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

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

Thanks, Edwin. This topic, while not completely tractable to hard science, is probably the most profound -- or at least, timely -- that FQXi has suggested so far.

To try and answer -- " ... 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."

What does it mean for a person to be wealthy? I'm not speaking of the platitudinous -- wisdom, health and all the other substitutes for comfortable living that we preach to the poor, to try and convince them that they are better off for being poor, than having to bear the 'burden' of having money. I mean real comforts and privileges -- entitlements as human beings, to food, clothing, shelter, education and mobility.

We have been conditioned to think that were resources distributed equally, all would be poor. That conditioning is tied to the transparent motive that servitude to others' needs is requisite to anyone owning enough resources to enjoy life to the fullest. This primitive myth undermines the fact that all individuals' talents and abilities carry potential to increase the common good, to multiply wealth. Equality is not a matter of equal ownership; it is a matter of equal use. Equality is not a matter of equal opportunity; it is a matter of equal access.

In a world of lifetime free education and perpetual mobility, maximal access and use does not imply equal distribution of resources. It implies continuous and effective distribution; i.e., in contrast to the 'trickle down' philosophy of the putative 'job creators' (who do not in fact create jobs, only more wage slavery), the emphasis is on the free flow of wealth rather than a restrictive trickle. What universal entitlements to education and mobility effectively restrict, is the power of a few people to influence social policy by trickling money to their own preferred interests. Wealth and comfort should be measured in the variety of resources that individuals can apply to their own enjoyment and creativity, rather than restricting the ability of others to do the same. That controlling mechanism has to be checked, before individual wealth-creating abilities can be realized.

When wealth flows freely, even the very rich benefit from an all you can eat buffet. One is free to stay and stuff oneself, or to be sated and walk away -- to know that one has the choice, though, is the only true gauge of freedom.

Best,

Tom

Dear Tom,

Thanks for your kind comment for my essay. We share the same idea that not only a free-lunch system is possible but it is mandatory. I pointed out in my essay that the no-free-lunch system is based on the false myth that the no free lunch system is the eternal truth. This is false! We can have a free-lunch system powered by KQID free-lunch engine. I agreed your argument here: "Point is, the metastability of the system over time suggests that a continually shifting range of activity represented by changing hub configurations is self limiting; as a result, the global domain is largely protected from the danger of positive feedback - i.e., a loss of system control and potential widespread self- reinforcing destruction. In the history of the world wars, one can identify such unchecked feedback of escalating hostilities. Even in the present world, one can make a good argument that the specter of damaging positive feedback, festering in individual areas of the world - among failed governments, local armed resistance to despotic regimes, piracy, organized crime and racketeering, human trafficking - is tinder for a future conflagration."

Let us fight together to debunk this false myth. I rated your original unique essay a full ten (10) that it deserves.

I wish you well always,

Leo KoGuan

Dear Tom.

I totally and completely enjoyed reading your writing. Thank you for making me think. You've motivated me to read some of Bar-Yam's work. Any works, in addition to your references?

Having read your essay twice, this is what I understand as the meaning of "Sideways" : As things stand, science plays only a minor role in 'steering' while the major role is with the hands/minds doing the 'steering'; These hands/minds are well-meaning but so very deficient that today all we should do is ask a different question: How do we arrange to use science for good?" Am I half-way there?

At the risk of shooting myself in the foot, I'd like to invite you to comment on my essay (here). I come from much the same thinking as I see you express but I think I've come up with a way for "the least element - the individual - can be effective". Please let me know what you think of my way.

I can't find the words to express how much the following kinds of statements/quotes mean to me:

- "right of people to self-determination"

- "Peaceful coexistence need not require complete integration"

- "control of the knife is equal to owning the cake"

- "how can one help when help creates dependency?"

If you will allow me to suggest just one phrase, you might consider adding to a future version of your essay. it is: 'History is written by the victor"

-- Ajay

The logout issue again! The above comment is from me.

-- Ajay

Tom,

I found that a certainly well intentioned essay, or perhaps two thirds of an essay with a valid argument from a particular perspective. My view is the result of being born in Sri-Lanka, raised in the region, spending time in Australia and (both) the Americas and being involved in universities in various countries in Europe. That my father was a churchman and missionary (as well as (mathematician) help explain.

Two things then jump out at me. First how close the models and ideals are to those ostensibly underlying the British Commonwealth, which encompassed the largest ever empire (on which the sun proverbially never set) which was born, as all are, of rather less altruism. Equality of resource, education and tangible goods and 'gates' in well defined fences were founding principles.

The commonwealth still exists in residue. It's interesting to see how it evolved, and how individualism often overcame reliance on others. With reliance comes subjugation. Now even many in Scotland seek 'independence'.

The second strong impression was of parochialism in your view, even an underlying arrogance born of a limited viewpoint. Your conversation with Vladimir also exposed that. Have you spent any time outside the USA Tom?

I won't mark any essay down on such grounds, but I think you should remember the subject it about mankind not Americans. The USA was originally a small part of the aforementioned empire. Many nations have waxed and waned in influence and wealth, many have made the mistake of arrogance. I hope that won't continue, and perhaps it will be mankind's greatest step when we can all see beyond that. I'm concerned about my own field, and argue that major advancement in the way we think may have the greater and longer effect.

I found yours a rather difficult read. Perhaps not all exceptional but with enough value, good intent and interest to warrant a good score.

I wish you luck in the judging.

Judy

Tom,

I feared that may be your response. You wrote off Vladimirs valid viewpoint in the same way. I recognise the same arrogance the British had in the early days of empire I'm sure the Romans were the same and more 'home centred' than the British. We seem condemned to repeat the errors of the past purely by lack of self awareness.

I agree there's nothing wrong with your raising that proposition, but am pointing out there are important lessons which can be learned from the past. Is it a little arrogance or just poor research that condemns us to re-learn them?

Thanks for your comment on mine which I've responded to. You again seem to think mistakenly that I'm supporting eugenics. I flag up the issues and problems because they are NOT addressed, as was your tendency, but must be.

Judy

Judy, we disagree on who owns the arrogance. Appeals to historicism always disregard that there are a multitude of trajectories from past initial conditions that could have led to the present condition. To choose one as the 'true' cause is the pinnacle of arrogance, in my opinion.

Were self determination guaranteed, we would know -- as Ajay implied -- that history need not be written by the victors; rather, that the free and aware population is victorious over history.

We don't need hierarchies, whether they are the hierarchies of historical determinism, or of intelligence, religious superiority, genetics ... the only improving that we need is the freedom to improve each others' capacity to appreciate each others' contributions. In that framework, one would find no more reason to discuss the ethics of eugenics than to discuss the ethics of torture. The ethical thing is not to value those things at all.

My reply to Vladimir emphasized one trajectory of history -- that Jews have continuously lived in Palestine (Judea, Samaria, Galillee) under oppressive religious and political rule, for thousands of years. Vladimir emphasized another trajectory of history -- the recent dispossession of Palestinian Arabs by Jewish immigrants escaping European oppression. Neither initial condition is false; one can write one's own history of the outcome from each initial condition, and both versions would be true.

The challenge is to make the history we want, not that which has programmed us. We are bigger than our history, bigger than our genetic makeup, bigger than our politics and our superstitions. We will never know it, however, until we dare to dissolve the hierarchical thinking that protects and reinforces those beliefs.

If science has an answer, I am persuaded that the key is in Bar-Yam's result: "In considering the requirements of multi-scale variety more generally, we can state that for a system to be effective, it must be able to coordinate the right number of components to serve each task, while allowing the independence of other sets of components to perform their respective tasks without binding the actions of one such set to another."

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Thank you for making me aware of the Institute. I will check it out.

Your point with individual talents is right on. Free to figure out how to make the something in their head (the true purpose in play) real using individual innate talents is the remedy I propose.

Your point "history is (n)ever completed" is right on.

-- Ajay

Thomas,

I agree with you that small, local and redundant systems, linked laterally in a robust global network, are the way to go if we want to successfully steer the future of humanity. For this idea to work, we will need the citizens of the world to be knowledgeable about the issues that are the most important for the future, so I see a natural synergy between what you propose and my call for a worldwide Futurocentric Education Initiative. Sideways we shall succeed!

I have now rated your essay. Good luck in the contest!

Marc