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

Great points, Jeff. There is room for self-steeering without being complex, and self-organizing systems that do not actually steer themselves. It reminds me of the categories of behavior that show up in cellular automata. Rudy Rucker (borrowing perhaps from Wolfram) notes that CAs can have simple or complex emergent behaviors depending on rules and starting conditions. The simple behaviors can be to null or oscillating structures, the complex in repeating or non-repeating (what he calls gnarly) structures. If the simplest of study toys for complexity can vary so much, then clearly real word institutions can as well.

Cheers - George

Jeff,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting those I have read to assure I've given a rating. I find that I rated yours on 5/12. I would like to hear your comments on mine.

Best regards,

Jim