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

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

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

Hi Ray,

I think very highly of your entry. Complex systems analysis is very important for understanding economics, our intuition is inadequate or perhaps has been jaded by too much emotional history.

I do wish you could have made a presentation to that would have made your insights "visualizable", so that it could register with the majority of us.

I got just enough insight to have started a study of Bar-Yam. I have tried to give you 20 points...is that ethical?

Don Limuti

Thomas,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting and rating. In your response to our discussion, "I think the task of reversing the trend, though, is made much easier by the exponential growth of network technologies," once again network technology is growing rapidly but net neutrality is an issue which the Verizons and the AT&Ts are probably winning the battle. The direction of new technologies can be swayed as we see alternative energies are. For example, the Koch brothers in Kansas are trying to kill wind farms, important in this windy clime. Common sense is still winning there.

Have you had a chance to read my essay which deals with some of the issues we are discussing?

Jim

Tom, there are a lot of interesting ideas to discuss in your essay. It's great to see someone approach this question by considering human civilization as a complex adaptive system. The institutional structure of society goes a long way to determining how productive, equitable, and resilient we are. As you say in your comment on my essay, our diversity is a strength. We have to take full advantage of that diversity.

What I didn't quite get from your essay--perhaps because I simply failed to understand--is what specific reforms you would make. I am still not quite sure what exactly it would mean to distribute communications technology and resources laterally or what exactly a globally-linked supply chain controlled by high tech information systems in a robust network would look like. It became more clear in the last few paragraphs, but still I wanted more.

In any case, I hope your essay does well, Tom. Best of luck in the contest!

Thanks for the explanation, Tom (and for the support!). I think I understand better now. I guess my next question is, who ensures that the supply chain is globally-linked in this way? Does this emerge from the choices of private actors under some system of regulation? Or do governments mandate the structure of the network centrally? Or is the network made redundant and robust in some other way?