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).

            Thank you for your kind words, Ross!

            I absolutely agree that competition can yield unintended results when the competitors can affect each other. In that case, as you say, a winning strategy can be to make other competitors lose, as opposed to make yourself win. I actually noted this possibility in an early version of the essay, but took it out.

            For some investigations, the problem is not so relevant to our present task. For example, if we simulate surrogate societies to identify "fit" organizational structures for humanity, then those simulated societies will not be interacting with each other. Thus, the surrogate societies will only succeed or fail on their ability to to more "honestly" win the competition.

            Yet there is another area where the issue you raise could indeed be a problem: sub-civilizations. We can try to find good structures/strategies for humanity by studying countries and smaller subdivisions of civilization. However, we must be sure that whatever "good" structures we find do not only perform well because they push others down, or have other sub-civilizations on which to feed. If we implement such strategies on a global civilization level, they likely won't work, as there are no other global civilizations on which to rely!

            It is because of issues like this that I argue we must investigate the functioning of global civilization as a whole, and not solely rely on sub-civilizations. I do hope to take up your challenge and perform these investigations. Thank you for the vote of confidence!

            As an example of one way in which sub-civilization dynamics could look different from civilization-scale dynamics, consider Ross Cevenst's comment above and my response.

            My reading is that Jeff introduces a description of the overall steering problem, plus a solution strategy in competitive optimization. Both seem useful in the context of "how to steer". - Mike

            Thanks Jeff (definitely still open, I won't shut up till they kick us out). You confidently show us around the steering problem, then introduce the solution strategy of competitive optimization; likely the most dependable one in the toolkit (I agree). I found no faults in your essay. Your dispassioned view of the status quo (a societal system that steers its own course) was a welcome counterbalance to my own anxious discomfort at being trapped in that system. You didn't suggest that I should relax and enjoy the ride, for instance, so I was willing to follow you.

            I think you neatly put your finger on the core problem of modernity. Optimization by competition requires a goal or "target action" against which the efforts of the competitors are "compared" (p. 3). Now this goal (I would emphasize) might be taken as the destination for steering the future, except (you caution) it's one that looks to be unreachable. "The perfect solution would be a societal system that is mathematically proven to persist and perform in all environments. Unfortunately, such a solution is likely impossible... We humans may never guarantee a perfect future for humanity, but we can give it ever increasing odds of a good future through continuous effort." (p. 4) Never can we achieve the assurance of perpetual existence. There is no heaven, so to speak; only a limbo of "continuous effort" and a hell of final extinction. Isn't this the core problem of modernity? - Mike

            Dear Alstott,

            A human is a system and part of the super-system of Universe, whereas Humanity is not; and thus Humanity cannot steer by itself. But we may able to steer against the holarchical flow of time while we are within Humanity.

            With best wishes,

            Jayakar

            Thank you for your eloquent analysis, Michael!

            "There is no heaven, so to speak; only a limbo of 'continuous effort' and a hell of final extinction. Isn't this the core problem of modernity?"

            It certainly isn't the most pleasant feature of reality! If things were otherwise, we would have a lot less work to do, and probably fewer essay contests. But if this is the shape of reality (as I assert it is), then we must acknowledge that fact and deal with it as best we can.

            You suggest this is a problem of "modernity". What do you mean when you say "modernity" in this context?

            Thank you for your comments, Ajay! I will look at your essay promptly.

            "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."

            There are differences between physics and ethics; what is happening and what we would like to happen. We can talk about how the system of humanity is behaving and we can still value individuals' happiness (or not!). I myself value the happiness of individuals, but one does not need to agree with that value in order to consider my analysis of how humanity behaves. As long as one has a sufficiently complex goal for humanity's behavior, then methods like those discussed in this essay will likely be necessary for reaching that goal. For example, your own goal: it is nontrivial to design a society that persistently and robustly benefits individual humans. But using the methods I discuss, we can repeatedly find and implement designs for society that accomplish that goal better and better.

            Thank you for commenting here, George, as it alerted me to your excellent essay. I have made my comments on your essay on your entry page.

            "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."

            It depends on the system in question! Competition is a very powerful force, and many, many effective systems use it. But it is not necessary; I gave the example of an authoritarian business, which does not use any competition internally. You are correct that a more effective business will likely have internal competition of ideas (e.g. a waiter in the restaurant could have an idea, and that idea be so good that it overturns the owner's idea).

            You say could also say that the authoritarian business is not a "complex system", or is not "self-organizing". I am happy to grant that, though the meaning is imprecise. My day job is in research fields that are very concerned about defining such terms as "self-organizing", and as I understand it not clear, unambiguous, rigorous definition of the term has yet been reached. "Self-steering" is, of course, no better. You could read my essay with "self-organizing" replacing "self-steering" and that would be fine by me. The important point is that humanity is organizing/steering itself, and we individual humans can take certain actions to to improve that process. I have outlined some actions in this essay, and I feel that your essay also points out an important action we can take.

            Thanks for your comment!

            Jeff

            You're welcome, Jeff. Thanks in return for the pleasant conversation.

            I refer to the modern age (in history and sociology) as distinct from the medieval. Medieval man knew of an ultimate destination to steer for (an enchanted heaven), but modern man knows of none. This presents a steering problem in the form of a lapse of rationality; a knot of unreason at the heart of our hyper-rational age. I think you put your finger on that knot when you suggested that the goal of competitive optimization is probably unreachable. - Mike