You wrote:
> As to Norman
> calling me "closet nazi", I think it is wiser not to react to that.
Judging from your response on Gary Boyd's Cosmology post, perhaps it was
just an oversight that caused you to forget about the implications of
imposing some arbitrary set of values on the entire world. And so
perhaps the way I interpreted your views was incorrect. However, I
think you ought to consider the possibility that you completely failed
to articulate the substance of a new scientific universal value system
other than to infer that someone would use cybernetics, AI,
self-organizing and a few other buzz word systems to arrive at them.
I thought carefully and long about the 'closet nazi' phrase before I
used it. I considered the fact that it would be very hurtful and a
nasty way to characterize your views of the future. However, I still
think that you have made a very serious mistake and it was appropriate
to use that phrase to draw everyone's attention to the issue, including
yourself.
Please take the opportunity to answer my concerns and objections. As
you probably can tell, there are a number of us who feel you need to re
think your ideas and carefully re state them in a more balanced way. I
would also suggest that you admit errors of omission or other mistakes
rather than simply try to blame it all on others and say you were
misunderstood. I really do want to see you redeem yourself and correct
my overzealous characterization of your view of the future. Believe it
or not, this was all done with malice of forethought on my part.
Norm
The following quotes are taken from your first Humanity 3000 post. I
strongly suspect that you are totally unaware of the potentially ominous
implications of these ideas.
> I. CRITICAL FACTORS
> A. What are the factors that are most critical to the long term
> survival of humanity?
> 2. The development of a universal "world view" that ties all our > knowledge
> together and shows us how we fit into the larger whole of evolution, > thus
> providing us with a "meaning of life".
Why do you think that there is one "world view" that will suffice for
everyone on earth? More important, you seem to ignore the sovereignty
of each individual to make up his or her mind on the "meaning of life".
You clearly infer that there is some "right" world view that all human
beings must conform to.
In your grand scheme of things, who decides what that universal world
view ought to be Francis? Is it someone other than the individual? Is
it the know-it-all scientists like yourself? Perhaps it is the
academics? Perhaps the world's political and military leaders ought to
decide what your universal world view ought to be. Frankly Francis, I
am appalled at your total lack of understanding of the crucial
importance of individual personal sovereignty.
> Its system of values should help us
> to tell right from wrong in the most general contexts.
So you seem to be proposing that this universal world view is a
voluntary system ought to be accepted by everyone of their own free
will. This system of values will then help us tell right from wrong.
Again I am astounded that your proposed system of values seems to leave
no room for differences. Who would decide in your system of justice how
to best apply this system of values? Who would decide what the
punishment for wrong behavior that conflicts with your system of
values?
> It should be based
> on scientific and philosophical insights about which everybody can > agree,
> rather than on dogmatic or culture-specific traditions.
Do you assume that everyone in your proposed world wide political system
will agree on this universal system of values? If so, I submit that
your understanding of human nature is strongly influenced by the very
kinds of "...dogmatic or culture specific traditions..." you are trying
to expunge from your ideal value system. You seem to be assuming that
your dogmatic or culture specific traditions are not dogmatic or culture
specific traditions because they come from some special scientific or
philosophical insights that trump everyone else's. Can begin to see why
I chose to describe you using the pejorative reductionistic phrase
closet nazi? If not, read on.
I would also like to suggest that a human value system that recognizes
that there is no absolute value system allows diverse sovereign
individual human beings with wide differences of all sorts to work with
each other. So what I am suggesting is that you might want to consider
the paradox of a model that lacks a system of human values other than
the differences, sovereignty and human rights of all individuals. This
is much different than a flexible or dynamic type of prescribed system
of values that is designed to make sure each individual serves the
larger good of the whole of humanity. Please do not make the mistake of
assuming that I am advocating some form of anarchy where individuals are
only responsible for themselves. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
> 3. The development of a practically enforceable political system, based > on
> the above values, that would allow us to manage global society and the
> ecosystem, so as to increase the quality of life for humanity as a > whole.
I submit that what you refer to as "...a practically enforceable
political system...to manage global society..." regardless of its lofty
sounding objectives, is a recipe for world wide tyranny. It's not often
we come across someone of your arrogance and air of intellectual
superiority these days. But then to combine that know-it-all attitude
with a prescription for universal values along with the imposition of a
practical political system to "enforce" them, harkens back to the 1920s
and 30s. By some accounts, the tyrants of that era were responsible for
the deaths of over 50 million human beings. I trust you will want to
distinguish your self from those opportunists who led the world down the
path of death and destruction. Or is it your objective to instigate
world war three?
> B. What are the current map and trajectory of these factors?
> 2. Developments in various fields, such as general systems theory,
> cybernetics, evolution, complexity, self-organization and artificial
> intelligence, seem to point to the emergence of a new scientific world
> view, which is dynamic and holistic, and which would transcend both the
> Newtonian world view, which is static and reductionist, and the > > different
> prescientific, religious world views.
Now you are beginning to spell out where these new improved universal
world views ought to come from. Again in my opinion, the fallacy is
that you seem to be willing to put so much faith in this "...new
scientific world view..." that you are willing to transform all
existing political, economic, social and cultural systems so they
conform to this "absolute truth".
Might I ask what you think will happen if this new scientific world view
turns out to be seriously flawed? What if there is no universal world
view that everyone agrees on? Are you suggesting some sort of survival
of the fit values? If so, what about all the unfit models, systems,
values and traditions we humans hold to? Do you allow for differences
in your new scientific world view?
> 3. There is some movement towards supranational, political integration > >
with
> institutions such as the UN, EU, WTO and IMF. Awareness of global and
> ecological issues is growing in different countries
Perhaps I am mistaken, but you seem to infer that some trend towards
supranational political integration is essential to solving world wide
environmental, ecological and economic problems. You also seem to infer
that this progress is a potentially good thing for all humanity.
Further, you seem to be saying that this supranational authority ought
to be based on the new universal scientific world value system. The
only thing missing from your argument for a new global power structure
is the notion of the primacy and sovereignty of the individual.
In fact, the creation of such a global political super structure could
have the unintended consequence of subverting individual well being,
freedom and sovereignty. And this would take place just when the notion
of the rights and freedom of all peoples is beginning to take hold all
over the world.
What I am suggesting is that no matter how well intentioned your utopian
universal scientific political system is, the first order of business is
the proliferation of a universal understanding amongst all peoples of
the rights and freedoms to which all of us, as sovereign individuals,
are entitled. And let me add that this is not a question of
empowerment. No supranational body or any other political institution
can empower any individual human being.
Our free will is as much a part of our human heritage as is our
understanding and empathy for others of our kind and our surroundings.
In my opinion, this ought to be the starting place for your so called
universal value system. If there is such a thing, any world wide
consensus on human values ought to start with the sanctify and
sovereignty of each and every one of us.
The first order of business ought to be ensuring that everyone on earth
is accorded the dignity, freedom and opportunity to live, prosper and
find happiness. And to me this means that we must honor the sovereignty
of each individual to follow his or her own values. So in my book, the
responsibility that each of us bears to honor the sovereignty of our
fellow travelers is by far the most important of all values. It is also
the central value upon which all others are based. Did you just forget
about all this? Or is it just not as important as other scientific
universal values in your opinion?
> C. What are the problems and opportunities with the factors > identified?
> 3. Supranational integration and global management meet with huge
> resistance, because of the intrinsic selfishness of nations and groups, > who
> are unwilling to give up their privileges for the common good.
Who decides what is the common good? And why do you deem it so
essential that existing states, groups and individuals give up their
privileges? When I read this Francis, I see someone who wants to impose
a new set of world wide constraints and regulations for the common
good. I see no in-depth understanding of the importance of individual
sovereignty. In fact, by omission, I see an almost complete disregard
for basic human rights and freedoms.
Are you now beginning to understand why I was so aghast at your post?
Do you have any inkling why I might consider using such a dreadful
reductionistic way of "pigeonholing" you? Please defend yourself
Francis. I don't want to think that you have such an awful world view.
I don't want to think you are an evil person. Tell me why I am
mistaken. I don't want to be correct about these interpretations.
Please tell me I am wrong. And even if you can't convince me, won't it
be worth it if you can clear up any doubts that other subscribers may
also have.
> After the
> fall of communism, there is as yet no credible political system to > counter
> the obvious shortcomings of capitalism.
Surely you are not inferring that communism was a "...credible political
system...." Tell me it isn't so Francis. On the other hand, you also
seem to be inferring that your new universal scientific world view can
come up with a new "... credible political system to counter the obvious
shortcomings of capitalism...." Would you like to spell out your ideas
of what this new credible political system might be? Does it have
anything to do with the global supranational power structure you say we
need to manage the selfishness of the existing states, groups and
individuals you mentioned above? You seem convinced that the only way
to "manage" these global threats is to impose the will and authority of
some all powerful world wide political institution. Then this huge
body could use the universal scientific value system to decide what was
right and what was wrong. Is this what you have in mind Francis?
Again, aren't you forgetting something?
> II. POTENTIAL IN YOUR FIELD
> What do you envision as the greatest potential/future in your field in
> the 1000 year future?
> The single most important opportunity is the emergence of a world-wide,
> intelligent, computer network, a "global brain", that would make the > whole
> of existing knowledge instantly available to every individual.
Do you really think that this "global brain" technology is the most
important aspect of our future? Can't tyrannical governments and
corporations abuse this technology and cause untold misery and
deprivation amongst larger and larger groups of people. To me it is the
quality of the ideas that may emerge from improved communications that
is the most important. If the ideas are wrong headed, it will be a case
of garbage in, garbage out. So as in all things, it is how we use these
expanding capabilities that counts.
> Its
> intelligent processing of data and knowledge would help us to overcome
> information overload, to solve extremely complex problems, such as > >
managing
> the global ecosystem, and to develop a unified world view that is both
> firmly rooted in scientific results and applicable to every-day > > decisions.
Again, I claim that the willingness to honor and encourage all kinds of
individual human differences is much more important and diametrically
opposed to your suggestion that we strive to find the one true
scientific universal value system that everyone must accept, agree to
and obey. The former notion is the foundation of freedom, democracy
human rights and individual political sovereignty, while the latter
smacks of totalitarianism of the most lethal self destructive kind.
> Borderless exchange and discussion of ideas would make it easier to > reach a
> supranational consensus on values and global policy, while extensive,
> real-time collection of data would help us to monitor progress towards > the
> chosen objectives.
Here we agree in part. This is because border less exchanges and
discussions help ensure against the unjust treatment of citizens of any
state. I find your notion of a supranational consensus, however, a
rather naive oversimplification and reductionistic prospect. The irony
is that such a consensus might possibly emerge on the rights,
sovereignty and freedoms of all individuals. So if you mean to suggest
that people around the world are beginning to understand their own
rights and those of their fellow human beings to be different in their
belief systems and what they hold most valuable and sacred, then perhaps
we do agree on this issue.
> III. DISCUSSION TOPICS/QUESTIONS
> What are two or three topics/questions, critical to the long term future
> that you wish to explore in small group settings at H3000?
> How can we tackle the "inertia of desires", because of which people
> continue to want more of some quantity (e.g. food, transport or
> information) long after the real need has been saturated?
This question seems to suggest that some higher authority ought to
control or manage the "inertia of desires" which individual human beings
exhibit. Just who or what system do you suggest ought to impose this
constraint on individuals? And what standards should this authority use
to judge how best to control and manage these selfish human desires? I
can only say that from my point of view, your model of our free market
political/economic systems is sadly out of date.
Again, you seem to have deeply imbedded in your psyche the notion that
individual human beings are not capable of self governance. This is
where our differences seem to be greatest. I respect and honor your
right to hold the views you put forth. But I think your ideas are
extremely dangerous and I am convinced that if they were ever widely
accepted, they would be a serious threat to the very future you claim
you wish to enhance. That is why I am speaking up so strongly against
them.
> IV. 1000 YEAR VISION
> Please articulate your vision of the 1000 year future in a 3-5 line
> statement.
> I see humanity undergoing a "metasystem transition" to a higher level of
> evolution.
Based on the above, in my opinion, this is just your thinly disguised
technical jargon for a global state with tyrannical power to subjugate,
manage and control the freedom and rights of individuals world wide.
> Humanity would be integrated into a single "superorganism",
> where individual humans would play the roles of the cells in a
> multicellular organism.
Again the subjugation of individuals to the good of the "super organism"
is nothing more that a thinly veiled call for constraints on individual
liberty, differences, autonomy and sovereignty. That might be the kind
of world you envision Francis, but I want no part of it. I can't
imagine anything worse or more contrary to the rapid growth and
awareness of human rights and freedom we are now witnessing. From what
I can tell, your agenda would set humanity back by more than two hundred
years.
Our forefathers and mothers came to the new world to get away from just
the kind of central sovereign power you seem to be proposing. Are you
suggesting that your supranational global power might someday try to
take away our American individual sovereignty, liberty, rights and
freedoms. If so, you can expect that if you try to do it by force, you
will have another world war on your hands. How many times do we have to
learn this lesson, Francis.
> The superorganism's nervous system, the "global
> brain", would have a superhuman intelligence, and reason at a level of
> abstraction or consciousness beyond anything we can presently imagine.
If your super organism adopts the universal scientific value system you
seem to be proposing, I submit that it will be doomed to commit suicide
in the form of a new world war. How many times do we have to learn this
lesson, Francis?
> It just
> confirms my suspicion that Norman is not really interested in informed
> discussion, but just wishes to pigeonhole people and their positions in his
> preconceived categories of "good" and "bad".
I'm not usually in the habit of creating nasty names for people or
trying to pigeonhole them with some reductionistic prejudicial phrase.
In fact, I almost always work hard to help people with many different
points of view find ways to learn to understand each other. But when I
first saw your humanity 3000 post I was so stunned I hardly knew what to
do. So I discussed it with several others to see if they too
interpreted your views as I did. I spent a lot of time considering what
the best course of action would be and finally decided to just ignore
your outrageous views rather than draw further attention to them. But
when Tom Abel came forth with his silly notions about our limited
resources and abilities to adapt and change, I just couldn't resist
taking a single shot at the two of you. Incidentally, I agree with most
of your comments refuting his zero sum approach.
> As a "bad guy" I don't think I
> could ever convince him of anything, so I will no longer try.
>
Suit yourself. But note that I don't want you to be a bad guy. Nothing
would please me more than to find that I am completely mistaken. I'd
even settle for partly mistaken. If I have made a big mistake, I will
even be very glad to offer up my humble apologies. On the other hand,
if the interpretations I've set forth above are close to the mark and
you don't change, I truly think you potentially might turn out to be a
"bad guy".
NKM