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

          Peter,

          Much, much appreciated.

          Again all the best in the contest and your endeavors.

          Rick

          5 days later

          Hi Rick,

          Thoughtful essay on utopia.

          Your comment at the end: "I would say that How to Steer the Future has no definitive and final answer but begins with the rediscovery that it is us with our hands behind the wheel."

          I would add "and with high aims for humanity".

          Don Limuti

            • [deleted]

            • Post #61

            Dear Rick,

            Great philosophical essay! Remarkable conclusion and deep concepts:«No human society will ever truly be a Utopia, but, as Oscar Wilde knew, the Utopian imagination has continually expanded our moral horizon. Recovering it might help restore our sense of being creatures embedded in time where our agency is directed in the present towards a future whose shape in not yet determined. The future is neither completely ours to shape nor something we are subject to without room for maneuver. For, continuing to think that our world cannot be made to better conform to our ideals is one of the surest ways to insure that what lies in our future is the farthest thing from Utopia. And so, if I were to answer the question that inspired this essay "how should humanity steer the future" directly, I would say that the question has no definitive and final answer but begins with the rediscovery that it is us with our hands behind the wheel." My high rating. We need a Great Dream and Great Common Cause to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Great Dream always go alond with Freedom without fear, Hope, Love, Justice. New Generation says: We start the path. In the concept u-topia deep ontological meaning "turn to topos». Here is a very deep philosophy and cartography. Humanity needs turning consciousness. I'm starting to read your site... Please see on the journey Protogeometer and some u-topian ideas.

            Sincerely,

            Vladimir

            Dear Rick,

            interesting ideas, exposed quite brilliantly. I found that in most passages you appear more concerned about illustrating concepts or opinions from various people, from the past or the present, than to express directly your position about the question at hand - manifesting an interest and talent especially for analysis. But your own message, one of recovering a new form of utopia by trying to steer technology, is eventually delivered, and sounds attractive (although, as usual, the devil is in the details . . .).

            One observation. You contrast determinism (taken in very broad sense) with the openness of the future. I tend to believe that there`s no necessary conflict between the two concepts (and the research I`ve been doing in the last few years is based on this assumption). In particular, a deterministic (algorithmic) behaviour at the ultimate discrete fabric of the physical universe does not prevent creativity to pop up at upper levels of emergence, as now widely demonstrated and accepted.

            But your dealing with determinism mostly relates to a different level - that of technology. You observe that a deterministic view at the progress of technology has somehow reduced our faith in the possibility to steer it, and that we should rather change this attitude because there is no guarantee that `un-steered` progress will lead us to a good place. I agree that the power we have to effectively steer this progress - one with aspects that remind us of darwinian evolution - is limited.

            What I find harder to accept is the view (Billings`?) that the current exponential technological growth be a peak, a historical exception. The physical universe expands at an accelerated rate, and it would be . . . a disappointing waste of space if this process were not accompanied by a growth in the complexity of its contents, somewhere. Currently, and from our point of observation, maximum complexity is achieved by the phenomenon of life, humanity, our brains, and our technology. This is where we should expect further growth. Of course, given the openness of our future, we are in the realm of pure speculations. But if openness also means creativity, there is room for optimism. I found reasons for optimism, in this respect, in the surprisingly prophetic visions by Teilhard de Chardin, as partly discussed in my essay. (Last hours for rating: if interested, please take a look at it.)

            Best regards

            Tommaso

              Tommaso,

              Thank you for your comment. In answer to:

              "What I find harder to accept is the view (Billings`?) that the current exponential technological growth be a peak, a historical exception. The physical universe expands at an accelerated rate, and it would be . . . a disappointing waste of space if this process were not accompanied by a growth in the complexity of its contents, somewhere."

              I find Billing's argument at the very least very interesting. Given that we are the only technological civilization we know of we simply have nothing but our own experience on which to base any of our extrapolations. What intrigues me about his argument is just how high the energy requirements become within short time frames if we merely want to continue on the growth path we have been on since the industrial revolution. There are multiple and perhaps equally probable scenarios one of which is that we simply plateau as or plateau for a very extended period having run into hard ceilings in the form of energy and environmental constraints.

              I really enjoyed your essay, and have given you my vote. You paint a very attractive picture, but I myself do not think the universe follows any necessary telos, its emergent properties - life, sentience etc more lucky miracles than a sign of an unfolding higher purpose. Or perhaps I would say that the universe is simply prolific and cares not whether its prolific beings come in a form that possesses technology such as ourselves or not. We should therefore not write our particularity into the fabric of its future but work to ensure we have a place there.

              Best of luck in the contest, and in all your endeavors!

              Rick

              Hi Rick,

              thanks for the clarifications. I suspect that, while some plateau period may indeed happen, based on energy availability/demand, it will appear vanishingly small when we look at the grand evolution picture. I do not believe in a `telos` driving this evolution either; in spite of what Teilhard de Chardin suggest - that the evolution is pulled from above - I believe that the creativity of the computational universe is fueled, strictly speaking, only from below, although this does not exclude the `illusion` that some final purpose is at work.

              Ciao

              Tommaso

              Hi Rick,

              I liked very much your essay, which went in a realistic manner through various utopian ideas, presented good parts without ignoring bad sides, and proposes an utopian mean to steer the technological progress. Your essay is well written, well documented, and it is clear that you gave serious thoughts to the ideas you presented. Good luck!

              Best regards,

              Cristi