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

Thomas Ray

Thanks, Gbenga!

Cristinel Stoica

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

Thomas Ray

Thank you, Cristi. The question about the 85 was not entirely rhetorical:

You write, "... 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?"

Because they are not donating -- they are investing -- the capital generates proportionately more resources for them as for those using the investment. That the uber rich are a socialist collective growing money instead of spinach is straight from Marx's prediction of overproduction/underconsumption; ultimately when they have starved the world of capital, they will have starved themselves as well. No one has need of money in a starving world -- as Ghandi put it, to the poor, "God dare not appear in any other form than bread."

The key idea here is to replace the control of people in a hierarchical society, with rational use and control of the greatest variety of laterally distributed resources. That's not socialism -- collectivization is socialism. Capitalist collectives are no more productive than peasant collectives, in the long run.

Hierarchical rule is not rational. Investing in, growing and sharing the diversity of the world's resources, is.

All best,

Tom

John Merryman

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

Edwin Klingman

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

[deleted]

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

KoGuan Leo

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

Thomas Ray

Thank you so much, Leo. My confidence grows daily that we can guide the future toward the peace and prosperity we were meant to enjoy as human beings, free and equal.

All best,

Tom

[deleted]

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

Ajay Bhatla

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

-- Ajay

Thomas Ray

Thank you kindly, Ajay.

Yaneer Bar-Yam is Professor and President of the New England Complex System Institute. You should be able to find all the information you want, at the site.

"How do we arrange to use science for good?" I think is more than halfway there. Further, I think the question is how we manage to effectively cooperate, with our individual talents, in using the objective method of science to create a more fulfilling life for us all.

I know that "History is written by the victor(s)" is a popular saying. However, I don't accept that history is ever completed. The goal is to help ensure a continuous state of cooperation that obviates the need for victors. In that way, we all win.

Best,

Tom

Ajay Bhatla

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

Judy Nabb

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

Thomas Ray

Judy, I'm afraid your comments reveal more about your own parochialism and provincialism than mine. Yes, in fact I have spent a great deal of my life outside the USA both as a resident and business traveler.

You can't have read my essay with any care, and concluded that it is about America.

I will try and read your essay -- and I wish you well also -- even though the word "eugenics" hits the same button with me as "ethnic cleasing."

Best,

Tom

Judy Nabb

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

[deleted]

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

Marc Séguin

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

Thomas Ray

Thanks, Marc! It's encouraging to see so many of us on the same page. The future is looking closer and brighter all the time.

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

I applaud your application of lateral thinking to complex system interactions. I confess I was struggling to find rating credits up to page 4 but then the coherent and valid theme emerged. It did seem an interesting new take in redistribution of 'wealth' (as a wealth of resources is none the less wealth) You considered the dependency issue, though I'm not entirely convinced there's an answer, but didn't go into the question of national self esteem of states not really wanting long term help (possibly they link it to [in]dependence too). On the matter of how practical it is I have my doubts, but none the less the work needed raising.

I delayed reading yours as I was rather interested in who faced reading mine first. Yourself, Richard, or perhaps Joy. I wonder if it was fate that's pushed us together in the scoring for amusement!? You've studiously failed to comment on my model, so determinedly that it may speak more than anything you could write. I'm not concerned but must smile.

I do understand your faithful commitment to Joy's cause, but hope that doesn't drag you into scientific dishonesty. We get enough of that, spiced with arrogance. Whatever 'spin' R.G. represent I suggest Red and Green are not equivalent to emitted quantum 'spin up' and 'down'. Statistics assumes they are because otherwise it seems statisctics may be as irrelevant as Bell, so black will become white in the quantum world!

I understand why you didn't comment on the mathematical theory you asked for, it was self apparent, as the logic I present. But please do be honest in reviewing the geometrical dynamics in my essay. Once the concept of reversal of 'finding' with reversal of analyser EM field is applied then the logic re-emerges. I still feel it completes the 'theory' which Joy doesn't attempt to derive. It's certainly a 'step on' from where Bloch spheres were left. I look forward to you views. I genuinely think, however the step is made, unifying QM and SR will prove the greatest single leap mankind will ever have made, so the greatest bit of real positive 'steering' possible. I think it's really all about cause and effect.

Back to yours. There are a number I'm not scoring yet and yours is one (and I certainly won't score it down as so many have). I do also genuinely wish you well in the results. But as Christian and I proved last year, the community scoring counts for nought in the end.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter,

Is this forum about you, or about the subject of my essay?

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

Are some subjects taboo to you? I think honesty requires none in science should be.

Peter

Thomas Ray

Peter, I am compelled to repeat: Is this forum about you, or about the subject of my essay?

« Previous Page Next Page »