The Cartography of the Future: Recovering Utopia for the 21st Century by Rick Searle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dear Rick,

Congratulations with you high community score and admittance to the finalists pool.

I hope however that the discussions won't just end so I have the pleasure to sent you a link to my contribution : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS" and hope for your comment(s) on my thread.

Good luck with the "final judgement" and

best regards

Wilhelmus