Social Evolution Through Massively Decentralised Distributed Resilient Networks by Federico Pistono

Frederico,

This is an extensive and well researched study of our present situation and of the direction it is going, but you do not develop how your central thesis, that of decentralized networks, is to prevail over the current tendency toward massive polarities. Often even efforts to combat these global control systems only feed, or otherwise enable them. You make a very cogent point by saying we should not fight inertial tendencies, as many seem intent on doing, but identifying the root assumptions and seeking to correct them. In that regard, I take aim at several in my own entry, God and money.

The problem with monotheism is the absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual absolute would then be the essence of awareness from which we rise, not an ideal form of it from which we fell. It just so happens to be politically convenient for those running things to declare the source as an authority figure, to which they are the representative, by default.

As for money, it is a contract which we treat as a commodity. It is an agreement between a community and its members, whose value is therefore ultimately dependent on the health of that community, yet when we think of it primarily as an item to be acquired, with little regard for any broader ramifications, the interpersonal relations and other resources become sacrificed in order to create and accumulate ever more of these notes, which is entirely counterproductive. Now if we primarily understood it as a contract with the members of the community, the viability of the system and its members would be essential, so any member in good standing would be accommodated in times of personal distress, as best possible, while anyone caught abusing the system might well find their collection of communal obligations being negated.

These points might seem far-fetched in the current situation, but we seem headed for a societal and economic crisis, even before an environmental one, so there will likely be a need for new social approaches, even before we reach the end of our environmental rope.

Regards,

John Merryman

Frederico, I'm really looking forward to reading your essay. It sounds like you might be proposing (in more detail) some of the elements I included in my organizational plan (using Pascal's triangle as a mathematical model) from my own "Planetary Procreation" essay.

Thanks! I'll try to offer my comments on your essay as soon as I can get to it.

Mr. Pistono,

I thought that your essay was remarkable for its meticulous organization, and its superbly argued logic. Good luck with it.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

I would like to list your essay as a reference for my essay in a comment. The suggested text is "The following essays may be viewed as added references in the introduction of this essay: ...".

Federico, now that I've read your essay, I have a comment on part of it. In relation to decentralized currencies, you say that "They don't require trust from any of the parties involved in the transaction", which makes no sense to me, as the system itself has to be at least partially centrally regulated, both in distributing the original numbers/values (deciding what the requirements are for "earning" money), and in brokering trades. It is also democratic in the verification process, from what I understand, and if one individual or organization takes over control of more than 50% of the verification system, they have control over everyone, in the same mob rule way that the current governments of so many countries are right now (which results in so much discrimination and repression and aggression against minorities). For things to be truly decentralized, everyone would be in charge of individually deciding who gets what value/number when it comes to distribution for each unique situation where someone is generating or exchanging money. Which would, of course, make the whole competitive/zero-sum idea of quantifying things as a way to regulate resource flow, would be pointless and irrational. As it is, with a centralized way of making decisions about how money is generated, it's pretty irrational/subjective (since the central decision makers are no more or less human and biased than anyone else), but adding another level of irrationality/subjectivity to the mix, by decentralizing the regulation, doesn't solve any problems, as I see it.

We can use those decentralized nodes of communities (based on geographic, profession, life-style preference, and other ways people choose to form collectives), as a way to think globally and act locally, with a truly bottom-up, emergent system of resource allocation that aims to serve everyone's needs with the available materials and information, without adding the complexity and resource depletion of the whole process of quantifying things!

Loved your essay, Federico.

I first saw that extrapolation of historical growth at 2.5 % leading to the mind blowing outcome that we'd need the entire energy of the galaxy in a little over 2,000 years to continue this trend in Lee Billings' Five Billion Years of Solitude. Obviously, this train's got to end.

I tried to incorporate this view into my own essay, here.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2063

Would greatly appreciate your thoughts.

Best of luck!

Rick Searle

Fredrico,

I am completely in your camp. I raise those points because a top down monotheistic God is the most centralizing paradigm in history, so reversing the concept, to a bottom up spirituality, would empower the individual's sense of self.

While re-establishing notational currencies as a communal contract, not personal property, would serve to arrest the wealth vacuum which our financial exchange has become and made banking a utility it has to be for a healthy community, not the master it has become.

Regards,

John

Hello Federico, May I offer a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I would ask you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike

Federico,

A very impressive and complete plan to steer the future. I'm especially impressed with your step-by-step process to overcome the established powers which have relentlessly built monolithic structures with "massively decentralized distributed resilient networks."

By my accounting, you defuse and disarm most arguments that would thwart reform efforts: efforts to introduce green, independent alternative energies, efforts for digital, more localized manufacturing, and cryptocurrencies. You even address multiverse competition.

Jim

Hi Frederico,

really readable and well informed essay. One thing that alarmed me was

Quote "Risk (2) can be mitigated by having a global network of highly secure and thoroughly tested nano machines,communicating with each other and acting like a swarm, ready to intervene in mass within a few microseconds should anything happen." Who will make and distribute and control the nano machines? Could they be misused? Is it good to have them acting independently to control human affairs?

You wrote"the human race would essentially spread like a virus." Should be a bacterium. Viruses require a host to reproduce and that host may produce vast numbers of viral replications, bacteria reproduce by binary fission and show exponential growth, like human population growth.

I think your essay is so matter of fact that you make an extremely subversive vision of the future seem reasonable. Some physics tacked on the end to tick that box. Good luck, Georgina

Steering the future needs to be based on the nature and mode of operation of the infrastructure of civilization. The decisions made by people, no matter how well organized they are and the soundness of their objectives, will be constrained by the available physical services. One of the objectives of the ELAM movement would be the continuing operation and maintenance of the infrastructure (that society has become so dependent on) as far as that may be possible as the available natural resources decline.

Federico,

Thank you for a well researched and well argued essay. I have looked at all the essays, and read more than half of them from start to finish. Your essay is part of the short list that I hope will make it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. Good luck!

Marc

Frederico,

Your "Open Source Society" will violate the way the "Bible of free Enterprise" works, for the current interpretation sees the language of science as heretical unless it increases profits. Your view of a workable nanotechnology in some 20 years can be realized with an "Open Source Society" if we make sure monolithic corporations don't monopolize technology for their agenda alone.

I see our brain as a neural universe which can aid a revolution in science as long as it is open to nonconventional thinking.

Check out my "looking Beyond and Within to Steer the Future" and let me know what you think.

Jim

Federico,

Time is growing short, so I am revisiting those I have read to assure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 4/30.

Hope you've had a chance to read mine and share your thoughts.

Jim

Hi Federico,

Thanks for an englightening essay. It reminded me in some ways of Limits to Growth, though its reach is on a grander scale in some parts. Predicting the future from current growth trends is not always spot on, but its one of the few tools we have and its great to see it being used here to grapple with some of our most vital issues. Your reference to the decentralised decision making was intriguing. If there was a way to make electronic voting a lot more secure it could possibly improve the functioning of our democracies is a postitive way.

I also particularly liked your brief mention of existential risks, which I was expecting to see reach greater prominence in the competition generally, and would have loved to see that part even expanded a little. All in all, I enjoyed reading your essay. I'd love to get your thoughts on my own essay, which though it draws on a science-fiction format a little deals with some big picture issues in a similar way. If you get a chance to rate it too before the ratings close in a day or two, I'd be over-the-moon! Thanks again and good luck!