Dear Rick,

You have written a very helpful clarification of "utopia vs. dystopia", and of how it has changed over time. Utopia as a constant way of looking for a better future is a good idea, so long as we remain flexible for new ideas.

My stance is on the Biblical worldview, where (one might say) Utopia is also looking for us, indeed initiates the search for us who have fallen out of relationship with God. The Biblical view puts a solid objectivity to the matter, because Utopia is already there, ready and functioning, as given by the two Great Commandments as given by Jesus (Matthew 22), to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love one another just like we love ourselves. Hard to improve on that goal, I think - because the Biblical understanding of "love" is doing good for others, not pampering them, but real objective good, as a parent might do for a child. We are thus to love ourselves in that same way.

That being the case, the search for Utopia is the search for how to find and cooperate with God. Much simplified by God's having already reached out to us - as per Biblical history.

Many will respond, "OK, but the Biblical worldview and God is now passe, disproven, or made irrelevant by modern science." to which I respond, "Not so, science was invented in the late Middle Ages by Christians, not by secular folks, as I indicate in my essay 'How Shall We Then Live?'" Science would never have happened if the Hebrews had not given us a world at home in time and space and particularity, and if the Christians had not then combined that worldview with the Greek talent for logical thinking.

The best to you, Earle

Vladimir,

Oh, I am familiar with the work of Ronald Searle. It's difficult to live up to the last name, I have him and the philosopher John Searle. I just hope I share some of the same good genes.

Had I had more space, I certainly would have included something on both Christian and Jewish apocalyptic traditions originating as resistance literature. My orginal version had a long section on the Islamic utopian- Al Farabi- but alas I had to cut it.

I will probably past what follows as a comment under your own very insightful and amusing essay. Ah, if only Einstein had been the first president of Israel!

I have had a long standing interest in a group of Jewish thinkers including him,

Judah Magnes and Hannah Arendt who wanted a Jewish homeland but also a bi-national state to be shared between both Jews and Arabs.

On the other issue Einstein was most worried about- nuclear war- don't you think he would be pleased with how things have turned out so far? There is very little risk for the foreseeable future of a global nuclear war.No world war has been fought since and none appears on the horizon as far out as the middle of the century.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

    Rick,

    Sorry to inflict Ronald on you again (I now think I have mentioned him to you in a comment in years past - old fogeism at work here).

    I liked your comment above which you also put on my page, and I replied as follows:

    "Dear Rick

    Yes Einstein was a brave and independent thinker and spoke his mind frankly in quotable quotes. He was too gentle a soul to have been able to rein in the aggressive elements in the Zionist movement like Begin, responsible for the massacres and bombings that colored the conflict in the 1940's and stamped Israel's actions ever since.

    I wish I could share your optimism about nuclear war - so many of those bombs have been made, and the situation (in N and S Korea for example) can degenerate quickly, but yes I do agree with you that the Cold War passed without a nuclear incident, and that is to be thankful for.

    Best of luck to us !!"

    Vladimir

    Vladimir,

    It's hard to keep track of comments, and I will put this after my own essay as well as you have done.You're probably right that Einstein would not have been able to reign in aggressive Zionists, but sadly, we were not able to find out.

    I also agree that there continues to be a risk of nuclear conflict, but however deadly such conflict might be they do not, as the MAD of the Cold War did, threaten us with the extinction of all life on earth. Our biggest task is to make sure this risk does not reappear sometime this century- given events like that going on in Ukraine right now- the prospects do not look particularly good.

    All the best,

    Rick

    Great work, Rick. Well-written and well-argued. I completely agree--I am a Platonist at heart--that we have to consider what the ideal might be so we can aim for it. And I agree we need more social experimentation. It was just that kind of experimentation in the free cities of Europe that produced modern democracy and capitalism. Of course I also think--it sounds like you are with me on this--that Burke was right that we have to be judicious when set out to design and build society from first principles. In any case, when the GCRI needs writing I will certainly mention your name to Seth and Grant. Good luck in the contest. You deserve to do well!

    Robert

      Thanks, Robert. I really value your praise, and you managed completely (and succinctly) capture my meaning. All the best both here and especially with the GCRI- our children's future is riding on it.

      5 days later

      Rick,

      If I understood the message of your essay it is:

      - that there is no single future of humanity

      - that there are many futures i.e. utopias

      - that individual people define their individual utopias

      - that what's necessary to reach a particular utopia is in the hands of the person reaching for it

      If I got it, then we are in complete agreement on how to steer humanity's future. My essay (here) makes the case for individuals reaching their own definition of a future, through their own personal efforts. And society can help everyone by making science something each person can tinker and play with.

      Hope I got the gist of your message.

      Let me know if you and I are as much in sync as I think we are.

      - Ajay

      Hi Ajay,

      I think both individuals and communities define what the ideal society is and can strive towards it. For the individual, some notion of Utopia can serve as a moral template through which they can judge their own society and serve as a guide to their actions within it.

      Many of our priorities, however, need a society in which they can be manifest- Utopia (or an ideal future) can serve as a useful tool there as well.Lastly,I really like the idea of utopian communities as experiments where some set of social problems is resolved. They almost always fail but tend to be trailblazers and teach us valuable lessons.

      I liked your essay a lot. I am a big supporter of citizen science. I don't think you mentioned crowd sourcing efforts such as FOLDING AT HOME or even better, in that they better involve individuals crowd sourcing efforts that have individuals scan through astronomical data and the like. I feel that given mobile technology the horizon of citizen science is endless > everything from monitoring and pooling data on local ecosystems to allowing people in the developing world to tap into the scientific knowledge of more technologically developed countries. Mobile could even be used to bring highly localized knowledge in the developing world e.g. medicinal plants, new species, ecosystem health with scientist all over the world.

      All the best on your noble effort to bring science to the global public.

      Rick

        P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate essays:

        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.)

        Rick,

        Thank you for being a big supporter of science in the hands of consumers.

        I did not mention crowd sourcing as its objective is to put a challenge to a crowd and choose a solution from the many the crowd puts forward.

        My approach is very different from crowd sourcing. I believe that no sourcing is required for the goal is not for a crowd to help me with my challenge, but the goal is to get each citizen able to solve their own individual challenge.

        I concur on your assessment that mobile technology is too important to ignore and its single biggest benefit will be to get knowledge to, literally, everyone to choose and use.

        I'll post this comment on your essay also.

        - Ajay

        Rick,

        I only now got a chance to read your essay, and I am very glad I did. Very well written, and definitely thought-provoking. From a very pragmatic perspective, simply debating the different notions of Utopia is already useful for helping human societies find their bearings (even if we may never know if we reached it), so this theme fits very well into this competition. Good luck!

        Jens

          Hi Rick,

          Great essay! It is well argued, and beautifully written. I agree with you; technology has great impact on humanity's future, and through science and technology we can reach Utopia, or get close. This is in agreement with my essay: Improving Science for a Better Future , I'd be glad to take your opinion.

          Good luck in the contest, and best regards,

          Mohammed

          Hi Jens,

          Yes, it's hard to keep up with all the essays. Thank you very much for the compliment. You know how much I liked your essay which readers can find here:

          http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2061

          Best of luck in the contest, and we should definitely keep in touch.

          Rick

          Hi Mohammed,

          I'll post this at under your essay as well...

          Fantastic essay! I may turn a quote of yours "...nature is a whole that recognizes no disciplinary boundaries" into a poster and put it on my wall.

          Totally agree with your point: "..in 2013 the US spent only $2 billion on clean energy R&D, compared with $72 billion on defense R&D"- this is obscene. We Americans really don't know what real "defense" spending in the 21st century should mean, which is dealing with the man made and human threats to global society.

          Love that you brought up the MIT Media lab. I originally had them in my own essay, but had to cut that section do to length requirements.

          One group I wish you might have mentioned were ethicists.I think it's important to get them into the design process when it comes to new technology.

          Not to stereotype, but I've read a bit about the golden age of science in the Islamic world, thinkers such as Al- Farabi, Ibn al-Haytham and Ibn S墨n膩 who set

          the stage for the scientific revolution in the West. Bringing this science back to that area would be the greatest benefit to both the Islamic world and larger humanity.

          Best of luck in the contest!

          Rick

          8 days later

          Rick,

          I found your argument interesting, well considered and balanced. I'll take the odd point to task if I may but first I particularly comment.

          "..no social version of determinism is more important than technological determinism... "Getting the question of technological evolution right will likely mean getting the future right." "...simply letting the evolution of technology continue without our shaping it to better answer our challenges and fit our values is no longer viable." and particularly;

          "...we really do have choices regarding how this particular phase of technological evolution will unfold in a way we have not before. It is not the mind-blowing technological powers we continue to produce that count so much as whether we use them to create and support the kind of societies we want."

          I feel we've been rather wandering blindly for some time, neither understanding nature nor where we're heading. I hope I understand your philosophy as in agreement with mine; perhaps condensed to;

          1. We must always identify our next goal ('utopia?) first, then identify how to achieve it.

          2. We can and must make what we wish from discoveries including from serendipity.

          I agree with Kurzweil. As a successful yacht racing helm I know the wind and elements are always fickle, but the same few always end up leading. The rest simply refuse to recognise how. However I'm not sure about your; "...doubts as to if quantum fields, the nature of consciousness or theories of the multi-verse are as important as more mundane goal setting at least in terms of the near-term future."

          True perhaps I feel for those with small ambition, or as a first step, and I do agree most current science in those areas is fruitless. However the statement may allow the view that advancement in our fundamental understanding of nature is trivial compared to, necessary I agree, more trivial goal setting.

          Uniquely I've found that's not the case, so perhaps read my own essay before deciding. I used the method to identify the greatest possible advancement, the 'holy grail' of physics, 'unification', and also a solution; the 'fissure' being classically deriving QM, so swapping weirdness for comprehensibility. It's far too BIG a leap for those steeped in doctrine to see yet (I estimated 2020 in my 2011 essay) but there it sits on the horizon.

          Your intelligent essay was a joy to read and I think should be a scored highly. I await your comments on mine (also a touch lyrical) and the above with interest.

          Best of luck.

          Peter

            Thanks for explaining, Rick. This is just a note to say I'll be rating your essay (along with the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30. I still hope you'll be able to review mine. All the best, and bye for now, - Mike

            5 days later

            Rick,

            Time grows short, so I am revisiting essay I've reviewed to make sure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 4/21.

            Glad to see your essay is doing well.

            Jim

            Peter,

            Thanks for you generous comments regarding my essay. I have read, greatly enjoyed and scored your piece. Alas, it seems difficult to move someone's aggregate score I was hoping to get you the attention of proper physicists, unlike myself, you deserve.

            If I understand your project, you are trying to find a way to return physics to the way it was understood before quantum weirdness appeared Einstein's "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

            I would align that with my own essay in this way: human beings desire not only that the world be physically comprehensible but that it be morally comprehensible as well. We used to articulate this desire for comprehensibility through Utopian thought, that is, we used Utopia to both imagine what features a

            morally comprehensible world would have or as a kind of contrast to the ways our own society failed to match our desire for comprehensibility. I'd like to see a revival of the tradition minus its former hubris and other flaws.

            I wish you best of luck here and in getting your ideas across to the rest of the physics community. If you have not already done so your grading of my essay would be greatly appreciated.

            Rick Searle

            Rick,

            I'm delighted I was able to positively affect your score. I like your description, but in a nutshell I'd say man can't really have a "sense of freedom" over the future all the time we believe we're incapable of rationalising how nature works.

            I show we are. The only problem then seems to be the embedded belief that we aren't! Thanks for your support of my work in trying to overcome that.

            Best wishes

            Peter