Hi Sabine,

Your essay contains contains very similar diagnoses of the problems to mine (so, naturally, I liked it a lot!). Especially:

"We reached this gridlock because the human brain did not evolve to understand the consequences of individual actions in networks of billions of people. We are bad in making good long-term decisions and do not care much what happens in other parts of the planet to people we have not and will most likely never meet. We have no intuitive grasp on the collective behavior of large groups and their impact on our environment, and what little grasp we have is prone to cognitive biases and statistical errors, many of which are now subject of new scientific areas like game theory, behavioral economics and decision science."

and "We solve them by bringing close that what is far away."

My essay focuses exactly on what to do to close the gap when what is far away is in the future: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2030.

Best,

Dean

    John C Hodge,

    I agree on your pov regarding stone age thinking. It is a shame, really, that evolutionary psychology has produced so much nonsense, because now it's hard to take any of it seriously.

    I try not to use the word 'moral', it is too ambiguous. Morals, in my opinion, are an emergent phenomenon, codes of behavior, much like, but stronger and more universal than, social norms. In any case, people tend to misunderstand my use of the word, so I try to do without it.

    I don't think that competition is necessary provided that we find a way to scale and transfer social phenomena, but it is arguably very efficient. It seems to me though that our present societies already put too much emphasis on competition. Take eg the whole discussion about privacy of information and nations spying on each other - that's all due to competition. Right now I think we'd need more collaboration, that would free much needed resources. In the long run, we need a way to better balance competition with collaboration. Best,

    Sabine

    Hi Dean,

    Thanks for the pointer, I left a note regarding your essay in your comment section. Regarding the future: I believe in the block universe. I agree that how we think about the future is presently not very helpful to 'steer' it, but even in the (rather unlikely event) that people would change their way of thinking because some physicists have a funny new interpretation of quantum mechanics that wouldn't make much of a difference.

    We all have conflicts between our short-term and long-term priorities. Try to imagine for a moment these priorities belong to different people, then we'd go and weigh them both in some aggregation mechanism, may that be our economic system or a political one. But the problem is, if these conflicting priorities belong to the same person, he or she can take only one action. That's what the economists call 'revealed preferences'. Now our political systems are a sloppy way of taking into account that these economically revealed preferences neglect part of the story - you could say, the part of people's thought that did not transfer into a monetary revelation. But it works badly, to say the least, because it's too complicated. That brings you to the starting point of my essay. Best,

    Sabine

    Hi Lawrence,

    I find myself agreeing with much of what you say. It is also interesting in that I used to be active for the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) and that is what taught me just how hard it is to get people to change anything. People are by default conservative, not in the political sense, but in the sense that they do things 'like we've always done it'. They'll not move until change is in their face and impossible ignore. I proposed back then eg a 'right of information'. That was in the mid 90s. I am still waiting for them to come around to see it's necessary...

    In any case, I'm not quite as pessimistic as you in that I don't think we're 'engineering' the next mass extinction. That seems possible, but unlikely. What worries me much more is that the progress we've gotten so used to will turn to regress and we'll fail to act exactly because there's no hard hit that propels us into action. Do you know anybody who has a serious problem with drug or alcohol addiction? It often takes a traumatic experience that makes addicts realize they have a problem and must change their ways. I am afraid that climate change will just slowly put strain on our resources and that not much time and energy will be left for anything else. In practice this just means that things we are now very used to (say, affordable internet) will become prohibitively costly and/or start breaking down. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where they expect tomorrow to be worse than today.

    Best,

    Sabine

    George,

    Your comment is interesting because you assume that commercial purposes are not in the interest of individuals. That is a very common attitude of course, but reflect for a moment how disturbing this is. The free market economy is supposed to work *towards* our interests, how did we end up in this situation? Well, the reason is that we're not taking into account all of people's priorities...

    In any case, for what the protection of individual information is concerned, this is a political problem that requires a solution that balances suitable privacy protection with economic interests. Maybe the balance we presently have is somewhat off, alright, but the real problem is that the way how we aggregate people's opinions and convert them into regulations and policies is slow and works badly. If you want better privacy protection you first need to better know people's priorities about privacy protection. That brings me back to the priority maps... You see why I say it's the mother of all problems?

    Best,

    Sabine

    Tommaso,

    Yes, they become necessary - but we don't make sufficient use of them, that's my point. Most people do not handle problems on a global level with thinking/speaking/writing. They do not handle them at all. I basically try to take humans at face value. There's many things we should be doing, but we don't. Why is that and what can we do about it? That's the question my essay addresses. Best,

    Sabine

    John,

    I carefully avoided to get into a discussion of economic theory in my essay. Yes, the current economic system has its flaws, even the theory of it is flawed. This has been pointed out by a lot of people for decades, but what difference has it made? That brings you to the starting point of my essay...

    You write "if you understood those pieces of paper were simply notational chits from the broader community and any value assigned them was entirely dependent on the economic well-being and general long term health of said community, you might be happy with just having enough to get by"

    You are making a big assumption here about human behavior and I don't think that it is true. I wrote a paper some while ago on the problem of aggregating the utility function in economics:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754423

    and I argued there that what people really want to maximize in their life are possibilities. They want money because money is future options. Now the problem is that we have limited resources and that means we have to distribute them in a way that most people agree on is 'fair' in some way. For this we presently use the economic system, and how we think about money will change very little about that. Best,

    Sabine

    Sabine,

    Unfortunately the way the monetary system functions, it naturally accumulates and coalesces these obligations in fewer hands, almost as a gravitational process and historically there have been a variety of ways this build up is resolved; inflation, debt jubilees, social break downs, war, etc. Our mathematical and information technology resources are being put to the purpose of creating history's largest such creation of financial obligations. So I can understand why any reasonable person would want to just stay away from it and frankly I usually do. That's why I frequent the science blogs and forums, such as yours on occasion, and only read economic ones, but the topic of this contest asks how to best steer the future of humanity. In which case, trying to figure out how to unravel the financial conundrum seems unavoidable.

    Regards,

    John M

    Ps,

    In your essay, you do go into how best to link scientific ideas and that does go to how we categorize and process ideas and concepts, so basically what I'm saying is that money needs to go from the commodity category, to the contract category. If someone gives you a piece of paper that says, 'IOU one ounce of gold,' is that really a commodity, in itself, or is it a contract? This system certainly treats such obligations as commodities and goes out of its way to manufacture as many as possible. Right now there are something like 900 trillion dollars worth of derivatives contracts alone, which amount to a form of parimutual wagering, based on a 60 trillion dollar world economy. Obviously those most able to pull the strings in this world would prefer most people not bother themselves thinking about these things and none of us, even those actually riding this wave, can really do anything about it. Eventually though, this wave will crash up on the shores of a larger reality and those of us left to pick up the pieces will need to ask themselves if they really want to repeat the process, with far fewer resources, or is there a lesson to be learned.

    Regards,

    JM

    I think the critical set of events surround the timing of what might be called the "oh shits" report. I think that in another decade the climate problem will become too big to ignore and the denialists will be swept from the public forum. That will be good news of course, but then the question is one of comprehensiveness of the response and timing. The response will be best if it takes a whole systems approach, which means the entire question of our energy/entropy situation on Earth is addressed. This means wrapping the issue into everything from energy development to the ecological distress of oceans. Timing is also another problem, for it could be that by the time we address this issue it is too late. Methane release from permafrost melt and methane hydrate release is thought to trigger a runaway process. There are now indications this process is now rapidly starting to take place. I suspect that geo-engineering will be forced upon us. I would prefer to think we would not have to take such measures, but we might have no choice.

    I happen to think the socio-economic problem is that our future will by necessity require a different mode of operation. The standard system of nation-states with representative governments most responsive to corporations and an economy powered by financial power will have to be seriously modified or changed out with something else. Of course in the United States this brings forth howling charges of communism and so forth. I have for the last year been living in Texas, and as the state advert says, "A whole different state" is not far off the mark. This place is borderline insane. I think changing the socio-economic modality of the world is maybe not so much a problem for Europe, but I fear it could mean the "Second American Civil War."

    The progressive movements in the US, which are folded to a degree into the Democratic Party, tend to choke if they deviate at all much from centrism. The Democratic Party is really a centrist party with a neoliberal agenda that promotes corporate power. The progressive wings of the party are a combination of window dressing and leftovers from the main economic banquet taken by financial power. Clinton and Obama are cases in point, for while they are preferable to the defective twerp we have in 2001-9 they are pretty much operators who curry favor to financial power. From an environmental perspective that translates into support for energy business as usual.

    Cheers LC

      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 the 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.

        Thanks, Sabine - Agreed, the market economy does work efficiently to satisfy individual wants but it does NOT take all priorities into account - including the priority of being left alone. Moreover, I some market interests are better than others at influencing the political process and the accepted "rules of the game" - in order to maximize the interests of certain individuals.

        I think there is a larger issue here, one that I address in my essay "The Tip pif the Spear". The institutions that we are seeking to influence, including markets, governments, media, social movements, religions, and science itself), have evolved to the point of exhibiting autonomous behaviors. By analogy to the human body, the system (markets) bends the behaviors of component units (us) to its ends, not the other way around.

        That said, universal priority maps would provide improved "signaling" between component units and increase efficiency in institutions - but this is not the same as shaping community norms and the shared moral framework they represent.

        Thanks - George

        Fellow Comrade,

        Your article is an intellectual knowledge base. Special appreciation must be given to every author for creating time to share their thoughts. Many time it is not the reward that is attached to this contest that interest me but ability to reason out facts in solving problems. And this is one of my hobbies!

        However, I will like to point out some point in your high capacity essay. I understand your point on the use of Gamification to balance people's priority. Researcher at the University of Hamburg Germany have criticized the use of Gamification as not being fun and creating an artificial sense of achievement. They concluded that gamification can encourage unintended behaviours may be misleading for those unfamiliar with gaming. Your model of priority map is also good but how will more than 1 billion people mostly in the developing countries who do not have access to basic education use the system and gamification? Some legal restrictions also apply for the following reasons criminals,fraudsters and money launderers

        You have said it all. Human wants decision that suits him even though it against the social, economic and environmental issues. You are right. The nagging voice that say he should make better decision as you said. But at the end he end up doing contrary. I call this disobedience to the universal law. Man true heart condition is the true reflection of his heart. On Monday this week, a bomb exploded killing scores and injured hundreds of people in Nigeria capital, Abuja. After the incident, it is possible for the man responsible to come around and show cheap empathy. He caused emotional trauma to his fellow Nigerians because he did not keep the universal law. This is what I call upsetting the ecosystem's balance in my article. I make a lot of reference to 2008 economic downturn. Ben Bernanke in his time alluded to the fact that the banks and bankers did not keep the financial laws which was the cause of the mortgage in US and worldwide. Please refer to my article.

        You suggested the use of questionnaire in making decision for right candidate during. This is the system of true democracy. But as I said earlier man's appearance is not the true state of his mind. Why do many politicians failed to manifest their manifesto. It is simple, they couldn't obey the universal law.

        Summarily, I wish the whole world is enlightened to use gamification and also in the absence of criminals,fraudsters and money launderers! But if the criminals and fraudsters can keep the law, the global ecosystem will be in a dynamic and balance equilibrium as I asserted in my article

        This is an exciting intellectual debate platform.

        Stay lifted!

        Gbenga

          A beautiful essay.

          It is interesting the acceleration of the idea change approaching far away events with close backreaction, there is an analogy with an accelerated biologic evolution with radiation, or chemical mutagen (on the dna), or an accelerated change in cultural memes (with many innovators that break the knowledge system): it seem that environments that have too fast changing must have a faster cultural change, but there is a limited teaching capacity; a kindly cultural manipulation is natural for a teacher, but I see the futuristic prevision of probable brain implants like a nightmare (the television advertising like an anticipation).

          I am not interested to the current practice of publication, that I see like a nonsense, but if a group of researchers in a scientific field, would vote in a manifest way an open article that it is read, and understood (and this essay contest is an example that sometimes work), then everything would be more democratic, and interesting (no referees, no style, no restriction, only good readers of a successful article).

          I am thinking that any limitation (not due to ethical reasons) in scientific papers, and in the exploration of the frontiers of the knowledge, limits our capacity of adapt to the environment, along the same road, without variety.

            Lawrence,

            I'm not at all sure that we'll have our oh-shit moment regarding climate change in the next decade. That's what I thought 20 years ago... I've come to the conclusion that we simply do not have the means to react to problems on that time and distance scales. It is interesting if you read the 'limits of growth' report from 1972, that it basically pointed out exactly this problem. But back then we didn't have the tools to solve the problem - now we have them, we just have to use them smartly. That's where my hope is today & that's what my essay is about. Best,

            Sabine

            George,

            I think what you are saying is closely related to my point, though you use a different vocabulary. The institutions that 'we are seeking to influence' is what I call 'the systems that govern our lives'. They are not of course autonomous, but their behavior is so complex that we fail to comprehend it. It doesn't do, basically, what we 'want' (what our priorities are). The function of the priority maps is to enable this comprehension. Thanks for pointing me towards your essay, which I will read with interest. Best,

            Sabine

            Dear Sabine,

            You wrote: "I may be naïve and I may be wrong." Yes, perhaps. This makes you cute. May I ask you how your job in HEP contributes to rescuing the world? Voting for SPD or Greens and limiting the number of own children is perhaps not enough.

            I hope you will not mistake me.

            Best,

            Eckard

              Sabine

              It is clear that much thought and a sincere wish to find the right way to solve the looming questions facing humanity has gone into the writing of this essay. You may be quite right in your assessment how much effort an individual is willing or can spend towards solving problems beyond his or her immediate experience.

              With the tools available now or will be available soon the implementation of your priority map feedback scheme may well be possible. My iphone priority app will warn me "do not buy that," when its camera sees my hand reaching out for an environmentally harmful product at the supermarket.

              I feel though that you have left out a large part of the problem and the solution: the collective organization of society and educating it to act in the right way. This has been traditionally the role of religion and politics - good governance is necessary for solving our global problems. Scientists need not be the only source of new ideas - artists of all kind are essential to translate our inner hopes and fears into a form that can be fed into your priority maps.

              Best wishes

              Vladimir

              Dear Professor Hossenfelder,

              Your essay was beautifully written and held my interest throughout. I do hope that it does well in the competition.

              With regards,

              Joe Fisher