How should humanity steer the future? Humanity must benefit the thriving of its constituents! by Randal A Koene

I disagree whole-heartedly because we must actively avoid uncontrolled population growth.

Introducing a simple technology like a coal burning stove and heater has resulted in wiping out mountain gorillas and the related rain forests. While also increasing the number of people starving, though there is a growing population.

Serving people over eco-systems is not the solution.

However, I see some valued points you are making.

1) we can potentially learn from our ancestor's mistakes

2) genetic algorithms and neural networks .. might be useful in detecting trends

3) the overall broad health of humanity, to include risks, can potentially

provide important information related to the future survivable nature

of humans.

I worked briefly with Dr. Hugo de Garis and his work regarding evolutionary computing. Non-relativistic quantum computers will likely make such evolutionary processing practical.

Human Adaptability requires the creation of self-sustaining eco-systems, and the ability to think in those terms.

Access to Technological Developments without broad understanding of the systems of consequences from their introduction often kills off eco-systems.

Trust through Transparency is a pie in the sky component unless corruption (unethical allocation of resources and/or opportunities) is actively controlled.

Ethical oversight of the NSA, and NSA publishing corruption taking place publically

http://eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com

What you outline is feasible, but many support systems need to be identifies and actively put in place while guarding against incorporating corrupting individuals (Articles of Incorporation structured for eliminating corruption)

This discussion of human behavior does not take into account that the decisions people make are very dependent on the available service, transportation, communication infrastructure. Humanity can only steer the future with the continuing availability of some of this infrastructure.

Dear Randal,

Exactly true that humanity is in Holarchy.

Besides, 'mind' is a function of time of living and in that Holarchical reference-time from 'present' is explicable with 'Compartments of mind', whereas the cyclic actions in the dynamics of molecular substrates is causal for the conservation of memory. Thus defining 'time', is prime for 'steering the future'.

With Corpuscularianism, there is technical constrains with observation devising in synchronising the signals of bio-matter. Thus, restructuring of atomic analogy is imperative to improve our perceptions on molecular dynamics; in that matters of universe is ascribed as eigen-rotational one dimensional string-segments, that form three dimensional T-brane structures.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Dr. Koene,

Your anti-human, erroneous abstractions filled essay was frightening to read. Reality is unique. Each real person is unique. There is no such thing as a "sub-set" of people.

Mapping the brain of any person is futile, because each brain is unique. It has taken thousands of years for the unique human brain to evolve. For anyone to attempt to build a brain out of material dissimilar to that of a unique human brain is immoral, and insane.

Nervously,

Joe Fisher

Randal -

Thank you for a very well-crafted and well-thought out presentation - one of the best in the competition (I've read about 2/3rds of them so far). We are, after all, talking about steering the future for humanity, and your suggestion that human thriving be the central goal is clear and simple. You've offered some very practical considerations for implementation as well in "the shared requirement: Adaptability, Access and Transparency." I would be interested in your thoughts about my essay The Tip of the Spear, as I tackle many of the same issues and end up, I believe, in a similar place.

I was very interested in your distinction between evolutionary processes "where the constituent components (cells) serve the whole with no prioritization of individual thriving"and your call for an evolutionary process for human civilization where individuals are "not subject to out-selection in competition with successors." I agree that a human civilization that leaves many of its members behind as un-fit while rewarding only a subset with a thriving future is morally reprehensible. But I wonder if individual cells, if they were conscious, might not enjoy a sense of community and thriving from their role in the success of something larger than themselves. Many might even be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the whole.

Thanks and good luck! - George

Sorry for the "anonymous" posting - I do not know why that happens. This is George Gantz

Hi Randal,

No coincidence seeing an essay by you here! As always, much rich food for deep thought. I had to read through it twice to take it all in because it is densely packed with highly interconnected ideas - not too surprisingly, knowing you, like neurons in the brain. I'm sure others have scored it more poorly than it deserves because, within a few sentences, they're in unknown territory and give up rather than evaluate the enormous weight of unfamiliar evidence. I would have liked a bit more emphasis on mental enhancement, especially the need to transcend the intrinsic limits of brains adapted primarily for living in a more primitive and simple world. This is a minor quibble since most other submissions don't even consider the potential importance of unnaturally better minds. Anyway, your proposal is compelling and thorough. Alex Hoekstra and I submitted one that focuses on the general case for better minds. Not as thorough or multi-faceted as yours, but we provide some interesting context and, to my knowledge, some new perspectives on the issue.

All the best,

Pete

Dr Koene

A philosophical masterpiece,humainity is a social animal,to achieve must work or live in a group,right back from humanities original communes(home) in african villages to the modern day reincarnatrion-the city.i think we come to a consensus in my essay LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF THE SUN: REALITIES, PERILS ESCAPADES MAN, PLANET AND KARDASHEV SCALE.MAKING THE GREAT TRANSITION by Michael muteru weblink http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2101.i have addressed social and moral ethical issues we must adopt to make it past this century in a piece not in pieces.please take your time to rate/review the piece .thanks.all the best

Randal, I agree with your sentiments about what the world needs. Transparency is in particular, a serious problem and sorely lacking even in "advanced" nations. Best wishes.

Randall,

I knew from the first line of your abstract that I'd like your essay; "..historic developments that are perceived as progress.." It seems like me you're not a man for accepting things at face value! viz;

"Evolution by natural selection is therefore not a survival strategy for humanity, but a possible scenario for extinction." I agree entirely. Would you agree that perhaps while are; "equipped to be adapted to life elsewhere.." and; "..can instead inhabit space-worthy forms" that we need to ensure we don't get stuck in theoretical 'ruts' slowing development?

I certainly agree we must aim to be a multi planet race, and as soon as possible as time may be critical. But do we not still have a big problem with making your first need; "Human adaptability" possible at revolutionary not evolutionary pace?

I found all aspects of your essay first class. I'm not sure why it's has so few reads and ratings (but that does mean my score will have more affect). One of your strengths I perceive is the recognition of our limited understanding and of constant change and it's effects; i.e; "Finally, an important realization is that our understanding is constrained, that the unfolding

of events is a complex process during which novel insights arise. It is therefore very likely that analyses of the nature of humanity and of desired conditions will lead to modified goals." That seems a rare asset.

I don't pretend I'm not concerned about neural manipulation. I believe that we can make far more effective 'use' of our brains in terms of removal of hidden assumptions, problem analysis and tracking consequences. My own essay, very different to yours, describes a real case of this, with a real result allowing a revolutionary leap in understanding. But many can't even perceive that as possible! I hope you get to read it, written as an allegorical tale.

I will look closer at your work. Something I spotted today which intrigued me was this; memory implant and erasure. showing how close we are mind control in all senses! I think we also need far better

teaching methods. Do you think developing AI as an extension of our own thinking methods may not in some way be perpetuating our limitations?

Anyway let's get on with it and of this planet and talk elsewhere. That may gve us different views!

Best wishes, and hope you may now make the 'cut'! do look forward to your thoughts on mine. Don't be afraid of the couplet 'QM', The end note classical experimentalists were as young as 11 and they can now produce quantum 'correlations' logically!

Peter Jackson (in case the AI here is lying and has logged me out again!)

Randal,

"Humanity needs to survive and continues to exist, and it succeeds by helping its constituent members thrive in terms of fairness in the availability of opportunity for development, achievement and expression."

Our views are similar: common good, technology, and opportunity for all. Mine has more emphasis on utilizing the untapped capabilities of the human brain (Looking within) while speaking of unorthodox science (looking beyond).

Good marks.

Would like to see your thoughts on mine: www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

Jim