A Rope over an Abyss by Laurence Hitterdale

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

Sorry, Lawrence should read Laurence.

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

Laurence,

The time grows short, so I'm revisiting and rating. Common good motivation, and looking beyond our solar system and stagnant ideas and looking within, using imagination and capacity like Einstein is my solution

Have 'you had a chance to see my essay?

Jim

Dear Laurence,

I enjoyed reading your excellent essay. I share similar view that we are in a turning point: survival or extinction.

You wrote: "First, avoidance of a negative outcome must take priority over the production of a positive outcome."

I agree with this statement. If I may say I propose both "avoidance of a negative outcome" and "the production of a positive outcome". Please read my essay "Chinese Dream is Xuan Yuan's Da Tong".

I rated this essay the highest score 10.

Best of luck,

Leo KoGuan

Laurence,

Yours was one of the first essays I read, but I didn't take the time back them to comment on it.

I really appreciated your arguments, in particular the statement near the end of your essay that "we [cannot] solve the problem of climate change without also making progress on many other natural and social problems that humanity faces [...] a global effort focused on one serious problem (i.e., climate change) will put in place both institutional structures and habits of mind that will be required for many other tasks in the coming decades."

I am glad your essay has been well received. I believe it belongs in the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. Good luck!

Marc

Laurence,

your essay reveals a precise, analytical mind, and an ability to organise into a logical structure a topic that does not easily lend itself to such a treatment.

I appreciated the psychological annotation about our inclination to consider ourselves as special, and our present times as a crucial passage in history. But exactly because of the illusory nature of these opinions, I disagree with the picture that is given of the post-singularity.

What I mean is that the only fact we cannot deny is the acceleration of technological progress, and of the other usual parameters related to population growth, pollution, etc.

But the expectation that, after possibly surviving the next `change of phase` (or the Singularity) in the most desirable way, and after entering a new phase of prosperity, the future will stabilise into such positive, steady-state scenario, would be totally unjustified. I believe it is perfectly natural to expect that changes of phase will keep occurring, periodically, in the future, as they did in the past. New singularities might, for example, correlate with space colonisation steps, on various cosmic scales, or with alien life encounters.

I am not exactly sure about your position on this this multi-singularity conjecture (but `change of phase` is perhaps a better term for what I mean), since you do not seem to mention it explicitly. I am curious about your opinion, especially in case you disagree with it :-]

Best regards

Tommaso

Dear Laurence,

Thank you for your close reading of my essay and your comments and questions.

I agree with your answer to your first question about freedom and social stability: the goal is to achieve social stability while doing the best we can to achieve as much freedom for individuals as possible. You have correctly interpreted the "cost function" statement.

The second question is harder to answer. You indicate that those who successfully market their ideas may succeed in promoting their own inferior ideas above better, less well marketed (or less well-funded) ideas. You identify this as a problem associated with economic freedom, but I find exactly the same problem occurring in academia, where "wealth" is more a matter of "prestige" (and the accompanying funding), but ideas are still marketed unequally.

In general I do not see a solution of this that does not involve gatekeeping by a "master" class, controlling the expression of the beta class. It's a tough problem.

Thanks for participating. I always enjoy our discussions.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Laurence,

A very useful and nice essay, with food for thought. I agree with your proposal of preventing disasters as an important step in the steering. More broadly, I have been thinking that many of the essays in this forum, when put together, provide a significant and comprehensive steering strategy, if only those who matter will pay heed to these ideas.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Hi Laurence,

Thanks for your essay. I agree with the views you express. One item I found interesting was the description of transhumanist interests in improving human "intellectual, physical, and psychological" capacities, largely because of what is not mentioned - like the capacity for caring, justice, and honesty. It is these qualities of kindness, mercy, consideration, etc., that I think are most in need to avert a catastrophe.

I found that your essay resonated with my essay on computationally intelligent personal dialogic agents. I developed a prototype as part of a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and have shown that it can "nudge" human interactions in the midst of conversation toward more productive and effective ends. I believe it can help to prevent the kind of disasters you discuss.

I'd appreciate a rating on my essay, if you can do that, since I am a bit short on ratings. Also, if you know of someone that might be interested in collaborating on the further development of a dialogic web, please have them contact me. My gmail username is my first name, then a period, then my last name. Thanks,

Ray Luechtefeld, PhD

Laurence,

Your essay gave me great food for thought. I prefer practicable dooable solutions to idealism so gelled with your "Grand solutions, whatever they may be for others, remain only fantasies for me." Yet my recent experiences suggest that alone is inadequate.

Considering the poor understanding we have of nature, and physics riddled with inconsistencies and anomalies do you think it's not possible that one day somebody will come up with a new coherent solution? There must be some answer unifying out understanding of physics which allows allowing both ' production of a positive' and 'avoidance of a negative' outcomes, not just for for climate change but dozen of other areas at once. Surely it may be fatal to rule that out?

So if someone stumbles across such a major advancement in understanding, what should they do? I'm sure you wouldn't say; 'cycle to work', so how can they gain attention for a solution, by definition 'unfamiliar' when science is 'belief lead' and all such departures rejected a priori?

Shouldn't we work to create the conditions where we ARE able to see and assess the value of such possibilities? The Estep-Heokstra essay expresses it well as needing better ways of thinking. Are not positivity and ambition first required? Or do you consider such advanced beyond us.

I hope you'll read and comment on my own essay allegorically offering a palatable glimpse of work in that direction. Yet it seems perhaps that even self apparent geometrical proofs, evidence and more coherent ontologies are powerless in the face of old beliefs. Is there a solution?

Thank you kindly. Very best wishes.

Peter

Hi Laurence,

I really like your broad principles. Indeed the point you make that there will be no singularity or transhumanism if we do not manage to solve more immediate human difficulties is one that often escapes those who opt for the very optimistic view. While its true that some people find the future frightening, a failure to protect humanity is of far greater threat to futurist goals than any 'luddite' outrage. Agility and wise choices are preferrable to pure speed in 'progress'. With all that said there is some brilliant opportunities for humanity and Earth just over the horizon.

In my estimates an letter writing campaign probably isn't going to make a significant dent. However, I think a good start is to do what we can to support the CSER and other initiatives whose work seems to take our species' survival seriously. And don't underestimate your own contribution here, it matters!

Thanks and I hope you might also share your thoughts with me on my own entry. It draws on a partly fictional format, but I think it draws on a similar understanding to yours - of seeing both the serious opportunities and serious threats in humanity's future. I hope you get a chance to view and rate it before ratings close! Thanks and good luck!

Hello Mr. Hitterdale,

My name is Margarita Iudin.

I read your essay without rating it. I stop rating essays because I feel confused about how the authors rate each other.

These are my remarks

1. what the persistence of human civilization does mean for you

zoom in

The Quaternary, glacial-interglacial periods, questionable conditions for the persistence

The Holocene, interglacial period, some conditions

more than one civilization

Timeline of the so called Western civilization and its transformations

diversity has increased, yes no, the change in a kind of diversity

before Sumer

Sumer, written language, agronomic melioration

Akkad, consolidation, empire, hierarchy, multiple social stratification

Mesopotamia, sciences, arts, systems of faith, cultural memos

Egypt, sciences, arts, systems of faith, cultural memos

The Mediterranean world, sciences, arts, systems of faith, cultural memos

Spread around, Judeo-Christianity-Islam

Centers of influences, the first world, the second world nations and countries and so on

Globalization, we will see what will come out of assimilation and loss of identity

2. Transhumanism Singularity hypothesis transhumanists

Your referral to wikipedia as a reputable source HmHmHm

Are you familiar with the process of the article submission to wikipedia?

Human consciousness is a part of the universal consciousness, consciousness

transcends material world, and so on

All things including humanity exist in transformation

Believe me, anybody who can foresee post human affairs will not say a word.

The true foreseers live upon the Divine force,

God Will Hunting, In Hebrew it sounds something like that sheh ha-kol ieheh ba dvaro

Please draw your conclusions based on whether the transhumanists make living out of their prophecies or not

3. Lifespan extension nay

What about cleansing of the soul and rebirth of the soul

4 Google, systematic research a good shot, Google guys do a great work indeed,

I need to check Kurzweil, a child prodigy, inventor, pianos are good, friend of Richard Glass,the composer,

the series of life crises, 400 hundred pills daily or weekly, personal trainers, wants to live a long life

pass, I do not remember the main thing about Kurzweil

not everybody can live a worthy life after the major life crisis

5 Evidently humanity is at a turning point may be, may be not

global amateurism

climate panic money money money

green energy money money money

etc.

6 unified consciousness stop

There is collective consciousness

You may want to read about quorum sensing in literature on cellular biology

Phenomena of quorum sensing help us to better understand the workings of collective consciousness

Alas, I have considered your thoughts.

I read Harvard magazine, not SA

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096

Imagining the future humanity by Margarita Iudin

Please read my essay on your convenience and share your opinion.

Good luck,

M Iudin