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
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
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.)
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
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
Don,
Fascinating essay. I was quite unfamiliar with Gaia and there was a lot I agreed with. Implementation, as so often, does seem to be the real issue. I wonder if we really can now ever find our way to a new paradigm?
Though I agree we're pushing technology itself quite enough I suggest history does show that most advancement has been led by advancement in understanding nature. I must confess my own essay then takes a more 'classical mechanics' view to untangling our incoherent understanding of nature. As an engineer I hope you may see and comment on the solution, born of the same Einstein quote you well employ.
"No problem can be solved by the same consciousness that created it. We need to see the world anew."
I suggest escaping Earth centric thinking to do so in an allegorical tale. I don't think any more fundamental and practical leap ahead is possible as the consequences are limitless, including inspiring confidence that we CAN understand how nature works.
Very well done for yours, covering very different but also critically important aspects of the future of humanity. I shall certainly steer your score in the right direction for the new judging phase. Roll on that new paradigm!
best wishes
Peter
Hello Peter Jackson
Thank you for the positive comments on my essay. I have now read and yours, and see what you mean about "classical" approach compared to my more, "hands on" approach. I certainly agree that solving today's predicament requires the study of nature to find answers, but in my case, I think it is mostly human nature and group behavior wherein the solutions may lay. This would be in hope of finding ways to lead today's large populations toward heeding the warnings issued by earth scientists today.
Yours was an enjoyable read that I'd missed on an earlier brows, and I've given it a positive score.
Don Chisholm
Dear Don,
I found your essay to be quite absorbing.
You have analysed the issues/crises/threats we face including "the 3Es" and come up with what I think are viable solutions. Your solutions are based on only "mildly chaotic change", but if it is any stronger than that, it might be difficult for the environment and human civilisation to recover.
Your quote of Winston Churchill's 1936 speech to the House of Commons is very appropriate:
"the era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. "
Regards,
Lorraine
Hi Don ,
I enjoyed reading your essay. You've set out the big problems as you see them very clearly. I'm not sure about global solutions, one size fits all when the problems each region will face will be very different and it will be difficult to make comparisons. The same level of poverty in a caring rural community is different from poverty in an urban slum with a broken community spirit.
What about ensuring there is local sustainability everywhere because climate may disrupt global trade. Making transition towns that are really resilient to changes affecting that local area, not just cosmetically.( My local council agreed to the planting of community fruit trees that residents will be able to get fruit from. Sounds good but this is a fruit growing region and most of the fruit is never harvested so really the last thing we need is more fruit and most probably only a few individuals will benefit from the free fruit grown on the local tax payers trees.)There should definitely be some joined up thinking in the real world.
I noticed the mention of preventing mass migration. How do you envision that being peacefully and humanely accomplished?
Good luck, Georgina
Not Anonymous, from me.
