Laurence -

Thanks for the well crafted essay! Some in this contest are not so easy or enjoyable to read.

I was amused to see that you and I both used the same quote from Martin Rees. There are other parallels between our essays and I hope you have a chance to read mine, The Tip of the Spear. I think we agree on the current risks and opportunities, and I would agree that avoiding catastrophe should be a first priority. But I also think there is a broader picture to be drawn from evolutionary and complexity theory - and a need to build consensus for a shared moral framework.

Looking forward to additional exchanges! - George

    Lawrence,

    I guess the premise I'm operating on here is paradigm shift. When the old order breaks down, the population will be aroused from its current slumber. As I see it, the powers that be have been kicking the can down the road for a long time and the end result will only be that much more monumental, when it gets too big to kick anymore.

    The story goes that Paul Volcker cured inflation with higher interest rates, by the early '80's. Higher rates punish borrowers and reward savers and since inflation is due to loose money policies in the first place, how would what amount to higher prices cure an oversupply? It just so happened that with Reagan, the federal debt took off and by 1982, was about 200 billion a year, which was real money in those days. So the theory is the Fed cured inflation by selling Fed notes it was holding, to reduce the money supply, but coincidently the treasury was also selling enormous amounts of fresh debt. Think there may have been any connection? I suspect increased government borrowing was a big part of curing that oversupply of capital. Since then, they have managed to keep the excess out of the general economy, but flooded the investment world and those bubbles keep blowing up and popping. Eventually they won't be able to cure it with more low rates.

    Time will tell.

    Regards,

    John M

    Boy, this is a really nice piece of work, Laurence. You kill two birds with one stone: you submit a formidable essay to the essay contest; you provide a valuable document for all other contestants to forward to their email contacts! So you win no matter what happen . . .

    In this regard, perhaps you would take a friendly recommendation and send a copy of your essay to Charles Krauthammer, his friends at Forbes magazine, and the sole resident of Planet X, Freeman Dyson. Perhaps they would all benefit . . .

    With regards,

    Wes Hansen

      Thanks for the very positive response. Because the topic is such a serious one, I am trying to stimulate people to take action. It doesn't matter whether a person writes a different message or uses mine as a template. Either way, the purposes are to connect people who are aware of the seriousness of the situation and to convince those with power and authority that action is imperative.

      Thanks for the compliments on the writing. For purposes of dealing with the current human predicament, we obviously need a moral consensus that we need to avoid catastrophe. And we need consensus, both moral and intellectual, on the steps to take to achieve our goal. I don't think, however, that we should try right now to build a consensus on the ultimate or philosophical principles of morality. I don't think there is time for that, and people can often agree on what to do practically, even though they disagree on the deep reasons for what they do. If things work out as we hope, then there will be time to discuss deep principles, and perhaps then a consensus can be achieved.

      I think we are in general agreement about the nature of the predicament and about what needs to be done about it. I appreciate your kind words about my attempt to describe the current situation.

      I agree that it is necessary to move from complexity to simpler systems. However, in terms of the logic of the situation, I don't see a move away from complexity as a fourth alternative. The three alternatives of getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same appear to exhaust the possibilities, although that exhaustiveness might be more definitional than informative. The unexpected news is that the middle ground of staying about the same is unlikely. That assertion does require evidence and argument, and I tried to argue for it. I would classify a move away from complexity as a strategy to achieve a desirable result, rather than as a result in itself. This classification does help us clarify our thinking, but more important is the need for greater simplicity. You and I agree on that main point. It is worth adding that we now depend so much on complex systems that any move to greater simplicity will be a complex task, not a simple one. This sounds somewhat paradoxical, and perhaps is so. But I agree that we have to reduce the risk. In some cases, simplification is one way to do that. Another strategy is the provision of redundant systems. If we are concerned about the failure of complex systems, we might need backup systems to replace the failed structures, if and when something goes wrong.

      You raise a very important and interesting question. Assuming that we accept the general framework I sketched in my essay, then I would proceed to the following more specific suggestions. I would begin with the report of the Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations, "Now for the Long Term", available at http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/commission. There are three good reasons to start with this report. First, the document has been completed, so we do not need to begin at some earlier stage of study, writing, or policy development. Secondly, given the prestige and credibility of the Oxford Martin School, we shall not need to argue that the report and its recommendations must be taken seriously. Thirdly, the vision set forth in "Now for the Long Term" is basically correct. Much of it is really indisputable. The implementation steps are contained in "Part C: Practical Futures: Principles and Recommendations". At this point individuals would need carefully to consider how they can be most effective in promoting the initiatives. Many of us might find the C20-C30-C40 Coalition to be an appropriate focus for our efforts. Because the C40 segment of this coalition builds on the already existing C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, those of us who live in or near member cities can support the efforts of the cities, urge further efforts, and press other cities to adopt similar measures. This is something I can do. Other people can do the same. Furthermore, as I suggested in the essay, it is important to multiply one's efforts by asking additional people to join the effort.

      5 days later

      I agree that "... we can rely only on human character and

      motivations as we now find them..." to solve the problem. see Steering humanity's growth by John C Hodge

      Avoiding negative outcomes such as the approach to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons triggers regulation by a central authority. This leads to over-regulation and invites disaster.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #25

      Well said.

      30 years ago ecologists and environmentalists were warning about global warming. I had ecology lectures at that time and read the Gaia atlas of planet management by Norman Myers (1984). We were told that by the time there was the proof needed to show it beyond doubt it would be too late. It was frightening and I did my bit to tell friends and family. Do I think it made the slightest difference? No. When my kids were quite small I bought Al Gore's book and video for my family. We watched it, worried about it, bought a copy for our relatives to share and then life went on.

      Nowadays I am more cynical, or less naive. I think perhaps to overcome inertia requires lives to be personally impacted by the changes, being flooded out, having land undergoing unusual drought, having a home destroyed by unusually prevalent tornadoes, seeing friends or neighbours undergoing those kinds of tragedies or seeing them benefiting from the "green" lifestyle choices they have made.

      How to start a movement Looks easy, good luck to you.

      Dear Laurence Hitterdale,

      Thanks for a sober appreciation of the problem. I think the Singulartarians and other technology cultist's are simply exhibiting their complete misunderstanding of what consciousness is. They think it's an artifact that emerges from Lego blocks, so more and faster Lego blocks are all we need. Don't hold your breath.

      And as you point out, no amount of life extension will amount to immortality, i.e., deathlessness. I tend to think that "it is implausible to suppose that the natural limits on technology are much tighter than they seem to be." But steady progress in technology will not yield transhumans, only greater efficiencies in most areas and, hopefully a few new lasers or MRIs -- even a new Internet. But technology won't make us gods. So I fully agree with your second strategic principle that we can rely only on human character and motivations as we now find them.

      Finally I agree that you can't steer from outside, but only by steering yourself in the best direction you can conceive.

      "Grand solutions, whatever they may be for others, remain only fantasies for me."

      That is compatible with my essay, which I hope you will read and comment on.

      Good to see you here again,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        6 days later

        P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

        10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

        9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

        8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

        7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

        6 - slightly favorable indifference

        5 - unfavorable indifference

        4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

        3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

        2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

        1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

        After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

        The following is a general observation:

        Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

        Laurence Hitterdale,

        I appreciated this entry very much. It was well written and definitely fit the subject matter of this contest. Your current rating is the same as mine, but, I think yours rates higher. Thank you for submitting it. Good luck in the contest.

        James Putnam

          Hi Laurence,

          Nice work! I enjoyed your essay, and I think your priorities are in the right place.

          I wanted to comment to point out another suggestion that could fit into your email message at the end. It seems to me that an important aspect of public life, beyond making concrete suggestions like setting market prices for energy and encouraging efficiency, is in fully explaining the reasons and values that lead you to do those things, and bringing them into the public and political conversation.

          For example, finding a way for our responsibilities to future generations to be built into our legal structure might be helpful, or establishing publicly funded organizations to tackle the kinds of long-term issues that you outline in your essay.

          Overall, very nice; I look forward to your thoughts.

          Best,

          Daniel

          Crucial Phenomena

            Lawrence Hitterdale,

            The man who created socialism dealt with capital because he didn't get a professor post. He is known for his manifesto: The philosophers did only describe the world differently; let's change it instead.

            While your essay doesn't focus just on peace as does mine, we nearly agree on how such steering works. I see discoveries, inventions, and what Nobel called ideal direction rather than political decisions the primary and ultimately decisive contributions toward coping with the potential of humanity.

            Your metaphor of the rope over an abyss did not completely satisfy me because it lets me ask for the safe point where the rope ends. You will certainly take the same perspective as did Popper and do I; the future is open. Otherwise it couldn't be steered. Are you aware that this view contradicts to the tenets of modern physics?

            Isn't the name fqxi an obligation to deal with truly basic questions? Kadin's perspectives of humanity is different from those of individuals or groups.

            Facing hostility by time-traveling physicists, I am also blunt enough as to identify a basic reason for what you called the abyss; Ethics and human rights require to be slightly adapted. Do you agree?

            Eckard

              Lawrence,

              "I would stand up and do what I can" is a thought I cannot agree with more. I admire the thoughtful way you reached it. Hope you will allow me to use your logic with others.

              I reached the same position a few years ago. When a good friend introduced me to FQXi just 2 days before the 2014 competition deadline with the plea for me to enter this competition, I jumped at the chance.

              My essay (here) takes this thought a long way forward. I can only do a bit alone. Can I empower others to amplify the doing? My answer is 'yes, I can, by putting science in the hands of more and more people as just another tool, recognizing the value of which, more do, hopefully, say "I will stand up and do what I can".

              Looking forward to your comments on my essay.

              - Ajay

              You make a convincing case that this is a pivotal time, Laurence. You put it well when you say "it will be the best of times--unless it is the worst of times".

              I think we need something to shock us from our everyday way of doing things, so I particularly liked the message you imagine sending yourself. My own view is that working toward changing public policy--and changing the incentives we face as individuals--is probably the most important thing we can do.

              If you get a chance, I would love it if you took a look at my own essay, which touches on similar themes. Good luck in any case in the contest!

              Best,

              Robert de Neufville

              4 days later

              I appreciate your comments. Because we appear to be largely in agreement about the topics you mention, it is not necessary for me to say anything more here. I have commented on your essay on the page where it is posted.