Steering humanity\'s growth by John C Hodge

JLH

I was suggesting the accomplishment of inclusion is by the idea that the fundamental principles should correspond to cosmology, quantum mechanics and life. The suggestions for a beginning were in sections 2 and 3. STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics and develop this idea a little. STOE application to life. There is a long way to go.

The "states rights" I was suggesting for a constitution similar to the constitution of 1789 (without the individual laws added later). That is, they are laws in a constitution.

I agree, the "natural rights" and "natural laws" are vague because people claim a right when it is only their idealism. That is, these people are claiming a "natural rights" and "natural laws" to support their vague idealism where no real right or law exists. People's idealism must be turned into concrete laws. The barons showed the idealism must be turned into a law that a court can adjudicate and revolutionized humanities organizing methods. We must form a nation.

What do you think? What principles unite life with physics?

1st response:

Where did I say "...'each difference of view' leads to war..."?

I did say, "Competition must be allowed between religions, between approaches to technology, and between approaches to the environment." in the paper and "The room for different views may be had if the views include tolerance for other views (as the rise from tribes to chiefdoms suggests) and include the cooperation with the different views." in a reply.

Hodge

Sabine

Thank you so much for your note. Now I see your comment "No, the major challenge,..., is to convert these ideas into action."

I have "The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization" but have only scanned it. The same with his "Environment, Scarcity, and Violence". I omitted a reference to them because he makes things a bit more complex than they are, in my opinion. That is why I went with Tainter. For example, I agree with Friedman that the Federal Reserve was a big mistake. I suppose he would call me a "neo-Malthusisn". I did like his stages of denial, some of his income gap comments, and the chapter of "why don't we face reality". You can see examples of the latter in these essays.

All his tectonic stresses and conditions in Tainter are present today and have been for a long time. The limited space left me with commenting, "However, the collapse is a failure of the society's organization to adapt to nature and to the changing conditions." That is, he is only describing some of the natural conditions imposed on humanity all th time.

Let me take this opportunity to address another idea I think you are tending toward. Almost all the essays have suggestions with little chance of happening. My last comment "The barons are organizing." suggest the required action is already happening. Look at the conditions that forced the barons to action. They are all present in the US today. Many today are already taking action toward a thing like the Magna Carta that I suggest is a new constitution. The TEA party (they want a smaller Federal Government) is becoming stronger. The secession movement is small but growing. Many are writing books and article s suggesting constitutional amendments (Friedman, M. R. Levin, R. E. Barnet, etc.). The path toward the kind of constitutional change is already happening. I hope the leaders of today are as smart as the leaders in 1787.

James

I presume you are talking about if this essay's suggestion is adopted. The problem is war between states that is very destructive. Note the nation constitution is not cast in stone in my mind. But I think the military command belongs in the nation (Federal) control. So the state pays the nation government to keep that military. The military is used to prevent war between states or at least side with the defender. So the offender must pay for the national military and his own - a very untenable position.

I also propose the nation is out of the welfare, housing, food provision, etc. business. The state is responsible for these individual relation things. So how much can a state spend on military if it has to take care of its people? Look at international affairs now. The violent groups in Africa and mideast are getting food supplies (humanitarian aid) from the US. This allows them as a society to buy guns that are used to further war against their neighbors and population. Suppose they were not getting humanitarian aid, would they care for their people? I think probably not in which case their support would either move or die. If they do care for their own, they would not be buying guns. Either way, the practice would end. Would the human cost including war be greater or lesser to cease the humanitarian aid. I think less - a lot less.

I seems you are talking of civil war - within a state. I suggest that is states business. I look at the panorama of slavery in the US. We can see the whole thing play out over 200 years. The idea of the Federal interfering inside the state was the whole issue. First the Southern states wanted slaves returned from northern states and got the Federal government to issue laws to Northern states. Then the Southern states left the union and a large civil war between states erupted (lots left out - but this must be short).

If a state wants to spend a large portion of its budget in corruption and oppressive measures, let it. It will soon fail as businesses and people flee. Perhaps some people would want to go and help the oppressed. But the other states and the Federal government must not. It takes only a small percentage of people to flee to cause major problems for a state. Today, the problem is the state gets outside help which props up the corrupt. Example, Pakastan and other mideast countries receive a great deal of aid from the US.

Iran is no exception. Remember the history. The US supported the corruption (the Shah) for decades. The people arose and ejected the US. Later, when the new government proved no better, the US helped the government fight against the rebels - the US supported the corruption. If we had not done that, the Iranian government would be friendlier now decades later. We supported the oppression for decades.

Now, the Iranian people are in a pickle. They may flee with difficulty. Business may not invest. The government is continuing to get aid despite the embargo. Of course, the reaction of the US to the breakdown of the social structure as a result of the embargo has been shameful.

How long can the Iranian government survive without the outside aid?

I'm sure that many of the suggested states will have policies that some individuals will find objectionable. But if we have learned nothing else from Britian and France from 300 years ago, we should learn that interference in another's affairs is expensive, futile, and the results are opposite to those intended. The US wanted trading partners in the mideast, we financed oppressors, we are draining our treasure, and we reaped hatred and war.

Yes. It takes time once the bad has been supported and grown. Better to let the bad die early rather than be propped up.

Thanks for your comment.

WW

"Religion gives a knowledge that cannot be proven, so it is not the scientific knowledge in my opinion."

Of course religion is not science. That is why I listed it separately in the first words of the essay. I'm not sure where you are going, but science is not really "proven" either. Hypotheses are either rejected or not rejected. Therefore, an observation may be not rejected by several models.

Religion offers morals for society. The success of religious knowledge is the long-term survival of its adherents. Religion offers hope. Whereas, science understanding offers predictability. Our science is weak on the predictability of social actions. I also offer the idea that if the social structure is weak, then the science doesn't help. Note the African tribes killing each other. The only thing stopping them from using the science of food production is their political instability. A society needs both morals and science.

The idea labeled the "Theory of Everything" is somewhat defined as to the problems it must solve. Is it a misnomer? You betcha. So?

"But the collapse of societies is always ruled by its governors egoism..." and the peoples support of that government. Very often the people and the society allow and even support the government.

Indeed the morality of the individuals that are the components of our reality and that have always to struggle for survival because of the dualistic essence of this reality is THE important factor for the character of our society." Agree. Note the comment on the African tribes above. They are tribes (Diamond's definition) fighting. We know a state (Diamond's definition) is possible. The science to better their position is known but unusable because of the limitations of a tribe structure.

"Any new constitution is a result from a changing mentality...". I disagree if you mean morality. The new constitution of 1789 did not require a different morality - It merely had to solve problems the larger structure was having. But there is an interesting point in this. The US revolution and following constitution was lead by barons - that is educated, rich, business leaders, etc. The French revolution in the same time frame was created by intellectuals and "common people". This is why I noted "baron" not people.

A change in human consciousness is unnecessary. But the change must be lead by practical leaders. This is what is developing. The barons are organizing.

The following essays may be viewed as added references in the introduction of this essay:

Humans Must Help Humanity Steer Itself by Jeff Alstott Indeed, the problem is quite complex... by Israel Perez

Social Evolution Through Massively Decentralised Distributed Resilient Networks by Federico Pistono

Hodge

No. The senior structure runs the military that does battle outside the political organization and enforces judgments against states. I suppose if the world becomes the nation, the military assumes a different role.

A city-state is just another state that pays taxes for representation in the national organization and must meet the challenges of survival.

What happens to the city-state in a famine? Does the nation provide relief that must come from farm states? No. The folly of such organization will then come home.

Note Detroit. Although the Federal government provided some bailout) funded by more successful states) of the auto industry, it was for naught. What a waste of resources.

Thanks for your comment. I'll read your essay.

The science to improve the lot of the African people is available. The difficulty they face is the political organization will not allow the science to function. After a political change, other nations such as China have used available science to their advantage. Hence, Africa has starvation and war. The political change must come first. Therefore, your suggestion can be accomplished by making the necessary political changes.