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

          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

            Vladimir - Thanks for the extended comment. I agree that education is critical to our future, and that there is promise in seeking greater intuitive insights into the structure of reality. But I also feel it is important to recognize that as human beings we have both heads (for rationality and intuition) and hearts (feelings, emotions, values and choices). While our heads will move us forward - and there are wonderful things to be learned in so many directions - our hearts should be doing the steering.

            Regards - George

            Yes, George, I agree with you. Triad "ratio- intuitio- emotio" they rule together, choosing the right course and the "point":

            «It is by a mathematical point only that we are wise,

            as the sailor or the fugitive slave keeps the polestar in his eye;

            but that is sufficient guidance for all our life.

            We may not arrive at our port within a calculable period,

            but we would preserve the true course.»(Henry David Thoreau)

            Once again thank you very much for your interesting and profound essays, ideas, and important for me the heuristic eidos «The Tip of The Spear». High score.

            Thank FQXi that brings together people for "brainstorming" on very important topics of modern Humanity and modern Science!

            Best Regards,

            Vladimir

            Hi George,

            Your essay somehow went under my radar. Probably something about the title.

            You make a very good case that cooperation as an emergent phenomena.

            Good for individuals and nations and the earth.

            Thanks for the insight on cooperation,

            Don Limuti

            Dear George Gantz,

            Thank you for reminding me of human empathic values of trust, humility, mutual respect and shared commitment: love, in its most universal form.

            This might be what Alfred Nobel called ideal direction. Don't humility and shared commitment include answering taboo questions how to substitute war and hunger and how many people will the earth need in future? When I followed Nobel's attitude, I was not always understood correctly. I see four of his prizes devoted to the tip of the speer.

            Cheers,

            Eckard

            Eckard - Thanks for the comment. Although I know little about Alfred Nobel beyond the obvious facts of his invention and the fortune it brought and the prizes which bear his name, perhaps you are correct and his attitude is something we should emulate. It is ironic and significant that his wealth was accumulated on the basis of a technology that has both productive and destructive uses, with perhaps an emphasis on destruction. Yet his prizes - notably including the Peace Prize - have become a significant global, non-governmental influence for good. Can we all turn our worldy achievements towards the long term betterment of humanity in an attitude of humility and dedication to all fellow humans?

            I do not know whether Nobel had specific motives for excluding mathematics - I personally do not see that mathematics has any negative or undermining influences on human thought or behavior. Indeed, mathematics itself has no value as a weapon - it is the abstraction of cognition with no power except when deployed as a tool in the empirical scientific disciplines. Those disciplines is where the impacts on the world, for good or for ill, are manifest.

            Math, science and technology (the power behind the spear of progress) are all amoral. But the powers they confer tempt the human will (or soul). Arrogance, hubris, self-gratification and the intention to dominate can result. Thankfully, our evolutionary path (and the revelation of our great religions if we hold to their true principles) has given us countervailing empathic influences. These are more important than ever.

            Thanks so much for your acknowledgement of this issue! - George

              Hi George,

              Thanks for your essay calling on the development of systems, institutions, and tools to foster empathic progress. I couldn't agree more.

              I think you might find some connections with my essay on computationally intelligent personal dialogic agents. I have a prototype (developed as part of a National Science Foundation CAREER award) that I have used to deliver training in Marshall Rosenberg's "nonviolent communication" as part of a study.

              I'd appreciate a rating, if you can do that, since I am a bit short on ratings.

              Also, I'm interested in finding collaborators. If you are interested, I'd appreciate a contact. My gmail username is my first name, then a period, then my last name.

              Best wishes,

              Ray Luechtefeld, PhD

              Ray - Yes I remember your essay - one of the very few with a practical implementation suggestion. I did score it already - in fact I read and scored all of them (a Sisyphian task that absorbed a couple of weeks). I do have a website where you can see some of my work (and if you subscribe I will be able to followup by email.

              I just read the scoring deadline was extended - hopefully your essay will get a bit more attention, as it should.

              Cheers - George

              Hi George,

              I like your essay. It is well written and captures important themes. I have two comments. First, you write:

              One key revelation is that our universe, including life itself, has evolved through a series of successive states, from low entropic, homogeneous conditions at the Big Bang, through increasingly complex states of higher entropy. The transition to each subsequent state involves a loss of symmetry, an increase in complexity and the emergence of novel structures and behaviors.

              I think you might appreciate the work of the ecologist Robert Ulanowicz, who has some very interesting and precise thinking along these lines. E.g.:

              http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Bateson.pdf

              My question for you is what sense of 'complexity' you are employing here. My intuitions are that "novel structures" and "higher entropy" are actually opposed, not correlated. A high entropy state like a spread of gaseous particles is much less structured than a low entropy state like a crystal, yes?

              Ulanowicz provides a solution to this problem that I quite like that is also consistent with your major themes.

              My second question is about how you are defining cooperation. I worry that you use this term to do a lot of work in the essay without defining it. You mention Prisoner's Dilemma. What are payoffs, in your framework? Is it utility? Or is it, as an evolutionist, mere probability of survival?

              I love the idea of universal cooperation but I wonder how to accomplish that when there are questions of resource scarcity.

              Thank you for the enlightening essay.

              Sebastian - Thanks for the excellent comments. I am not familiar with the work of Ulanowicz but will check out the reference. Yes, there is an odd relationship between higher entropy and the complex systems that seem to be going in reverse - effectively borrowing order from a universe that is moving the other way. This is a key feature of emergent systems that is not well understood. There is room here, I believe, for an ordering principle - something that explains why complex systems behave this way. There is a lot of talk about epiphenomenon or supervenience - none of which adequately address the question in my mind.

              Admittedly, the concept of cooperation as I use it in my essay is very broad and necessarily fuzzy (only so many words!). To be consistent with my thesis, cooperation would be any behavior between humans that is motivated by the human empathic qualities as enumerated. In the Prisoner's dilemma, loyalty ranks higher than self-interest. Purely quid-pro-quo behaviors are transactional and would not be cooperation in the sense I have used it. The payoff from cooperation is both utility for the group in the economic sense, as well as personal satisfaction from fulfilling one's empathic impulses - a purely internal, subjective payoff, unless one believes in eternal salvation in which case the payoff is an eternity in heaven

              Does not cooperation become even more important in the face of resource scarcity? Yes, we have dystopic visions of humans descending into selfish competitive depravity in the fight for resources, but history offers a quite different perspective. See, for example Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankel. Humanity has proven it can transcend hardship. Can it transcend material superfluity?

              Cheers - George