Essay Abstract

How should humanity steer the future? One interpretation of this question leads us to moral philosophy: how ought humanity act? Meta-ethics may cloud the issue, however, formalisations developed in the computer sciences that provide a framework for optimal decision making are used to attempt in-roads into this philosophical landscape. This essay explores and develops the relationship between Markov decision processes (MDPs) and morality. A discussion of how MDPs and reinforcement learning are related to biological and social rewards extends to the proposal that humanity is steered by these mechanisms. The suggested way forward for humanity is to scientifically evaluate economic and social systems that focus on aligning ethical values with social and economic rewards.

Author Bio

Toby Lightheart is a PhD student studying computational neuroscience at the University of Adelaide.

Download Essay PDF File

Hello Toby

You really give an economic perspective on how to steer the future of humanity.My question is since a capitalist system is driven by the profit motive how do you propose that it is steered towards moral driven or social rewards?Will it still be called capitalism then?

Regards

Stuart

    Toby,

    Good and bad are the biological binary code. Attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken, yet there is no clear line where the chicken ends and the fox begins. From this arises the intellectual dichotomy of yes/no, on/off.

    The problem is we tend to view reality from a top down perspective of a few decades, but it is a bottom up process that has taken billions of years. Our lives and bodies are extremely complex computational processes involving quite a lot of such switches and so while one level might be saying yes, a broader context might be saying no. Or vice versa. The logical fallacy of monotheism is assuming absolute is apex, but it is basis, so a spiritual absolute would be the elemental essence of conscious being from which we rise, not a moral, intellectual and judgmental ideal from which we fell. So in a sense, that elemental sense of I is shining through a funhouse of mirrors, each expressing different perspectives and emphases. That niggling thought in the back of your mind, that doesn't quite rise to the surface, is as conscious as another person trying to get your attention. Just that in order for people not to be functionally schizophrenic, the executive function has to then focus those impulses in a singular direction. Society then contends with a multitude of people, each expressing their views and if sometimes the result seems like herd behavior, consider it an extension of that singular executive function expressing itself, for better or worse. The result is a form of punctuated equilibrium, as a useful frame, habit, belief system, political motivating factor or group, etc. becomes ingrained, until other circumstances eventually force it to change.

    Regards,

    John Merryman

      Toby, I fully agree with you that a way to give everyone access to the knowledge they need, to make good decisions, and provide everyone the basic physical needs, for health, will allow us to have a much healthier system where individuals are supported in being their best possible selves, so that we can find better solutions to the problems we face as a planet.

      You say that "there are no distinct properties of "good" and "bad" that have been measured", except that there are very clearly systems in all living beings that let the individuals know if something is harmful/bad, or healthy/good. In humans, we've not only got a low level system in our cells that does this, but we also have a higher brain function that does it as well, using the reward systems of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and so on for good things, and the stress chemicals for the bad things. It's a fairly reliable tool for us to understand what works and doesn't work when it comes to individuals being able to attain their goals in life (as defined by the combination of their genes and their environment). Certainly nothing will be perfect, ever (that would mean a dead/unchanging universe), but it's the most proven system out there, and all we need to do is to organize ourselves a little better so that we can make use of all that highly reliable data that we're getting about people of all sized, shapes, species, etc., and how they are feeling about their situations. And while health is obviously subjective, since one individual can be harmed while another is healthy, when looking at the whole planet as a system, judging the health of the system is all about how all the individual that make up the system are doing. As always, you combine the subjective experiences of all the parts of the system to get the state of the whole. (In other words when one individual is suffering unnecessarily, then the whole system suffers, since we're all connected and interdependent.)

        The concept of an unregulated market based economy results in a 2-class social system. Those that have significant low-risk opportunities, and those that are manipulated into the equivalent of slave labor.

        Regulation is necessary.

        Example: in countries like Mexico, Iran, and Syria the brand name of drug found here in the US has been cut in concentration or replaced by something completely different, but with the brand name still on the sealed bottle.

        I cannot tell you whether or not the pharmaceutical company here in the US shipped inferior product, or the product was modified upon entry into those countries.

        I have a father in-law that had a brand name US drug and his ankles were the size of softballs. He came to visit and refilled the same brand name and same listed concentration. Within 2 weeks his ankles reduced to near normal size.

        How often do you see product negligence ads here in the US? They don't exist in most countries.

        However, pharmaceutical companies make 12 billion dollars and gladly pay out 2 billion in damages. They have zero liability in many other countries where commerce and product liability are not regulated.

        There are a lot of corporation sponsored business restrictions devised to keep competition burdened with unfair restrictions. But that is corruption.

        Corruption = unethical allocation of resources and/or opportunities

        In a legal context

        Corruption = illegal allocation of resources and/or opportunities

        Without regulation of any kind as you largely propose, only the people with significant influence will be able to use corruption for their own benefit.

        In Iran, there is a mother of a very rich man. She travels and refuses to expensive locations, and refuses to pay any bills. The owners know their lives are in danger if they refuse service. This is a result of unregulated free market, the less affluent are taken advantage of.

        In Iran, over 300 young men were blinded for protesting when a governor diverted all the water from an agricultural region, to provide water for a small non-productive and otherwise insignificant town. This is free market without regulation, the affluent steal, maim, and kill as they see fit to further their own agenda.

        Freedom Fighters are the only mechanism to fight against this overwhelming corruption. Unfortunately, the Freedom Fighters are often infiltrated and they attack targets that only harm their own cause.

          I had to read the essay again. The concept of a logical control structure with scientific generated values for variables is not a bad idea. But how would you isolate corruption from the control system?

          A centralized control system would be a significant target for corrupting influences. However, if the control system is distributed with a large ethics-based expert oversight commmittee where each member represents their state's constitution, then perhaps corruption can be kept at a distance so that there is time to respond concerning any ethical issue.

          To stop corruption, one necessary component is that a time delay sufficiently long to allow for critical assessment of ethical issues is built into the administrative system. A common tactic of corruption is to quickly take control of resources/opportunities and become entrenched so that others cannot obtain access to the horded resources/opportunities. Glass-ceilings as one example; Empire Building.

          But.... I can see the value of a control system; adminstration with feedback/feedforward relationships based upon social, emotional, and communication processes.

          I don't agree that an ethical free market will become viable in our lifetimes. The exception might be if the NSA comes to be further developed and managed by doctors of science and philosophy from every state and supporting their state's constitution.

          As an essay author, I will rate this essay in relation to others when I finish reading all of the essays and no new essays being entered.

            Hi Stuart,

            Thanks for your questions. You seem to be pointing in the direction I was heading with the essay.

            I think many decisions that people make are already driven by moral and social rewards. Many businesses, on the other hand, seem to be primarily driven by the profit motive. I don't think the profit motive is inherently bad, but the profit motive doesn't distinguish between acts that are morally and socially good or bad.

            There might need to be more of an effort to adjust the current economic systems so that morally and socially good actions are financially rewarding. Otherwise, it could also be hoped that if the incentive of the profit motive was reduced, that the incentives of moral and social rewards would take over as the primary factors that influence actions.

            There are probably a large number of ways that the incentive of the profit motive could be reduced and many of them would be to use or devise systems that don't have the traits of capitalism.

            At the bottom of this I think we need to return to the debate over what can be owned. It has taken a long time for humanity to come to a consensus that people shouldn't be allowed to own slaves. The private ownership of capital motivates many to seek profit and increase their capital and wealth. The personal ownership of goods that aren't consumed through use encourages consumption. The ownership of intellectual property may protect inventors and investors, but it also restricts the access and use of information and innovation.

            I don't think private ownership or the market are inherently bad, but changing how ownership is handled might decrease the impact of the profit motive and reduce consumption. Then the incentive for morally and socially rewarding actions might take precedence.

            Regards,

            Toby

            Hi John,

            Thanks for your comments.

            Many of our experiences elicit biological responses (e.g., pleasure and pain) that we consider good or bad. I don't think I would go so far as to say that it is binary, however. Some things are more painful and more pleasurable than others. Furthermore, I think more abstract concepts of good and bad are important in guiding what actions we choose. Not all biological interactions are zero-sum either. If the predators are removed from an ecosystem animal populations can rise until their over-consumption of resources causes a population collapse.

            I'll need to think a bit more on the rest of your comment. I will try to read and comment on your essay soon.

            Cheers,

            Toby

            Hi Michael,

            Thanks for your invitation. I'll try to critique your essay soon.

            Cheers,

            Toby

            Hi Turil,

            Thanks for your comments.

            Hopefully most people would agree that access to information is important and we should be encouraging people to be and do the best that they can.

            When I say that "there are no distinct measurable properties of 'good' and 'bad' that have been measured" I mean that there are no fundamental physical properties (like mass or charge) that have been identified as good and bad.

            The biological signals and related feelings of pleasure and pain that we experience are merely signals that give an approximations of what is good or bad for us. Hence there are drugs and addictions to food can cause unhealthy states. Not all things that are bad for us cause pain, and not all things that are good for us make us feel good. These biological signals are often a reasonable approximation, but they aren't infallible.

            I'm afraid we probably need more than biological signals and feelings to organise ourselves. That's why I spend some time in my essay discussing moral and economic systems that also guide and incentivise actions. The actions that these systems suggest might conflict with our biological desires, but they are capable of steering with much more foresight and providing more long-term benefit.

            Regards,

            Toby

            Hi James,

            Thanks for your comments. I see that you've posted a second comment after re-reading my essay. I feel it's worth responding to both of your comments.

            I agree. A totally unregulated free-market capitalism is very unlikely to result in a fair and prosperous future. That doesn't mean that market mechanisms can be a good way of distributing resources and labour.

            As I've tried to argue in my essay, I think the problem is with incentives. Regulations are necessary because the incentive is too great for people and businesses to do things that are bad.

            The capitalist economic model encourages greed. Proponents of free-market capitalism often see greed positively. I don't think wanting more is inherently wrong, but the profit motive is concerned with maximising profits regardless of whether an action is good or bad by other measures.

            As I've mentioned in a response to an earlier comment (by Stuart Marongwe), I think there needs to be more of a debate about what can be owned. This thought is motivated by the belief that we might benefit from finding a way to decouple the success of businesses from the capital gains and wages of individuals. That might mean regulations or a system that has more socialist elements.

            I'll write more of a response on your second comment.

            Cheers,

            Toby

            • [deleted]

            Hi James,

            Thanks, I think being mindful of the sort of incentives for actions that an economic or political system creates should be fundamental in choosing what systems we use going forward.

            I was hesitant (perhaps too hesitant) to recommend any particular economic system or method of governance in my essay and I would like to clarify why.

            I think lots of people gravitate towards a particular economic or political ideology because of arguments for it being the best way to achieve a fair and prosperous society. Proponents of anarcho-capitalism and of socialism both believe that "if only their system were adopted" we would have a much better world. Unfortunately, I think it's much easier to make predictions of how an economic or political system would work in ideal circumstances than in practice. A common complication is the ease for people or groups to act unethically and concentrate power.

            Transparency is possibly one of the greatest weapons against corruption. With adequate society the people can know to take action if anyone in power behaves unlawfully or unethically. Unfortunately, few people, businesses or governments would choose to be transparent in their actions and knowledge. I believe a valid reason is that people don't trust that the information won't be used against them. I think many people don't trust the US government or its agencies enough to approve of the data gathering the NSA was doing.

            An even better way to avoid corruption may be to design a system that doesn't allow for the accumulation of wealth, property or political power. That's part of my motivation for suggesting in comments that we reconsider the currently accepted beliefs of what is reasonable to own privately. As another project I've been trying to think through how a system might incorporate market mechanisms to price and allocate goods while changing the balance of what is privately and publicly "owned". But that might eventually be another essay or book.

            In any case, if a system of governance or economics is going to be tested I think it should be kept transparent and have very reliable fail-safes for ending the experiment without conflict. I think finding workable alternatives might best be done as an iterative process of small scale experiments.

            Thanks for your offer to rate my essay. I will be sure to return the favour!

            Cheers,

            Toby

            • [deleted]

            Socialism has got a bad reputation here in the US. But if you talk with anyone from Sweden or Norway you will tend to find people are quite content. The problem I see is that the level of comfort a people enjoy in a socialist government seems to be strongly related to the resources of the related country. Soft-resources like intellectual property are not stable, but I am sure soft-resources are significant contributors to sustain gross national product.

            The US has capitalist, socialist, and communist programs. Republicans think everyone should be capitalistic; like Pakistan. Wealthy, or en-slaved; nothing in the middle. However, you can see the general conditions of Pakistan and the wealthy there certainly do not live in paradise. They cannot go anywhere without body guards. The quality of easily accessible entertainment is dismal.

            Capitalism is strong here in the US; many thousands of millionaires. Socialist programs support Welfare and there are grants for starting businesses, and doing research that is just not available in many other countries. The military is a communist organization. If a country was characterized by it's military then the US would be one of the largest communist countries in the world.

            If a soldier gets sunburned and cannot work the next day, they can be brought up on charges of damaging government property. No kidding.

            So we have the beginnings of making changes.

            There is a corporation that owns most of the land not yet built on in Florida. They own many hundreds of square miles, and in Georgia to a lesser extent.

            Lumber companies own thousands of square miles of timber and pay virtually no property taxes.

            Could they stay in business otherwise? I don't know.

            quote: decouple success from the capital gains and wages of individuals

            This seems to be a communist ethic, the same as adopted by the military. Success has almost zero influence upon compensation. There might be relationships and perspectives there that you might find interesting.

            Researchers often are paid far below what they could make in commercial sectors. So success to them is based in emotional and social relationships.

            The electronics industry has steadily provided more product at lower costs. What is the model there? Mass production and less expensive tools and processes compared to the volume of product marketed and delivered. People no longer touch computer chips at any time during their manufacture.

            I'm going to need to put significant thought into what defines Success and how success is built.

            You're welcome, Toby. Thanks in return. - You make a brave foray into the steering problem from a moral vantage, but fail to master that vantage (I think), and your own thesis. The light manner in which you dismiss all prior moral philosophy (waving the wand of moral relativism, p. 2) doesn't encourage the reader to trust your judgement, or to give a fair reading to your own ideas. I tried, but couldn't assume with you that "each agent's morality, from a person to a nation, may be calculated as a reward function." (p. 3) From here, I saw you struggle earnestly to deduce what might more convincingly have been assumed: that we value our own existence. You then deduce that we place a supreme value on learning in all decision agents, human and non-human (p. 4), but this doesn't seem well supported by the argument, nor does it seem a moral principle in substance or form - not like those of the philosophers you dismissed earlier. Your conclusion feels equally shaky: that we should "search for good mechanisms" for steering, but "using scientific processes to decide whether a political or economic mechanism is effective". You spring this in the final two sentences without explaining it further (p. 7), as though you yourself were not quite convinced. - Mike

            Thank you for your essay.

            A moral perspective is necessary for any 'steering' of humanity. Indeed, creating a global system such that the local activities of each individual are 'moral,' beneficial to the rest of the system, would seem to be the essence of the problem.

            Locally, this would seem to be each individual producing more and consuming less. This would seem to include the reduction in the amplification of productivity of labor (through the increasing consumption of energy,) which leaves a greater proportion of people idle, or engaged in 'non-productive' labor even as more 'stuff' is available for consumption. Much consumption is the consequence of 'non-production.' As you point out. Developed countries have certainly over-shot the optimum distribution of productive labor.

            Mankind will never possess complete information of the consequences of his actions. However, complete information is not necessary to, say, drive down a highway.

            Charles Gregory St. Pierre

              Dear Mr. Lightheart,

              I thought that your essay was very well organized and I do hope that it does well in the competition.

              Regards,

              Joe Fisher

                Toby (sorry to have ignored this post! I wish they had a notification process for replies that aren't on one's own page!), on a biological level from what I've seen everything we do is the best option available at the time, given the situation. Nothing will ever be perfectly good, since reality is all about change and fractions (we're all parts of a whole), but even addictions that are harmful in some ways are better than the alternatives, when we choose to engage in them. We see decisions as fallible only from a different perspective, in a different situation, than the one being experienced at the time. Of course, a huge part of making more universally good decisions (ones that appear good/beneficial even from diverse perspectives and situations) is having access to as much of the information about the situation as possible. Which, of course, is what you're promoting in your essay. So yeah, I totally agree with you on that. I just wanted to add my information that biological feelings are highly reliable when it comes to making choices about how to proceed from where one is currently to where one wants to be as a goal (goals being a combination of the genetic proclivity to create and output new information for future generations, and the environment). One of the problems I see with the approach that many folks have been convinced to take in life is that it goes against genetic proclivities, and instead replaces our natural goals of creative procreation (in diverse ways) with artificial goals of unhealthy things like hoarding, competition against ourselves, and so on. So the solution is to unbrainwash folks, and give them the information they need about how healthy our genetic instincts are about what we most value and want to do in life.

                Studies of human children continue to support the theory that social animals are naturally (genetically) collaborative, prosocial, and looking to work with one another to solve problems and create new and interesting things for the world.

                Toby - Thanks for the interesting essay. It would seem that the risk/reward and inventive/disincentive tradeoffs for human agents is particularly difficult to evaluate algorithmically as a means to determine an optimal morality. Another method of analyzing such complex interactions would be simply to look at the actual results of several hundred thousand years of human progress - this is something I attempted to do in my essay The Tip of the Spear. From this vantage point, the empathic qualities and corresponding moral framework of humans stand out as critical to progress - in the past and in the future.

                Cheers - George

                  Dear Toby,

                  As the Markov Decision Process is a discrete time stochastic control process, in that the current state and action are conditionally independent of all previous states and actions, it is effectively applicable to describe the cause effect chain of actions of the Universe while the matters of universe is in holarchical organization; and not applicable to Humanity for the optimal control of its environment, as Humanity is external to the Real-time system of Universe while its economy depends on the impact of climate change.

                  With best wishes,

                  Jayakar