P.S., When you read my paper, I also suggest reading my conversations with Michael Allan, Tommy Anderberg, and Robert de Neufville on my page. A great deal of clarification is available in those stimulating conversations.

George,

I totally love your metaphor of "the spear" to steer humanity.

I also agree that the "most significant challenge is learning how to steer a future that best meets the collective needs and aspirations of humanity."

We are also both in agreement that the power behind the spear is "pursuit of knowledge about our world."

I also agree with you that the cooperation that leads to institutions charged with collecting "knowledge about our world" is the key to power behind the spear.

We may think differently only about the "tip of the spear." In my essay (here) my point is that the diversity in wants and needs of humanity can be best homogenized through the imagination and ingenuity of individuals and NOT any institutional effort. The evidence I offer is the amazing unifying results of the IT juggernaut that has given us the PC, Facebook and the iPhone. The issue of using these for only "good" is, of course, a real and pervasive challenge.

Wonderful to read your essay. Please read mine and let me know what you think.

- Ajay

    4 days later

    Thanks, Ajay - I have qualms about anything referred to as a "juggernaut", but I understand your excitement. As you say, however, how do we insure these technologies are used "for good".

    that is the point of arming the tip of the spear with empathy - guiding our choices and our institutions for social and not personal gain.

    Cheers - George

    George,

    Your essay is extremely well written and, above all, well researched! Many of your links are fascinating. I especially like Brandon Keim's article, The Secret Life of Everything, that explains how difficult it is to simply find the source of all the components that make up a simple consumer item.

    We live in a complex world where institutions and organizations have a life of their own, which makes it that much harder to actually steer the future. I place my faith in education (what I call the Futurocentric Education Initiative), and you rightly emphasize the importance of values such as trust, honesty, mutual respect, shared commitment, empathy, etc. No one can truly disagree with what we propose... but the real challenge is, what must we actually do to make a real difference?

    You raise hard questions. For instance, you say

    "Less clear is the role science may play in fostering particular ideologies such as determinism and materialism, metaphysical worldviews that arguably challenge the efficacy of human empathy and undermine the emotional and psychological foundation of other key human institutions - including religions - that promote empathy. Has science as an institution contributed to existential alienation, the rise of unfettered commercialism or declines in social capital and shared moral frameworks?"

    There is no easy answer to this. It could very well be that correctly understanding the true nature of the Universe is not an asset, because it undermines the importance of human values. For instance, if the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics were to be confirmed by experimenting with quantum computers, and everyone was convinced that every possible outcome exists in the same way that our world exists (a thesis defended in Max Tegmark's latest book), wouldn't that undermine our resolve to make things right in this version of the world?

    I like your discussion of humanity's possible contact with extraterrestrial civilisations. It would be so fascinating to learn about the ways these civilisations practice collaboration, and on their views about morality!

    I have a given a boost to your essay - I hope it makes it to the finals and does well!

    Marc

      Thanks, Marc - I think science has a lot to answer for, although it (along with markets) does deserve credit for the vast increases in our material wellbeing. There is scant discussion of values and ethics in most these essays, so I am pleased to have added that to the conversation.

      I am somewhat dubious about Max Tegmark's conclusions. I certainly do not live in multiple worlds (although my future does). I also do not see (so far) that the multiverse offers much - I would lean in Lee SMolin's direction - there is a selection process at work that guides the "fine-tuning" of our universe towards consciousness and, ultimately, in my view, empathy.

      Thanks - George

      I am puzzled.How can humanity steer the future of what? People are very dependent on the goods and services provided by the existing aging infrastructure. Humanity will have to steer the operation of this infrastructure. That is what has to be done.

        Denis - Interesting comment, given the title of the essay contest. As I discuss in my essay, humanity has certainly followed a path from the past to the present - and the "steering" was largely done by a biological and then a cultural fitness landscape. We now have the opportunity to choose how to shape the fitness landscape for our institutions in order to direct our future course towards things we want - happiness, fulfillment, material well-being. Some of our infrastructure is aging - but the technologies embedded in that infrastructure are also being updated constantly. Forty years ago we had no IT infrastructure - today it spans the world and is continuing to expand rapidly - displacing older communication infrastructure as it goes.

        Cheers - George

        Thanks, Petio - my reading list is too full as it is, but thank you for the invitation. I wish you the very best in your efforts to integrate science in a General Theory of Unity. My sense is that this noble task will take infinite intelligence and infinite time. Of course, being human, we do not have infinite patience so we have to make do with intuition and revelation...

        All the best - George

        • [deleted]

        • Post #54

        George,

        Great essay. Even the reference list at the end is impressive. I can never find references that parallel my ideas, which means either I am ahead of the curve or I am just wrong.

        A minor point about Physics, you talk about the increasing complexity of things in the Universe and increasing entropy. The entropy of the Universe is increasing, but a complex state is at lower entropy state. Producing a lower entropy state must involve increasing entropy (and disorder) somewhere else.

        Your essay is still a human view of human progress. Many types of ants and bees cannot live outside of their communities and have been doing so since the mesozoic. We have no way of knowing if any animals have a form of religion and no other creature beside humans have been shown to use fire, but we should assume that intelligence, emotion and social structure (and many other things we think of as only human) exist outside of humanity unless proved otherwise. I am saying that there is an evolutionary need for emotions (as an example) or we would not have emotions. If there was a need for emotions in us, we must assume other animals must have this same need and therefore must have emotions. We might not currently know what the function of emotions are in survival, but that function must exist or we would not have inherited that trait.

        Hope you and your essay do well,

        Jeff

          Hi Jeff - Thanks for the comment. Yes, the universe is increasing in entropy AT THE SAME TIME as complexity is increasing locally (just look at the human brain). This is a key paradox in the current consensus view in physics which does not explain what is driving the increasing complexity.

          I agree with your comment about non-human species demonstrating emotion, limited intelligence and social structure - and these are in fact products of evolutionary advances which have reached their most intensive expression in humans. The use of fire is more speculative - although there may be isolated examples of opportunistic behaviors by some species in landscapes that regularly experience natural fires. As to religion, I would suggest that it is not likely.

          A significant "transcendence" happened at some point in human evolution when the capacity for self-reflection, language and abstraction emerged. While some primates and cetaceans seem to exhibit some limited capacities, it does not appear that they have ever passed the evolutionary threshold necessary for the appreciation of a religious life.

          Thanks again and best wishes! - George

          Very smart, interesting essay, George. I agree that our ability to work together is a great advantage over other animals. Have you looked at E.O. Wilson's most recent book on the evolutionary advantages of cooperation, by the way?

          I think you are right that our ability to survive in the long run--to survive both contact with aliens and conflict among ourselves--hinges on our ability to cooperate with one another. I argue something similar in my own essay (which I would love for you to read). I would have liked to hear more about how our norms and institutions could change to foster mutual empathy, although of course there is only so much we can do in 10 pages.

          Good luck in the contest, George!

          Best,

          Robert de Neufville

            Dear George,

            Very well said. I could not agree more, and we have pretty much a very similar outlook. I have long said that science and technology can only take us thus far, and mankind is woefully short on compassion and empathy. Combined with compassion, science and technology are extremely powerful resources for beneficial global growth. If only we could collectively perceive this simple truth!

            Tejinder

              Thanks, Robert. Yes, I enjoyed EOWIlson's The Social Conquest of Earth and found the Dawkins attacks to be unreasonably harsh - typical of Dawkins, I'm afraid. At the same time, I winced at Wilson's frequent anti-religious polemics. Personally, I think any human institutions or world-views that evolved and thrived over millennia deserve more reflective and respectful treatment.

              I did read and enjoy your essay and appreciated your focus on cooperation - I believe it is the key to our future success, and not any technological marvels. Of course, figuring out how to accomplish that goal is the challenge for all of us. I would point out that there seems to be an effort to build a case for moral norms in a secular framework (see, for example, the RSA project to reinvent spirituality at http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2013/socialbrain/brains-spirituality/). I'm not quite sure how that will work in comparison with the power of religious norms (which have the benefit of an omniscient agent and eternal rewards and punishment), but it is important and hopefully useful work.

              Regards - George

              Thanks for the comment, Tejinder. I did enjoy your essay and its focus on compassion. FYI, one of my inspirations is Emanuel Swedenborg - a summary of his thinking was published in a book by T.D. Suzuki - Swedenborg: Buddha of the North. An interesting perspective on the meeting of East and West - we have to go North!

              Cheers - George

              Hi George,

              It is nice to meet another Swedenborg fan. His writings have inspired some of the most intriguing thoughts I have ever experienced. I fully believe he was able to visit other realms, since we all can do it, of course. For most people it happens, every now and then, in dreams that are not merely dreams. Swedenborg, however, could do it at will.

              I enjoyed your essay and have rated it highly. The message of greater compassion and cooperation needs to be promoted at every opportunity, to balance our ever-increasing technological prowess.

              I have answered your two-part question on my page, and I think you might be surprised by the answer I have provided. If you find the time, I would like to know your further thoughts. Your question was among the best I have received, so I thank you for it. I wish you all the best in all things!

              Warmly,

              Aaron

                Thank you for commenting over at my essay, George, as it led me to your wonderful writing.

                I found your setting of the stage and analysis very salient and accurate, perhaps because it so closely mirrors my own views. However, your ultimate thesis, that empathy and compassion likely should be the tip of humanity's spear, was unexpected and not a factor I had considered as directly as you have. I found your arguments compelling, and hope to see them supported in the future by more empirical analysis and experimentation (which relates to the thrust of my essay).

                The quality of your writing and thought has also served as a high quality reference for ISAS. If the material on that forum is as well-considered as yours I can foresee I will be spending significant time there!

                Thanks,

                Jeff

                  Thanks for the compliments, and the encouragement, Jeff. Yes, part of my purpose in the essay was to encourage reflection on the critical issues of value and meaning. As you will see if you visit ISAS, I believe empirical science and spiritual insight are both required to understand who we are, where we are going and why we are here.

                  Cheers

                  Thanks, Aaron! Much of the fun is in the interplay in the comments. I have posed another conundrum for you on your essay page (with a nod to Swedenborg).

                  Many thanks for your review and comments - George

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #65

                  Dear George,

                  I read with great interest your depth analytical essay with beautiful and important conclusions called for all Humanity. Obviously, to overcome all the difficulties in the way of the genus Homo in the new Information age is possible through education (broad introduction to the educational process Philosophy and Ethics) and new deep spirituality. Science must become a more open to Society. Democracy must be more to deepen and move gradually towards "Democracy 3.0: Open Science-Open Power-Open Society". Modern Information revolution provides for such opportunities. A new UN should start working: «UN 3.0».

                  Basic science can overcome the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T.Romanovskaya«Modern physics and contemporary art-parallels of style») is relying on imagination to make a more profound interpretation of accumulated Knowledge. Need to deepen in the "Dialectics of Nature", to see its original structure, to hear its voice and then draw the desired eidos Universe. Picture of the world of physics should be the same rich meanings of the «LifeWorld» (E.Husserl) as the world picture lyricists. "In the Beginning was The Logos (The Law, The Principle) ..." or "In the Beginning was the Big Bang ..."???. It is very important for Science and Humanity for more reliable steering in future. Too unreliable at the base of empirical hypotheses. («An Open Letter to the Scientific Community» CosmologyStatement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20). As a result of the crisis of the philosophical foundations of basic science - the concept of "multiverse" and misunderstanding of "time". Problem of the foundations of mathematics over a hundred years. But this problem is "swept under the carpet", it is not even included in "The Millennium Problems" Clay Mathematics Institute. How can mathematics be able to "close the physics" (mathematician Ludwig Faddeev an interview «The equation of the evil spirit»)?

                  Science and Humanity move step by step to the new "Great Paradigm" ((V. Novikov "Waiting paradigm"). What is "The Great Paradigm"? I think that paradigm of the Universe as a whole. Paradigm of the Universe, which is aware of itself.

                  Time has come and we have to start the path together with the new Generation of the Information age, going ahead.

                  Many thanks for the quote a great thinker Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: «The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.» It makes all the people think more deeply, as did Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

                  Dear George. I read with interest the Site now but could not find your email.

                  In my forum I have tried to answer your questions.

                  Best Regards,

                  Vladimir