NKM
Francis:
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 dreadful
implications of imposing some arbitrary set of values on the entire
world. And so perhaps the way I interpreted your views was incorrect.
But in your original Humanity post, you seem to say that some person or
institution should use cybernetics, AI, self-organizing, complexity
theory, systems sciences and a few other buzz word notions to arrive at
a new scientific universal value system. I think you ought to consider
the fact that you completely failed to articulate the substance of such
a value system. That omission leaves room for a sterile arbitrary set
of values that could devalue and demean individual human dignity,
rights, freedom and our capacity for self governance.
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. So until I learn
otherwise, I still maintain that it was appropriate to use that phrase
to draw everyone's attention, including yours, to my concerns.
I sincerely hope you will take the time to carefully and thoroughly
address 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 strongly suggest that
you admit to any mistakes or errors of omission you may have made. If
you simply try to blame it all on others by saying you were
misunderstood, your motives and intentions will still remain highly
questionable.
I strongly suspect that when you wrote down these ideas, you were
totally unaware of their potentially ominous implications. So my
comments are mainly intended to highlight those ominous implications.
And in order to make my concerns as clear as possible, I did my best to
state them in a forceful and direct manner.
Yet I really do want to see you redeem yourself. So tell us why you
think your view of the future doesn't deserve my overzealous
characterization.
The following quotes are taken from your first Humanity 3000 post.
> 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. What makes you so sure there is one true and
right world view?
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.
How can anyone today presume to have such an absolute authority and
knowledge that they have a right to dictate to others what the meaning
of life ought to be? Omnipotence and omniscience are god like qualities
not human qualities. Isn't it up to each one of us to decide for
ourselves what the meaning of our life is? Frankly Francis, I am
appalled at your total lack of understanding of the crucial importance
of individual personal sovereignty in deciding any question of values.
> Its system of values should help us
> to tell right from wrong in the most general contexts.
Here you seem to be saying that this universal world view is a voluntary
system that everyone ought to accept 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 any different systems of values or free choices with respect
which values an individual may wish to select. You infer that no one
has the right to choose or change his or her values.
If each one of us can't choose our own values, just who would decide
what the correct value system should be? Once it is established what
the correct scientific universal system of values is, who would have the
authority and responsibility for changing it? In your system of
justice, who would decide how to best apply this uniform system of
values? Who would have the ultimate responsibility to determine what
does and does not conflict with your uniform universal system of
values? And who would decide what the punishment for wrong behavior
ought to be?
These are not trivial questions. I submit that your notion of a
universal value system is woefully inadequate and fraught with fatal
flaws. You seem to lack even a rudimentary understanding of political,
social, cultural and economic fundamentals. In my opinion, your ideal
scientific value system is a recipe for political, social, cultural and
economic chaos.
> It should be based
> on scientific and philosophical insights about which everybody can agree,
> rather than on dogmatic or culture-specific traditions.
Do you really think 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 own dogmatic or culture specific
traditions are not dogmatic or culture specific traditions. Why is it
that your unique system of values escapes being dogmatic or cultural
specific traditions while none of the others do? You infer that they
come from some special scientific or philosophical insights that trump
everyone else's. But you fail to specify just who or what system is
capable of determining these value systems that are supposed to be non
dogmatic and free of culture specific traditions.
I submit that there can be no human value system that is free of
cultural traditions and dogma. I further suggest that you seem to be
attempting to impose a "scientific" objectivism into cultural,
political, social and economic value systems. This is a grave error.
In these arenas, there is no such thing as an objective true universal
value system. You seem to be trying to impose the notion of
scientifically verifiable physical truth on fundamentally non physical
systems.
You are not alone in this. In the first half of this century, many
people with the best of intentions throughout the world thought they had
found a new and better scientific way to reduce or eliminate the
uncertainties of political, economic, cultural and social systems. That
they all made this same kind of mistake is evidenced by the ashes of the
disastrous experiments and empires of the Soviet Union, Germany and
Japan to name the most obvious examples. Can you begin to see why I
chose to describe you and your ideas by using the pejorative
reductionistic phrase 'closet nazi'? If not, read on.
I would also like to suggest that it may be possible to have a human
value system that recognizes that there is no such thing as an absolute
value system. This notion might then allow diverse sovereign individual
human beings to have a broad range differences of all sorts. Such a
system then might also attempt to provide some basis or system that
would help all these diverse and sovereign individuals to work with each
other.
So what I am suggesting is that you might want to consider the paradox
of a model system that lacks a system of human values other than the
protection of the differences, sovereignty and human rights of all
individuals. Note that 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. In this day
and age, it's not often we come across someone with your know-it-all
attitude and air of intellectual superiority who has the arrogance to
propose such an all encompassing political system. But then to combine
that practical political system with the powers needed to "enforce" a
specific universal value system, harkens back to the 1920s, 30s and 40s
and the failed ideologies and dictatorships of that era.
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
separate yourself from those opportunist tyrants as well as all the well
meaning idealists who helped them lead the world down the path to
unimaginable death and destruction.
Surely it can't be your objective to argue that we ought to have an all
powerful world wide system of governance. What would be the purpose of
such a global state? Would it be to enforce the ideal absolute
universal value system you suggest? Would such a system then also have
the power to impose severe limitations on the rights, freedoms and
sovereignty of individuals? Wouldn't that amount to a global police
state?
> 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..." Then you also seem to be 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? Are you suggesting some sort of
darwinian selection system that weeds out unfit values in favor of the
survival of only fit values? If so, how might this system adjust your
absolute universal value system to changing conditions? And what about
all the unfit models, systems, values and traditions we humans hold to?
What if there is no universal world view that everyone can agree on?
How would your system allow for differences or alternatives to your new
universal 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 we are all entitled. This means that
all of us are sovereign individuals and that no other person, group or
system of governance can remove or lessen that sovereignty. And let me
add that this sovereignty is not a question of empowerment. No
supranational body or any other political institution can empower or
infuse sovereignty into any individual human being. That sovereignty
exists in and of itself and cannot be conferred, removed or replaced by
any human action or institution.
Our free will is a part of our human heritage. So is our understanding
of and empathy for others of our kind. I maintain that we also have a
deep appreciation and respect for the environment and ecosystems of
which we are an integral part. In my opinion, this individual freedom
and understanding ought to be the starting place for any so called
universal value system. If there is such a thing, any world wide
consensus on human values ought to start with the sanctity and
sovereignty of each and every one of us.
The first order of business ought to be ensuring that every person on
earth has inalienable inherent qualities of dignity, freedom and
sovereignty over themselves. This means that every person should have
an opportunity to live, prosper and find happiness in his or her own
way. And to me, this also means that we must honor the sovereignty of
each individual to follow his or her own values and dreams.
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
those 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 for 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?
Are you beginning to have any inkling of 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. I don't want to be
correct about these interpretations. So tell me why I am mistaken.
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
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 borderless 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, then perhaps
we do agree on this issue.
But these rights include the right to be different and to believe what
we choose. These rights also mean that each of us can decide what we
hold most valuable and sacred. In short, we all have the right to
decide on whatever value system we think is in our best interest. The
only constraints involve values that may restrict or limit the rights,
values and freedoms of our fellow human beings. In fact, we all have a
responsibility to protect and defend each others' rights, values,
freedoms and best interests.
> 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 inadequate and 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. To
me, this represents a giant step backwards.
> 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 some "super
organism"
is nothing more than 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 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. I
find it hard to imagine anything worse.
On this side of the Atlantic, 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. Were it not for American help, you would probably be living
under the strict oppressive despotic rule of some German or Russian
dictator. 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?
Then you continued to comment on my "closet nazi" remarks:
> 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 picking out 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". So I hope you take what I've said seriously and I hope you
will understand that my intention is to offer these thoughts and
criticisms constructively.
NKM