How Should Humanity Steer the Future? -- Sideways! by Thomas Howard Ray

Tom, let me add this thought about complexity and the Israel-Palestine problem:

Before Zionism took hold, there was an indigenous Palestinian Arab Jewish community living with the Arab Muslim and Christian population, and particularly in Jerusalem. The name " Jewish Quarter" in the Old City testifies to that. The Jews of those days spoke Arabic and rubbed shoulders with Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinians. Within the crowded souks of the walled city what I like to think of a peaceful rich social ecosystem developed. There was a dense network of social, economic interaction but not perhaps religious, as each group had their own revered place of worship. There was occasional conflict as would happen in any crowded community, but none of the outright hostility that came later with mono-polar Zionism (their slogan was "A people without a land for a land without a people [sic]" .) The Judaisation of Jerusalem either by forced expulsion, destruction of whole Arab neighbourhoods, or more quietly by laws and other measures designed to make the Palestinian Arabs leave - and which have succeeded to a large measure. So much for the complexity that your Israeli co-author Bar-Yam seems to advocate.

Please pardon the bitter note here and make an effort to learn the facts about Palestine, rather than rely on what Zionist propaganda has so successfully spoon-fed the American people. Einstein's disgust with Zionist terrorism, and his advocating equal rights in Palestine for the Arabs and Jewish communities is one of the reasons why I wrote my essay around Einstein's happy persona.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Vladimir, I expect that we have the same feelings about discussing this issue, somewhere between leaving it alone and letting it all out.

Einstein was a secularist. The founders of modern Israel were secularists. The majority of Israelis are secularists.

Can a modern secular and democratic state survive without conflict, surrounded by countries ruled by 14th century religious oligarchies who openly call for the utter destruction of Israel? I doubt it.

Zionism is not the enemy. The enemy is an Islamic collective that has used the Palestinian Arab dislocation since 1967 as an excuse to maintain its control over political power in the region.

The early Zionists (and I mean the modern, 19th and 20th century Zionists, since there have actually been three Zionist movements in Jewish history) were not advocating a Jewish-ruled state; they advocated religious freedom and safety for Jews, which with the exception of the U.S., was to be found hardly anywhere in the world. And that includes the Palestine under Islamic rule -- Jews were not fully enfranchised citizens of that region. They were barely tolerated as subjects of the caliphate. Jerusalem was not open to Jewish participation; religious Jews had no access to the Western Wall under Islamic rule until the capture of the city in 1967. Only the most naive of us could think that Jerusalem would be an open city under Islamic religious rule.

It is my perception that neither Islamic nor Christian theologists fully understand that Judaism is not a mystical religion. The former two are missionary religions with apocalyptic prophecies to fulfill; it is unfortunate that those prophecies have their origin in Hebrew history, for in the Jewish tradition the prophecies are warnings, not predictions.

At any rate, Bar-Yam does not deserve your indictment. He is a scientist, same as Einstein, seeking a rational solution to an irrational condition, not just in Israel but all over the world. If you would honor Einstein, you would honor that legacy.

There can be peace and equality in Israel. It will not come at the price of Israel's, and the Jewish peoples', right to exist.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Thanks for the response. We can go on endlessly discussing the various aspects of this problem, but to give a short response: it is not a religious problem here, but one of the dispossession of an entire people from the land they and their ancestors had lived in. I and most Palestinian families still possess the keys of their homes they had to leave in Palestine to become refugees and watch while the Jewish people 'returned' to a land they read about in their Bibles. I put 'return' in quotes because arguably most of the Jews of European origin (Einstein included) became Jews when the Khazars converted to Judaism in Mediaeval times, as Arthur Koestler argued in his book "The 13th Tribe". You say most Israelis are secularists, so why claim a land 'promised by God'. The regrettable trend of present Islamic religious fundamentalism sweeping the Arab World has nothing to do with the root causes of the Palestinian's right to return to their homeland. And apart from the crazies (and there are plenty of those on both sides) nobody is challenging the Jewish people's right to exist, merely for the privilege of living together in one secular state (the PLO's position) or in two adjacent neighbourly states. Israel has the power and is using it to thwart any peace plans that threatens to lessen its domination and occupation of Palestine. But the history of the Holy Land has seen such power crumble again and again, and as the Psalms say "the poor shall inherit the land".

Peace Salam Shalom

Vladimir

Vladimir

Dear Tom I do not see how Russian pogroms and European anti-Semitism last century (the alleged "Protocols") justify what Israelis are doing in Palestine today. I agree we should stop here - it is not fair to those readers not interested in the details of this particular conflict. Humanity has to learn to steer the future through the quagmire of such conflicts, but we all must make an effort to understand the other side's views and positions.

Best wishes

Vladimir

Dear Mr. Ray

Your essay was very interesting to read and I do hope that it does well in the competition.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Tom,

Your essay is one of the few entries other than mine which has a political component, and like mine, it will probably thereby repel some readers. However, you also introduced a number of interesting concepts from complex systems theory. I agree that research in this area can only help us understand better how to steer the future as a society.

I liked the analogy with the cake and the knife, although I must admit it escaped me how the transition of the US to a service economy can be seen in terms of this metaphor as a transition from owning the cake to the control over the knife. Surely the US cannot be regarded as a "monolith", and if one considers individual service providers, is it not the case that one can find alternatives, particularly in Canada and Europe?

Also, I think the case if the 85 richest people voluntarily gave up part of their wealth they would end up in some sense "wealthier" is probably not going to convince them. Perhaps a bit more detail about how this could be implemented would have helped.

I am thinking in particular in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It seems that once one has reached the wealth level that one can get anything that money can buy, if there is still somewhere a "hole" that needs to be filled, then trying to fill it by acquiring ever more "stuff" is probably futile. It would seem more likely that the highest level of actualization could be achieved by looking into concrete ways how one can take on responsibility for (and thereby *claim ownership* of) aspects of making the world a better place. I wonder how many of the super-rich elite think about these things in that way, but I suspect not a large fraction. Bill Gates seems like a person who has given this thought and acted accordingly.

In any event, your essay is very eloquently written and makes some thought-provoking points.

All the best,

Armin

It is a difficult subject to discuss, and I think we have both made our positions clear, so as Popeye says 'enufk is enufk!".

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your essay.

You wrote: "Modern capitalism has learned how to use political cover to protect itself against Marx's prediction of over-production and under-consumption, by hedging losses and collecting rewards on economic downturns as well as on gains. " That is nicely put. However, the end game is yet to be played.

There seems to be a natural tendency for hierarchical systems of all scales to evolve into existence. Globalization makes this possible on the largest of scales. Somehow this must be discouraged.

Your distributed network of multi-scale variety would be the most stable, yet it does seem to require direction, planning, in order to achieve it. And how can the seed be planted? Wealth is becoming more concentrated, governments more compromised by it, societies slowly impoverished because of it.

Getting "The 85" to come on board seems problematic. I believe they see themselves has harmless, unlike the towering, lumbering giants they are, and no danger to the world economy which supports them. They do not consider Gulliver in Lilliput to be a lesson to them. It may require social trauma to get them to convert, yet they are insulated from it.

Your place for the US in the future global community seems optimistic. I believe the US has, by its recent behavior, disabused much of the world of its ability to be disinterested and impartial in the allocation of the planet's remaining resources. In any case what it seems, and I think this is your thought, the US would/should be exporting is knowledge in how the various localities should best manage their own resources, in keeping, so far as possible, with local geographic and social conditions.

I'm afraid the transition is not inevitable. It may, perhaps, be managed. Though perhaps something like Georgina Parry's 'sanctuaries' is the most realistic outcome.

Interesting and thought provoking throughout. Good luck.

Charles Gregory St Pierre

Charles, you made my day! A writer's greatest reward is a reader's understanding, and your spot on comments are music to my ears.

Yes, there is no incentive for "job creators" to be "wealth producers." They live in a world apart. It is just this insulation (and isolation) by the law of unintended consequences that compels their attention away from the control of resources to the control of people. The Lilliput metaphor is apt; he who seeks to control will be controlled.

On the other hand, well managed philanthropy and investment in capital development multiplies the potential to distribute control of resources, and in fact promises to increase individual accumulation and enjoyment of resources without depriving others of the same freedom. The potential for cooperation is a function of individual ability to act independently.

I agree that Georgina's prediction is very plausible. I am more optimistic. Instead of wealthy isolated communities (like latter day Rome, with gated garrisons to protect against barbarian invasions) -- I see lateral integration of resource access and communication as an 'invisible fence' that cannot be breached by force, and with a guarantee that there is no rational reason to try.

Best,

Tom

Dear Thomas,

The first comment is to rate you 10-highest rating for making your article "really scientific" It is entirely new I idea I will comment. I

I also found your "maintain global economic equilibrium" model nice. I discussed quite a lot about global equilibrium which I will want you to read. You will find additional insights in how to keep the equilibrium balance. Because of enormous entries, you can easily access my article here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020 STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM

Your comment and rating are anticipated

Wishing you an astonishing reward in this competition.

Regards

Gbenga

Tom,

I enjoyed reading your essay. It is well written, well thought well documented and actual. About your question

"What would persuade a money farm collective of 85 megabillionaires to turn over all their capital to the rest of the world - voluntarily, because it would serve their own best interests and make them richer?"

I understand it to be rhetorical, because how can they be convinced they will be richer by turning over all their capital? Wouldn't they become as poor as any other guy in the world? However, despite his immense donations, Bill Gates is again the richest man in the world. But obviously not because he donated that much. And clearly Bill Gates doesn't donate to be the richest man. He and others (like those sponsoring this contest and funding FQXi) donate to help as much as possible. So, I think that rich people will help others if they will find a higher value in helping others rather than having much more than they can care. But we live in a world which values more being rich, than saving lives and helping. Moreover, we are thought that the best way to help others is not by donations, but by selling them products and services, and by teaching them to do the same. And most of the products/services which are sold are bubbles. Money is very expensive, but a thought can cost nothing, and yet be invaluable. If half of those 85 will have the thought that they should help others as much as they can, they will do it happily.

Best regards,

Cristi

Tom,

It isn't often we agree, but since we do and you have given me so much to bounce off of over the years, I thought I'd give you a bump. The only thing I ask in return is that in some future argument, you step back a few moments and try to see my logic before responding.

Regards,

John

Tom,

I appreciate your comments on my essay and I'm happy to see that your introduction notes both the fundamental failure of Marxism and the fundamental genius of the U.S. Constitution. Your first few pages review current problems and we're much in agreement there. And I agree that prosperous middle-class societies tend to be more ideal in their behaviors than the extremes. How to develop such appears to be the problem.

I found your section "sharing resources without redistribution" to contain interesting ideas such as: unless one can exchange what one values for what one values more, it isn't wealth. And your observation of wealth distribution as analogous to heat dissipation toward equilibrium. Also like your definition of states rights--and your hope/design in which "down to the least element-the individual-can be effective without sacrificing self-determination to a hierarchical order." And the incredibly lop-sided distribution ("the 85") needs a solution that doesn't turn everything upside down. If your 'sideways' offers a solution, I missed it.

I liked your discussion of Bar-Yam and scaffolding, as an attempt to answer the problem: "how can one help when help creates dependency?" His "multi-scale variety" as opposed to monolithic totalitarian "equality" seems to support the 50 states as experimental laboratories, with your definition of states rights.

And without quoting your bottom line, I do tend to agree with it. And with your comment to Vladimir above about "a government of laws, not men" as being the only possible basis for hope of any solution to our problems.

Thanks again for reading my essay and for writing yours.

Edwin Eugene Klingman