Thanks, Ross. You make a fair point. Space colonization is important in the long run because as long as all our eggs are on the single basket of Earth, we will be vulnerable to disaster. But we do have more pressing problems. For now, as Carl Sagan put it, Earth is where we make our stand. I look forward to reading your essay.
Best,
Robert
Thanks for the comments, Robin. My answer to the question was that we should steer so as to maximize our chances of survival rather than to construct some imagined utopia. Although I try to list the major dangers we face, I don't think we understand the risks well enough yet to honestly say exactly what we need to do. But I think you're right that I could have said more about the kind of research we need to undertake to understand the dangers we face and how to avoid them.
Robert,
The way it seems to be, but I keep trying.
Money is a medium, like blood, or a road, or water in a convection cycle. When we treat it as property, then we seek to collect it, which means ever more must be added to keep commerce functioning and like a poor circulatory system, clots, tumors and high blood pressure result.
The basis of our currency is national debt and yet it gets derided as 'fiat currency,' but this amounts to a contract between the community and its participants. You don't collect contracts, you honor them. Since one of the primary needs of a circulatory system is to keep it flowing and the primary reason most people seek to accumulate money is for emergencies, old age and large expenditures, more flexible means of reciprocity would reduce this need. Conversely people who do hoard excessively, or otherwise abuse the system, would get penalized.
Quite simply we do not own money. We don't hold the copyright and are not responsible for its value. If people more broadly understood this, then they would realize that such things as a strong community and a healthy environment are viable stores of value that do provide for such needs as old age and emergency help, as well as general cooperation and not just sources to be mined in order to accumulate notational wealth.
As I point out, this is pie in the sky thinking now in our atomized society and quantified economy, but we will eventually have a monetary crisis that simply adding more credit to the system is not going to resolve and when that happens, we are going to have to do some soul searching and likely some serious rebuilding. It's just a pale blue dot, even for those with billions.
A lot of these ideas seem to be coming from the modern monetary theory folks, such as Michael Hudson, Ellen Brown and the public banking people, but I'm just putting up my own thoughts to add to the noise level on it.
Regards,
John M
I agree that we should steer so as to maximize our chances of survival. I think this requires a reorganization of our political process.
Merely surviving must be enough. I think a secondary goal would dilute effort and neither would be achieved.
Thanks for the comments, John. I'll take a look at your essay as soon as I get the chance.
Dear Robert de Neufville
It's great when meet people with similar views, three methods that you are giving very useful and I also agree : we should not live in the cradle forever .
But why do you think that my solution is abstraction?
My absolute principle means: will must be the most specific and the most detailed.
Maybe our Earth was created by chance , but the by chance that certainly absolutely must be one certain sequence, and exactly that is an absolute recipe for us to build all types of the habitat for humanity in universe.
Can you have the absolute solution than ?
Once again with happy of the sympathetic when to meet you - Hải.CaoHoàng
Thanks for your comments and for reading my essay. I responded briefly in the comments on your own essay.
I will be happy to read your essay and give it the rating I think it deserves, Aaron. I've been very frustrated with the apparent downvoting myself. I'll let you know when I've had a chance to go through your piece. I think I should be able to read it later today.
Best,
Robert
Hi Robert,
a very well written, easy to read essay. I like the way you start with the very long term risks and get nearer and nearer in time with your tales of doom. The feeling I have reminds me of how I felt after reading "The Long Emergency. Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" by James Howard Kunstler (Grove/Atlantic, 2005) A hopeless feeling.
You have clearly spelled out some helpful directions. More research, better governance, looking out for new threats and planning. Re. more research I found this is an interesting talk explaining why more investment on research is required to get really accurate climate models MIT Lorenz centre, John Carlson lecture
I don't think you have said how to make the world a better place other than it will be if we avoid catastrophe. My local district council has agreed to plant more fruit trees that the community will be able to harvest fruit from in the future. Which is not much but a small step towards 'future proofing' the community. It's a little ironic because in this fruit growing region vasts number of imperfect fruits are left on the trees to rot, as it is uneconomic to pay people to harvest them.
A very worrying read, expertly presented. Good luck, Georgina.
Unfortunately the rating system is poorly designed, encouraging the worst behaviour among people. (Or can anyone explain why Robert's essay should deserve such a low score?) I've pretty much given up on the contest myself and try to focus instead on the discussion. At least I get a few reviews of what I've written, which otherwise is difficult for me. Your review was especially thoughtful, as are your comments generally.
I hope your score improves. Some (like myself) won't be voting till near the end of the month. You only have 7 votes, so your score can climb pretty quickly. I hope someone kicks it upstairs where it belongs. It's sad to see an essay of this quality panned at 3.9. - Mike
Thanks, Mike. That's very kind of you. I can certainly understand why someone might not like my essay. But it is hard for me to believe that people are giving out such low scores to some of the essays on here in good faith. I hope that in the end the signal of honest appraisals will drown out the noise of dishonest ones.
I hope your fine essay does well too. You have been one of the most thoughtful, constructive voices here. I know I am not the only who appreciates the care you put into the essays you review. In any case, as you say, just writing the essays and getting feedback on them is a valuable exercise. The work we put in won't go to waste.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments and the thoughtful links, Georgina. I really appreciate the care you take with everyone's essay. I am obviously worried about the future, but I know there are reasons to hope too. In fact, I am very optimistic about the world we can build if we avoid catastrophe. There is--as you show in your own essay--so much to look forward to. And, for what it's worth, imperfect fruit is delicious.
Robert,
Very well written, and a strong point that I hope will be taken more and more seriously. A lot of progress has been made in modeling and forecasting risks, but it still remains a very difficult problem for most real-world applications. It seems that there is a growing consensus that we have to put more work into quantifying global risks that threaten the survival of humanity itself. Thank you for your efforts in spreading this idea, and good luck!
Jens
Thanks, Jens. Good luck to you too!
Robert,
Very good description of the problem.
Your solution is to leave Earth and for all of us to collectively pushing the governments of the world.
You are very right when you say we cannot dictate anything much to future generations. Can we dictate to even our own generation? I think not.
So how are we going to steer to the future.
My approach defined in my essay here is a bottom-up one which I think you are also proposing.
Let me know what you think of my approach to empower individuals around the globe.
- Ajay
Hi Robert,
I enjoyed your essay quite a bit! I'm glad you touched on the common-good problem, as I think it's a really important consideration in this area. I was also glad to see you pointing out gain-of-function research, which I've been worried about lately.
That being said, one point doesn't seem quite right to me: "Without better evidence that we are really unusual, it seems more likely that civilizations as advanced as ours are fairly common, but that they generally do not survive long." It doesn't seem to me that the observation that we are intelligent life can be used as evidence that such life is common; this observation is no more likely in a universe with little intelligent life, since it depends on the existence of an intelligent observer in the first place. (I'm sure you've seen this before, but in case my explanation isn't clear, see the anthropic principle. Or perhaps I misunderstood your argument?
Overall, though, I quite enjoyed your essay. Thanks for writing!
Best,
Daniel
Thanks, Daniel! I'm really glad you enjoyed it.
You're right that because of the anthropic principle the observation that there is at least one advanced civilization--ours--tells us nothing about how common advanced civilizations are. My argument was that methodologically in the absence of evidence one way or another it is safer and more productive to proceed on the assumption that we're not special. But on further reflection that was probably a mistake. I think you are right that the anthropic principle undermines even the most minimal version of this mediocrity principle.
Of course, that doesn't mean advanced civilizations aren't common. I think there are theoretical reasons to worry about the possibility that they simply don't last very long. But I also think you're right to point out that we don't have direct evidence one way or another.
Thanks in any case for pointing that out to me. Your essay looks interesting too, and I'm looking forward to reading it.
Best,
Robert
Thanks for your commments, Ajay. I agree that for the most part we need a bottom-up approach. I'm busy for the next few days, but I'll try to take a look at your essay as soon as I can.
Robert
Robert,
No way your excellent essay should be languishing so far down the list. I hope my rating helped, and that it continues to get the attention it deserves.
I'll take minor exception to one statement: "If humanity were a single person with all the knowledge and abilities of the entire human race, avoiding nuclear war, and environmental catastrophe would be relatively easy."
As the rest of your essay shows, we have a large capacity for punching ourselves in the face. It isn't easy to stop. Your followup to the statement, though, I think is right on:
"But in fact we are billions of people with different experiences, different interests, and different visions for the future."
In my opinion, it is just this variety that affords us the ability to steer away from an extinction event.
All best,
Tom
Great essay, Robert! This is nicely written and gives an excellent and convincing overview of the need to increase our resilience as a civilization.
Research and education is absolutely part of the solution and will be one avenue of generating new ideas to safeguard our future. I also agree that we need to find new models for governance--but I am skeptical that the necessary changes in governance can arise through research alone. In fact, there are at least a few existing theoretical governance models that improve upon our own, but the willingness for people/nations to adopt these is lacking. How do you suggest that we build the necessary institutions to properly govern the commons? I think finding these necessary modes of governance is one the biggest challenges to our long-term survival, but I'm not sure how we'll get there. Of course there's only so much you can discuss in an essay, so I'd be curious to hear any further thoughts you have about this.
Best of luck in the contest!
Cheers,
Jacob
