Essay Abstract

Humanity is a complex, self-steering system of coordinating humans. Coordination allows humans to process information and perform actions collectively, in ways that no individual could. Humanity's performance relies on the efficacy of this coordination, and therefore improving the coordination system can help improve humanity's future. The performance of humanity as a whole is a separate issue from the performance of its subcomponents. We could have great governments, great economies, great philosophies and great physics, but if a threat like global warming destroys us, civilization as a whole will have failed. We must explicitly evaluate and improve global society as a whole. A powerful mechanism for identifying well-functioning systems is competition and selection, but this mechanism will not work for humanity, because we only have one civilization. To compensate, humans must use competition between other, surrogate systems to identify coordination processes that will likely improve civilization. By identifying and implementing superior systems for coordinating action and information processing, humans improve humanity and thus humanity's ability to find further system improvements. In this way, humans recursively improve and create an ever-evolving system of humanity.

Author Bio

Jeff Alstott is finishing PhD research in complex systems at the University of Cambridge and the US National Institutes of Health.

Download Essay PDF File

Humanity is already steering itself. What are you introducing that I am missing?

I'm not trying to prejudice voting. I just don't see the utility.

    Hi Jeff,

    interesting idea of getting different kinds of surrogate societies to virtually 'compete' and seeing which survives best and what communication systems helped. I like the idea that we should not limit our imagination to the kinds of society that have existed in the past. Personally I think what we need is the capacity for rapid adaptation to whatever challenges arise.A big problem is the unknown. Current civilization may be too slow moving to make the necessary changes for it to survive in time. I suggest looking at the kingdoms of life and gleaning as much information on how to survive in various conditions, which can then be applied as needed. It is good that you are thinking about the kind of communication and systems necessary to steer mankind in a viable course and that you see it as an ongoing process rather than one time, or one solution, fix. Good luck Georgina

      Humanity can steer itself only if it takes into account that the technological systems of civilization are irreversibly consuming limited natural resources, producing immutable material waste and devastating the environment. Humanity can only make sound decisions about steering the future if they take into account that what technological systems are doing is an unsustainable process.

      JA

      You have several good points. I especially like you comments about competition.

      Humanity is one species, but I think it is made of several civilizations - Christian, Hindu, muslem, American, Russian, etc. My entry considerers each odf these as what I think you are calling a sub-civilization.

      Hodge

        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: ...".

          Dear Mr. Alstott,

          I thought that your essay was very well written. I only have one minor quibble about it that I do hope you do not mind me mentioning.

          At one time, each country had its own native people. These native peoples lived in peace and prosperity for centuries. Alas, eventually, every country was invaded by lying, thieving, murderous white male conquerors. The lying, thieving, murderous white male conquerors now seem to spend all of their time attempting to invade and conquer each other.

          Regards,

          Joe Fisher

          I am glad that you think it will be useful for your readers! Please go ahead and reference this essay.

          Thanks,

          Jeff

          Thank you! I am glad that others here are also thinking about the dynamics of competition on similar scales, and how those dynamics may repeatedly shape society's structure.

          Jeff

          Thank you for your kind words, Georgina. "[A]n ongoing process rather than one time, or one solution, fix" is exactly one of the concepts I was trying to convey. I am glad that this dynamic came across clearly.

          I agree that mimicking structures from other systems, such as organisms, will likely prove fruitful. Identifying organizational structures from one complex system and applying them to other systems is a central component of my research. However, it is worth noting that all systems are limited by "the unknown". It is probably impossible to construct a perfectly adaptive society that will thrive in any circumstance. But we can make society ever more able to succeed in an ever widening set of possible future environments.

          Thanks for your insightful comments!

          Jeff

          Hi Jeff,

          I really like your clear, unambiguous style of writing. You explain the concepts that you are using precisely and your reasoning progresses in a very logical manner. I feel what you are saying is probably quite straight forward - we only get one shot at human civilisation, so we must find a recipe for success by looking for things that work well (survive) in historical civilisations, in simulated civilisations, and in nature. Certainly your writing is excellent and I am left basically unable to disagree! The only small objection I would raise is this - civilisations can survive not only by performing well in their own right, but also by inhibiting the success of others (eg. parasitic, or destroying rivals). Survival seems to be in insufficient test alone (the Goths sacked Rome, yet the Romans seemed to be more advanced by most measures), unless it turns out there is a hostile external threat to Earth.

          In any case your write excellently I would like to see you become more ambitious, for example by attempting the investigation that you have suggested and drawing some conclusions as to what kind of civilisations seem to be ideal!

          Thanks for a very nicely written essay! I hope you have a chance to read mine at some point!

            So let me get this straight. Your suggestion for how to steer humanity is that some people should look at the institutions for coordination and competition that we've had in the past, today, and in simulations, with an eye toward developing better institutions?

            Um, aren't you aware that there are entire fields of social science research already devoted to understanding institutions and suggesting improvements? Relative to those existing fields, what exactly is your additional contribution here?

              Jeff,

              We are all in the business of improving our capability to steer not just a future but a viable future. Coordination / working together actually is the only way but we all recognize the stranglehold that the corporate power structure has on our global society. Certainly identifying superior systems of coordinating action, information and people and implementing them is the way. I have ideas that utilize the best tools and identify approaches that history has taught us.

              Jim

                Jeff,

                Good essay, made me think. Thank you.

                It seems to me that in your "humanity is an enormous, self-steering system" the individual plays no real part except in coordinating and being-coordinated. Is this because the "right" future for a society is different from the "right" future for individuals?

                I think society exists for the benefit of individuals rather than the other way around. My essay, promoting the role of individuals is here. I would very much like to read your opinion of it.

                - Ajay

                  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.)

                  Also, if you do decide to read my paper, please read my conversations with Michael Allan, Tommy Anderberg, and Robert de Neufville on my page as well. A great deal of clarification is available in those stimulating conversations.

                  5 days later

                  Hi Jeff - Nice essay, and I appreciate the focus on human civilization as an entity in itself, being steered by the complex "self-steering" networks and institutions we have created. I hope you get a chance to read my essay The Tip of the Spear as we touch on many of the same themes. I'm not sure that "self-steering" is the most accurate way of describing what happens when self-organizing behaviors emerge in a complex system. I think it is more accurate to say that it is an evolutionary process where small changes compete against each other - and the ones that are most efficient survive and propagate.

                  Regards - George

                    7 days later

                    Yes, Mike. That would be lovely! Thanks for having such a well-articulated policy page.

                    As it's been awhile, please let me know if your offer is still open.

                    Hi Robin,

                    Thanks for the inquiry! As you may recall, you and I discussed these very issues at my birthday party. I appreciated you bringing up then the activities of the traditional fields of economics/history/political science/etc., because it led me to further consider them and advance my thinking. Accordingly, these fields are addressed in the essay, under the section heading "Sub-Civilizations". The text is:

                    The most obvious reservoirs of surrogate systems are from such fields as political science and economics, which specifically study the behavior of human systems. These fields have the advantage of working with empirical systems. Data collection has historically been difficult, but is getting increasingly easier. Most of this research, however, has examined individual countries or markets within global civilization, and does not explicitly study the behavior of civilization as a whole. For some features, this distinction does not matter; a global society functions much like a smaller one. Frequently, however, "more is different" (Anderson 1972). Large aggregates of states do indeed have different dynamics from those of smaller polities (e.g. the United Kingdom is not simply a large London). This is evidence that the larger global system is functionally distinct from its smaller subsystems, just like the human body is functionally distinct from its smaller cells. We must recognize dynamics that are the same on the global level as on the smaller level and use the knowledge gained from studying individual countries and markets. But we must also recognize which features are different, and explicitly study the behavior of human civilization as a whole.

                    That single paragraph obviously does not close the book on how existing research directions should be incorporated and leveraged for improving civilization as a whole, but it does highlight how they are not necessarily focused on the suggested task (improving how the complete system of humanity steers itself).