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

        John,

        Thanks for your message. I think I did develop my thesis (given the length constraints): my main point is that a clear path is inherently unknowable, but that certain conditions can facilitate one scenario over another, with the minimum energy expenditure, hence "steering the future", not "planning the future" or "designing the future".

        The adoption of Massively Decentralised Distributed Resilient Networks I think will gradually come due to their margin benefit for individuals, communities, and even small companies. The established forces and institutions resisting the change will eventually have to adopt and work their way around the new emergent forces, i.e. adapt or die.

        The only things that can't be easily provided almost for free by technology coming in the next three decades are: healthcare and the right to use the land. The state clearly has to play a role in that, because no matter how much smart open source technology we have, I don't see a way around these two basic needs.

        Hi Rick,

        I knew about "Billings' Five Billion Years of Solitude" but never read it, I'm adding it to my kindle now, as well as your essay!

        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

          Jim,

          Thank you! I tried to touch on all major aspects I could think of, though a complete analysis clearly requires a lot more elaboration on each, and probably even other additions. I'm thinking of using this essay as a blueprint for my upcoming book, "Open Source Society".

          http://opensourcesociety.net

          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

            9 days later

            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.

            9 days later

            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

              7 days later

              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!

                Thoughtful, well-written essay, Federico. You do an excellent job of discussing the most important issues and provide a useful approach for how to solve them. I think--or at least I worry--that you make reducing existential risk sound easier than it will be. But I also think some of your proposals may get us part of the way toward a solution. Good luck in the contest!

                Best,

                Robert de Neufville

                  6 days later

                  Hello Federico,

                  Thank you for your essay. I believe your work, and especially the technical calculations and ramifications, outlines the urgency of a sustainable ecological solution to our future existence as a species. This is one of my points in my essay (though mine has none of the calculations).

                  I also agree with your democratization of resource networks and increasing their resilience. While there is an efficiency to certain aspects of the current economic model, it is also highly vulnerable to power consolidation and catastrophic failure (e.g. drug manufacturing failures leading to shortages). Those efficiencies can now be transferred to the local level, increasing the network resilience and decreasing over all risk.

                  I hope your essay does well in this competition.

                  Best regards,

                  Mark Aldridge

                  Hi Turil,

                  I hope you had a chance to read it, looking forward to your feedback!