A Sketch of a Bright Future

I haven't posted on here in 2 years, so it's about time now. When I hear of global issues today in the news, it never seems like news to me. Just the same inane process unfolding, getting closer and closer to bursting of its own hypocrisy. Hence, this post. Surely these views and ideas are not all my own, though some are.

The world is full of passionate, intelligent, caring, open people. Human beings are a beautiful species, and the limits of our abilities are virtually non-existent. I believe these statements to be true, but when I take a look at our world today I see something different. Somehow there is a disconnect between the brilliant ideas, the compassionate individuals, and the yearning for a sense of harmony on our planet, and the trajectory of the nations that make up our planet earth.

The reason for this is that there is a small subset of the human population that is in control, using its power to serve its own interests. Of course, this is old news - the people's interest has often been overlooked in favor of special interests such as wealth and power. This is a necessary aspect of the system of hierarchical governance that is ubiquitous throughout our planet today and throughout the course of our history.

Whether a leader assumes power through a violent coup or is voted in democratically, the outcome is similar: once people are in power, they are subject to being overcome by greed and special interests, and public opinion goes out the window. In the case of a democracy, our leaders serve us only insofar as to get re-elected. This is a form of manipulation, not cooperation, not leadership, not servitude. These politicians cannot be blamed, because the problem is at the root of our system - the individuals in power are merely placeholders in a program fraught with error.

Electing a leader or even a party is an extremely low-resolution image of public opinion, both temporally and spatially. I'll use Canada as an example for the rest of this, as it is the country I live in - but I believe that my points will hold universally.

In Canada, we vote for a party in the national elections once every 4 years given a majority government (with a minority government it may be less than that). That is a snapshot, if you will, of public opinion, that only occurs once every 4 years. Imagine watching a video that was composed of stills taken once every 4 years. Perhaps this would be useful for documenting glaciers receding, but surely Canadian public opinion evolves more quickly than that!

Now consider these snapshots of the glacier to be of extremely low fidelity, and you start to get an idea of how Canada (and the rest of the world) is governed. The issues discussed in the months leading up to an election are the issues that the political industry wants to discuss. They are safe issues, easy to understand issues. Issues that are easy to take a side on, and most are discussed with emotionally loaded rhetoric that is engineered to drive the population to take strong, emotionally-based stances on issues. There are also issues that come up during the 4 year period of a party's power. These issues never see the influence of public opinion, unless it is clear that it could influence the next election. The image I hope to describe here is one of an extremely low-resolution representation of the people. Mind you, this is a dramatically simplified overview of Canadian politics, but even if one considers the roles of the various levels of government the same applies.

Our system discourages politicians from being honest. It is not in their interest to be honest about their opinions - they must instead carefully craft them in order to ensure popular vote in the next election. This cripples the chance of any real dialogue between politicians, and turns politics into a popularity contest for power. Again, these people cannot be blamed for this dishonesty - they are playing by the rules (for the most part). The rules are imbalanced and broken.

Once in power, politicians are often indebted to their financial benefactors - the ones who made it possible for them to win the popularity contest through expensive campaigns, which amount to social engineering and quasi-propaganda. Another nail in the coffin of the now comical ideal: "A government of the people, for the people and by the people."

These are the reasons for the staggering disconnect I mentioned above. This system is outdated, conducive to corruption, and every day proves its own inadequacy in a new way. There is a logical method of proof, called reductio ad absurdum, which is Latin for, roughly, "reduce to the absurd". What it amounts to is suggesting a proposition, and following its logical implications until you reach a contradiction. You can then conclude that your suggested proposition is false. This is the point that we have come to with our democracy. We have followed our current system's logical progression, and have now entered the realm of the truly absurd.

How then, do we move on from here? Until recent years, I believe the current system was really our only way - the best we had. Today, we have technologies that can facilitate a new form of government. What I present here today is a rough sketch of a new form of self-governance. One which is non-hierarchical, self organizing, dynamic and truly democratic.

The crux is that for any decision that needs to be made, the entire population is encouraged to contribute to discussion, and ultimately to vote. What makes this system truly organic is that absolutely every aspect of it is open to change, if that is what the people decide. This is a crucial point. No civilization or mode of governance has survived indefinitely, and often they fall through violent revolution. This system removes the necessity of revolution, because built into the system itself is the ability to change its very foundations. I've heard it said that people today find it easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. Why should any ideology be so rigid that we cannot imagine its end? Clinging to ideas is a source of suffering. It is only by being completely open - considering nothing to be axiomatic - that we can be truly free as individuals and as a society.

I'll begin by describing the voting process, which is likely simpler to implement than the discussion aspect. Rather than voting for a leader who then makes decisions, in this system every person would vote on every decision that the leader would have had to make. Of course, not everybody would want to vote on every issue. Personally, I would probably not participate on decisions regarding the Newfoundland elementary school board. If I cared to, though, I could, and my opinion would matter. The idea here is that people would only vote on issues that concern them in some way. This would result in the votes being in general more informed. If I were forced to vote on the Newfoundland school situation (and every other decision), I would likely vote at random on the votes that didn't concern me, just to get it over with. Switzerland employs a system of (limited) direct democracy that has some similarities with what I describe here.

The discussion aspect of this system is central to the system producing informed, mindful decisions, and is what makes this system, to my knowledge, unique. This would take the form of an online forum and/or wiki, where people could discuss upcoming decisions, what their opinions are and why. Individuals could gain credibility within certain domains of discourse, resulting in their posts having more weight, or possibly their vote having more weight. One possibility is that this form of discourse could render actual voting unnecessary. If a consensus can be reached through discussion, there is no need to vote, and everyone is happy. Of course, comprehensive guidelines would need to be in place to ensure that the discussion doesn't denigrate to emotional mud-slinging and name-calling. More on that topic in a later post.

This level of dialogue has been impossible before such enabling technologies as personal computing and the internet. With today's myriad gadgets in our pockets and on our laps, people are always connected. Social media websites such as Blogger, Twitter and Facebook have shown that people have a strong desire to share their opinions. Intelligent conversations occur online constantly, concerning issues that affect millions of people worldwide. You would never guess it if you turned on a television - that level of discourse is not represented through mass media, because it is impossible to control. The system I propose would make those views heard and allow them to truly influence the trajectory of societies on a municipal, national, and global scale.

As I said, this is a rough sketch of what this system could possibly look like - and it is intentionally vague. Because I am only one person, my conception of this system is probably incomplete and full of holes. The beauty of this system is that an early version could be used to determine its own details. In the form of a wiki, online forum or both, the system would self-organize into something that everyone could get behind. So, all that is necessary is for the seed to be planted, and with some luck and global participation it could grow into a democratic system of governance that is truly of, for and by the people. As far as I can tell, this is the best way to get the highest fidelity image of the public's opinion (short of reading our minds in real-time), resulting in a world that truly reflects the interests of its inhabitants.

Of course, even with a completely horizontal form of government there will be individuals who seek to steer policy in their favor, possibly ignoring the well-being of others. The public discourse, however, would bring these arguments to light. At the end of the day, decisions would be based solely upon reason; any emotionally, selfishly, irrationally, or spitefully conceived propositions would be seen and dismissed as such, hopefully enlightening their proponents in the process. It is in this way that people who seek personal gain over mutual benefit would have no power. In today's society, this self-serving behavior is revered and rewarded.

In fleshing out this idea, I've thought of some potential issues regarding implementation. If anybody has any others, I would love to discuss!

Voting fraud: I've though a lot about how to ensure that every person has a singular presence within this system, and the conclusion that I've come to is that some sort of online ID would be necessary - but one that retains anonymity while being unique. The issue of a global online ID that is directly linked to your person is frightening to some, and with good reason. Perhaps a later post I will discuss the risks, benefits and implications of such a thing.

Accessibility: In discussing this system with others, many have mentioned that not everyone has access to the internet. Sure, not everyone has access at home, and not everyone can even get to a public library. To ensure that everyone is able to participate, some funding would need to go to providing much more accessible internet - perhaps even treating internet access as a basic human right, which has been done by the UN, but (as many things with the UN go) little action has been taken to reflect this declaration.

It is important to note that our current system is not perfect with regards to voting fraud and accessibility. In fact, corrupt leaders have put effort into preventing people from voting, and dead people have even voted in some elections.

Final thoughts:

In my previous post, I discussed the ever-increasing complexity of energy - the tendency for energy to form patterns of patterns of patterns. If a system like this were to be implemented on a global scale, the human race (perhaps even the planet) could begin to take the form of one immensely complex organism, all of its parts functioning in harmony. Here, people start to look strikingly like neurons in a global brain, perhaps signalling the next leap in the evolution of organization. It has been speculated that artificial intelligence will not be realized within the realm of computing but will instead take the form of a global mind. The global adoption of this system, or one like it, could certainly lead us in that direction.

If one considers the human brain, the analogy is strikingly appropriate. Huge numbers of cells, each its own organism, but working together to create something larger than themselves. The cells all have their own unique perspective, and it is not uncommon for a person's mind to be filled with contradiction or mixed feelings. However, the macro-scale trajectory of the person is singular. Likewise, us humans may have different ideas, perspectives, and desires, but the days of isolated countries and colonies are over. The time has come to identify as a planet - the distance between us shrinks every day as our population grows and our communication becomes more sophisticated. We must act accordingly - as a whole, made up of billions of unique parts. The system I propose is the central nervous system of this being - the neural framework necessary to facilitate such unity.

Achieving such global unity signals the end of the zero-sum game, and the beginning of a world which is more like a dance among brethren than a battle between enemies. In dancing, there is only the joy of being, both as an individual and as part of the dance, the music - part of something greater than one's self.

The next step: Where is life headed?

There is a lot of talk of an endtime for the human race. The rapture, the singularity, the end of the Mayan calendar, massive cosmic collision, call it what you will. Regardless of the nature of this end-all event, or eschaton, the theme is clear amongst its many interpretations. It is believed by many that in the (near?) future the world as we know it will be unrecognizable.

This post will be somewhat a continuation of my last post, which outlined a fractal model of the universe.

In order to understand where we are headed, it is important to consider from whence we came, and more importantly to define what is meant by "we". It is rather egocentric to consider this future as a future concerning only human beings. Perhaps a more appropriate perspective would be to consider homo sapiens as merely a part of the ever-evolving entity that I will henceforth refer to as life. For the purposes of this essay, under the term "life" I include any form of organized energy.

In this sense, "life" can be used interchangeably with "enthalpy". Enthalpy is the opposite of entropy, or disorder. According to the laws of thermodynamics the overall entropy in the universe must always increase over time, although in smaller systems it may decrease. For example our computers may organize data on a hard disk plate, creating an increase in enthalpy - order - within the system of the hard drive, but the process of doing so releases heat and thus creates an overall increase in entropy within the universe as a whole. Right then...

Having defined my terms, I will trace life's evolutionary footsteps since the big bang:
*The actual times of these events are more or less irrelevant for my purposes - their order of appearance is what's important here

1) Planck time following the big bang: massive amounts of energy exist in a tiny amount of space. Energy and matter are interchangeable, with particle/antiparticle pairs coming in and out of existence. This is the first step: the ascent from energy to matter. This is the scale that theoretical physicists focus on.

2) As the universe cools and expands, subatomic particles come together to form atoms. Over time more and more complex - heavier - atoms are created via various stellar phenomena. This is the second step: the ascent from subatomic particles to atoms. This is the scale that particle physicists focus on. You can see a pattern forming here - each milestone of complexity coming together with others of its magnitude to form a higher order structure. Moving on..

3) As these atoms collect together, their very nature causes them to bond such that they form molecules - structures made up of two or more atoms. You guessed it, this is the third step: the ascent from atoms to molecules. This is the scale typically studied by chemists (my assignment of professions to these scales is for illustration purposes only and is intentionally vague). Keep in mind that as life evolves into organization of higher orders, the lower-order processes are all still occurring, but if you choose to focus on a given scale the workings of lower order scales can be implied. This is why modern chemistry for example can exist at all without having a complete understanding of, say, quantum mechanics. Of course, a more complete understanding of lower levels certainly sheds light onto higher levels, but we are able to explore phenomena at various scales simultaneously without our models of the lower scales being complete.

4) In the case of our planet earth, molecules began to grow more and more complex, as did their interactions. Amino acids - the building blocks of biological life - formed and, through some process - against all odds, some would say - cellular life came into being. This was a rather large leap in complexity: multitudes of different molecules working harmoniously to form one organized entity called a cell. Cellular life is also the first form of life that strives for self-preservation. Molecules are formed and destroyed constantly, but cellular life seems to do whatever it can to ensure its own survival, including reproducing in order to perpetuate its species. This is the fourth step: the ascent from molecular to cellular life. This is the scale that biologists - specifically bacteriologists - focus their studies upon.

5) After some time, groups of cells developed an altruism that allowed for them to work together to create multi-cellular life, or eukaryotes. Self-preservation became second to the survival of the group, and over time a eukaryotic life form would lose all of its original cells during its lifespan, but would remain the same overall structure and function due to the reproduction of its individual cells. This is the fifth step: the ascent from single-cell life to multi-cellular life. This is the scope of many scientific discourses, for this level of structure includes us homo sapiens as well.

Between each of these steps exists what I will refer to as an eschaton - an ascent from one order of complexity to a higher one. Each order of complexity, however, undergoes massive increases in complexity between eschatons. The fifth level is perhaps the most dramatic case: moving from structures as simple as a bi-cellular life form to a structure as mind-bogglingly complex as the human brain (no pun intended)!

What this model suggests is that in the future we will experience a similar leap to a higher-order complexity. In many cultures there is reference to cyclical time - history repeating itself. In that sense, history has repeated itself, and it certainly is cyclical but I would suggest that the analogy of an upward (for lack of a better direction) spiral would be more appropriate. The reason I choose the spiral is because with each revolution the amount of time between eschatons is smaller than the last. Also, the upward motion of the spiral represents the increase in complexity with each revolution.

Now, I said this would be related to fractals didn't I? Well, if this model has any truth to it, we will be experiencing the very same phenomena as the highest-order life form experienced at each preceding eschaton, but on a larger scale. The larger scale of things is why things manifest differently. On this scale each of the lower levels is present and thus the level of complexity is proportionately larger.

It is possible to take analogies from lower-order eschatons to make some vague predictions as to how our coming eschaton will manifest. For example, take the ascent from single-cell life to multi-cellular life. The single-celled organisms had to develop ways to communicate with each other and had to lose their self-serving behaviors in favor for altruistic ones in order to benefit the whole. If there is anything to be said about the way technology has shaped the world, it is that communication has become much easier and faster. Indeed, communications technologies are evolving at an accelerating rate, aided largely by the growth of the internet.

So, we've got communication in the works, but what about altruism? Why do we humans find it so difficult to see past ourselves and to work harmoniously with one another? It is clear that when two or more humans work together towards a common goal, there is a certain synergy and they function more effectively than the sum of each individual's efforts - it's no news that two heads are better than one. So what is lacking that would allow the human race as a whole to function as one cohesive unit of a higher-order complexity?

This is an age old question, and one upon which we can only speculate. I would suggest that a common goal is the answer. The problem today is that there are still individuals who lack the resources for even self preservation. On the individual level, each member of the species must have their needs met if they can be expected to expend energy towards a common goal for the species as a whole. Think of cellular life: how can a cell contribute to the well-being of the whole multi-cellular being if lacks the resources to function on an individual scale?

Now, if we must have a common goal, what should that goal look like? The sustainability of our species and - more importantly - our planet seems like a good place to start. Many of us are already on that track, however there are certainly those whose motives are more self serving. What's upsetting is that it's often those individuals who have a great excess of resources who exhibit the most hedonistic behavior.

To throw a sci-fi spin on things (if I haven't already!), consider how contact with an alien race would affect us. Having a race against which to define ourselves as a cohesive unit would certainly contribute to a sense of unity. These aliens could be malevolent, causing us to unite in a military sense, or benevolent, sharing their cosmic wisdom with us and stimulating our growth towards the eschaton.

All things considered, this is really all speculation, which is arguably valuable. At the very least, these things are interesting to consider and doing so is certainly a good mental exercise!

What I personally think is in store for us is related heavily to technology, specifically artificial intelligence...but I will cover this in detail in a later post! For now, I hope this has been as fun to read as it was to write.


"But wait! Hold the phone, Chris! Evolution is a random process! There is no purpose, no direction!"
Absolutely - evolution of complexity is certainly a very chaotic process with no predictable outcome, no absolute vector. One property is constant, however, and that is the fact that life tends to evolve into more and more complex structures. The details of how it gets there are chaotic and unpredictable, but those are irrelevant. What's important is that life becomes more complex over time.