Currently the Federal Reserve Bank is used by the ultra-influential to manipulate economics. The masses have no say, the intellectuals are on the sidelines or are brought in as participants with limited vision of the actual working systems.

Creating a central governance of anything, without egalitarian protection of interests, opportunities, and resources of all world participants is a structure designed to enforce a slave state.

I did not see any reference to control systems to prevent global abuse by the most affluent.

    Any realist discussion of the behavior of society and how it may adjust to steer the future needs to take into account the unsustainable destructive operation of the technological systems of civilization. Humans only make intangible decisions. Technological systems carry out the tangible operations.

    Don,

    I agree with your observation that the monetary system is central to our economy and its functions. My argument is the essential flaw is that we treat money as a commodity, when in fact it is a contract. Financial instruments originated as contracts, from clay tokens for grain in ancient Sumer, to the Rothschild's gold certificates. They were a form of IOU. Then these contracts became traded as commodities in their own right and now we have an economic process primarily devoted to the creation of these obligations, to the detriment of any external value. A national currency really is a contract between a community and its members, the value of which is based on the general health of that community, so when we treat these notes as value in their own right and so drain value out of personal relations, resources and virtually anything else, in order to store as promises in a banking system the result is extremely counter-productive.

    Regards,

    John Merryman

    Hello John Merryman

    Fiat money being treated as a commodity is certainly a key component of the recipe for disaster. Your last sentence pretty much summarizes my thoughts behind the wealth-fact system on which to base a Region's money supply. In the envisioned scenario, a region's true wealth depends on the well-being of resources, Gaian systems, general happiness, etc., and since these are limited, so should be the money system in order to perform the dynamic function of regulator of human activity.

      Hello James Dunn

      Thanks for your comment. I agree with your first paragraph. With regard to comment about the need for "egalitarian protection", or about: "... a control systems to prevent global abuse by the most affluent. ..." I cannot imagine a viable future scenario where either of these issues would remain relevant. The fact of todays, and yesterdays, vast differences in the individual wealth and/or power of a few is a key cause of our predicament. The most fundamental change suggested in the essay's envisioned future scenario, is with the money system and its control. Its control and issue would operate significantly differently from what we have grown up with, and yet in daily usage there would be little difference. There is little doubt that the transitional period from one system to another would be on the edge of chaos. But that would be better odds than our likely future based on 'business as usual'.

      Hello Dennis

      There may well be an issue of very long term sustainability regarding some seemingly essential resources that cannot be recycled today. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the principle task we face today is devise and implement a coherent system of governance that will lead to a vast reduce in overall resource throughput. This would at least give the next generation a chance to deal with depletion issues when they become critical. To simply do nothing because some items have, or may run short would not be an acceptable position for me.

      Don,

      I remembered the first time this issue occurred to me, it was Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign and he had a slogan, "We want you to keep more of your money in your pocket." This thought just popped into my head, 'Thank God its not my money, or it would be worthless.' There isn't a picture of me on it and I don't have to guarantee its value, nor do I hold the copyright. Much like a road system, it functions because it is part of the whole society. Yet it seems most people I make this point to think I'm a raving lunatic. Their lives are wrapped up in how many digits are on their bank statements. Now it has really started to go haywire, as ever more is issued to keep the system afloat, regulation has melted away and the entire economy spirals into an obsession with illusionary wealth. So I'm just sitting back on my farm and waiting.

      Regards,

      John M

      People vote with their money, their ballot, and their feet.

      The other reason governments refuse reorganizing change is the politicians are on top of the heap. Any change means they loose. My entry notes Friedman has predicted events, but the government ignores his advice preferring to use the model that has consistently failed to predict.

      Hello John Hodge.

      I have read your essay. The logical buildup to conclusions are from somewhat different spheres of interest, nevertheless, some of your basic conclusions are quite similar to my essay in various areas, such as, States (I refer to Regions) should have most control over local issues while Big gov takes care of holistic world matters. I have a few quibbles with some comments, such as the need for growth. You say: "Organisms possess a capacity to grow. Those life forms not growing are dying.

      But in nature there is a longer period of maturity with no physical growth. But I quite agree with your next sentence: "Organisms maintain homeostasis. A negative feedback loop is postulated to approach homeostasis instead of "fine tuning" in any form." I think future steering should be guided by such thoughts as it applies to civilization as a whole.

      Dear Mr. Chisholm,

      Your essay about abstractions was extremely well written and I only have one very minor quibble I hesitate to mention to you about it.

      In my essay, REALITY, ONCE published on February 11, 2014, I went to great pains to conclude that everything in the real Universe is unique, once. Your graphics are quite pretty to look at, but their uniqueness is not readily discernible. Your abstraction musings are certainly interesting to read, but alas, they have nothing to do with reality. I do wish you well in the competition though.

      Regards,

      Joe Fisher

        4 days later

        Dear Mr. Fisher

        Sorry for my delay in response. I appreciate your kind comments.

        Regarding your quibble about my abstract musings as interesting but not reality based: Yes, of course they are not. Today we are observing the results of our current geopolitical reality as being fatally flawed, and it is this reality that we wish to steer away from. If a viable substitute is to emerge its design will be developed out of accumulated wisdom using the good parts of today's reality and redesigning the bad, perhaps requiring a significantly different configuration. "Need is the mother of invention."

        I went through your essay, and found it of interest, but remained uncertain of how it applies to current contest subject. However, I certainly agree with your closing thoughts about the conflict of interest today when political leadership needs scientific guidance but may politicians hold strong religious beliefs that contradict science.

        Regards, Don Chisholm

        Dear Don Chisholm,

        I understood the contest to be about how humans might steer their future. I did not think that the contest was actually about how humans could build superior technology that could take their place in the future.

        Regards,

        Joe Fisher

        Dear Mr. Fisher

        There is no superior technology suggested in my essay. I believe that we have all the technology needed. What I suggest needs to be changes is the heading and goals of civilization.

        Perhaps your note was meant for another essay?

        Don Chisholm

        Hi Don,

        We agree on much, especially that unless we institute a rational system of trade and governing that maximizes individual freedom, we are steering ourselves toward extinction. I am pleased to see a number of rationalist contributions here; Bee Hossenfelder, I think, is particularly compelling.

        Great essay -- and thanks for leaving comments in my forum.

        Best,

        Tom

        Dear Mr. Chisholm,

        If we have all of the technology we need, why do we have to change our headings and goals?

        Joe Fisher

        5 days later

        P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

        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.)

        5 days later

        Don,

        The next paradigm comes with local movements led by the young in common-cause. It sounds somewhat like my concept of common good replacing the greed-centered system we have, this for a viable future.

        You have identified effective concepts -- the 3 Es - and a workable vehicle of change, at least in vision. The question for both of us is whether it will be too late to sustain any semblance of our current existence and how science will rise to the task.

        Jim

          Thanks Jim

          Yes, we share many concepts.

          I made a comment on your page and a good rating.

          Don

          7 days later

          Dear Don,

          I read with interest your depth analytical essay with concrete bold proposals. Yes, Science and Humanity move step by step to the new "Great Paradigm" - the World and the Universe as a whole.

          We need to hear the voice of the Earth, voice of the People to give up Hope to New Generation of Earthlings. We need a new "Great Common Cause" to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Time has come and we start the path together with the new Generation of the Information age, going ahead... «Great paradigm, come!» (V. Novikov "Waiting paradigm")...

          I invite you to comment and appreciate my journey into the past and future.

          Best regards,

          Vladimir

          Dear Vladimir

          I had missed your essay while reading most others, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. The philosophical long term overview of how humanity emerged into today is quite interesting, and is an important introduction to final recommendations of a science-based governance model, which is quite similar to my proposal in Our Journey to the next Paradigm. Perhaps our common engineering background leads to this sort of recommendation.

          Best wishes for your success in this contest.

          Don Chisholm