job” or a “career” is not the answer. For some, it’s time to admit: “What I really need is help FUNDING MY EXISTENCE.” Fuller also used the term “mind fellowships.” His purpose was very clear:

Through the universal research and development fellowships, we’re going to start emancipating humanity from being muscle and reflex machines. We’re going to give everybody a chance to develop their most powerful mental and intuitive faculties. [...] What we want everybody to do is to think clearly.

With this spirit in mind, let’s give birth to an online community designed to provide existential funding to the people who need it. Recipients will have to demonstrate what value they have contributed to society in the form of ideas, projects, art, innovation, social movements, etc. Donors will be able to choose which individuals interest them the most.

We’ve spent enough time talking about futuristic visions of society. Some feel an urgent drive to manifest it in reality. It is time to enable those people by funding their existence, allowing them to worry about more pressing matters — like changing the world.

Watch for updates at fundingmyexistence.org or share your thoughts on Facebook!

  • Men With Sticks

    >Much of this so-called Creative Class can only prosper by finding work
    within the current corporate infrastructure, resulting in very little
    actual creativity or innovation.

    You have two options: (a) strike out on your own (and take the financial risks that come with it), or make what progress you can within a corporate infrastructure where someone else takes the financial risks. Them’s your choices in this-here Real World®.

    You’re certainly prolific as a writer, I’ll give you that. But to make a living as a writer, you must convince people to pay you for writing. You haven’t convinced me. And begging for money at the same time you’re bashing corporate capitalism is not only gauche, it makes you sound like a crybaby.

  • Lloydmeintjes

    Great piece…fully understood and appreciated.

  • Jbar

    And you’re part of the problem that we’re trying to get away from. Capitalism is dead.

  • Rowan Duffy

    Payment for knowledge production is actually completely arse-backwards.

    The thing about knowledge is that once it’s produced, the next copy costs nearly zero.  This is one of those bizarre instances where both Marxian and neo-classical marginalist conceptions of price both reach the conclusion that the price of that good should be zero.

    Now, you note that in the “Real World” we have to find out how to get paid by getting a job or selling stuff.  That’s certainly how it works now in capitalism, but it isn’t how it’s always worked in other systems and as Nick pointed out, and as I think we can see from the marginal cost of production being zero, there are serious problems with this model.  It’s reached it’s end-point in terms of a rational system for organising labour.

  • Tina Fish

    I would be the first to jump at the thought of being able to practice creativity outside the 9-6 corporate structure, which you can verify I have had lengthy complaints about in terms of stifling the thought process and going against everything they say should be creative. However there is one benefit from the structure (and I say this subjectively) that shouldn’t be disregarded. The 9-6 taught me to discipline and organize my thoughts, and how best to strategically promote them to the world. It wasn’t a structured manual on “how to be creative” but rather on “how to project your creativity.” The funded lifestyle Meador talks about is very similar to creativity in the corporate world, “Recipients will have to demonstrate what value they have contributed to society in the form of ideas, projects, art, innovation, social movements, etc. Donors will be able to choose which individuals interest them the most.” Basically we pitch to a client, and we hope they will approve our concept, ethics, and most importantly, budget.

  • Unknownoriginsmusic

    I completely agree with you Nick.  I hit this crossroads some time ago and have just recently quit my job to make a go at it.  Some would say that what I did was too risky and quite possibly foolish.  But I’d had enough of the safe and normal and predictable.  Been there and done that. F$@#ing boring and uninspiring. None of us get out of here alive and there’s only one question you should ask yourself when the day comes: Did I REALLY become myself?  So who’s more the fool the one that stays in the murky water becoming greyer of mind, heart and hair or the one that tries.  I did that for far too many years because I believed all of the talk about being safe and how unrealistic my goals were. 

    It’s scarey and exhilarating to stand at the edge of the abyss.  I say when you’re pulled out of the water by circumstance, dreams, and drive, don’t lay there on the shore with your mouth open. Grow some lungs and legs and get moving.  Adapt or die! Those that make accusations of whining just don’t get it.