Truth serves life.
Truth, like any good servant, is in service of life. It exists to promote our individual and collective well-being, by helping us to understand and navigate the world around us. Truth is timeless and universal, carrying with it the wisdom of the ages. It is also dynamic and ever-evolving, responding to the needs of each new generation. In this way, Truth can be seen as a Futuristic Constitution, guiding us towards a brighter future. Above all, Truth is a powerful force for good, and we should all strive to live in accordance with its principles.
How Should A Futuristic Constitution Should Look Like?
If we're going to design a constitution for the future, we need to take into account the fact that the world is changing rapidly. We can't just copy and paste the existing documents and expect them to work in a new context. We need to be innovative in our approach, and we need to look at ways of maximizing resources and allocation of leadership.
Here are some ideas for how a futuristic constitution might look:
- Innovation: The constitution should encourage innovation, not stifle it. We need to think about how to incentivize people to come up with new ideas and new solutions to problems.
- Resource Maximization: We need to be efficient in our use of resources, and we need to find ways of maximizing their potential. This includes both natural and human resources.
- Allocation of Leadership: We need to think about how leadership should be allocated in a way that is efficient and effective. This includes both traditional leaders and emerging leaders.
- Adaptive Educational Structures: In order to meet the needs of every child, schools have adopted an adaptive educational structure. This means that each student receives a personalized education based on their individual needs and abilities.
- Equal Protection Under The Law: The Constitution now provides for equal protection under the law regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. This update ensures that all citizens are treated fairly and equally under the law.
- Strengthening Checks And Balances: The Constitution has been updated to strengthen checks and balances between the different branches of government. This update will help to prevent abuse of power and ensure that our government remains accountable to the people.
To Serve The Living: Nature, Animals and Humans?
Developing the future through a manifesto is an important way to set the tone for what is to come. A constitution is a document that sets out the supreme law of a country, organization or even different worlds. It outlines the rights of citizens and the functions of institutions. In a way, it is a blueprint for how a society should be structured. As such, it should be considered carefully in order to ensure that it meets the needs of all members of society, including nature, animals, and humans.
A constitution that serves the living must take into account the needs of all sentient beings. It should protect the environment and animal welfare, while also ensuring that human rights are respected. Furthermore, it should promote the well-being of all members of society, both present and future generations. In short, a constitution that How Should A Futuristic Constitution Serve The Living: Nature, Animals and Humans? should be forward-thinking and inclusive. Only then can it hope to serve as an effective guide for developing a thriving society - societies that can thrive in different worlds as we aspire to become multi-planetary species.
This Blogpost is covering concepts found in the Future Fund Project Ideas.
Dear friend,
I broadly agree with most of the constitution, though I struggle to see how the section on truth relates to the rest of the document. I would keep the concept of truth out of a political document (a document instructing us how to live together), as it seems a bit a) tyrannical (what do we do with those who are misled or who have radically different worldviews from us) and b) a bit fuzzy (as many philosophers would tell you but also many scientists). Maybe it wasn't by coincidence that the people who coined the word 'philosophy' opted for a word that means love of wisdom rather than for one which means love of truth (you can argue that you can't have wisdom without truth, but then I'd say that truth may not be sufficient for wisdom, and may not even be necessary, and that opting for wisdom may give you the adaptability that you mention further down in your post).
Best Wishes,
Haris
I am a philosopher by my actions, and as I have understood as the best action forward for humanity is to define what is truthful as our world had gone to so many routes to learning that can lead to information overloading. Nothing I believe can trump the argument that truth should serve the preservation of life. So I suggested concepts that can adhere to this while pursuing a unified constitution for the future.
I appreciate your comment but I do not agree that stating truth is in the service of life is tyrannical - it is even anti-tyranny as it helps political policies to be grounded in preserving what is thought to be uniquely found on earth - oxygen processing organisms that can justify the expanse of time through meaning and struggle.
Thanks and let me know your thoughts,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Many thanks for this, and for the promptness of your reply, both much appreciated!!!
Do you think we're making any progress in defining what is truthful (or true even), and how? For example, one possible answer would be that we're making a lot of progress since 1650 through the institutionalization of (natural) science, and especially in the 20th-21st century with more people working in science.
An other example of an answer would be that all through its written history humanity has been on a search to define what is truthful, and that this is the essence of the meaning and the struggle that you write about in the second paragraph.
Also, I would appreciate your thoughts on how you think policy-making at present differs to what you describe in your second paragraph as policies grounded in the preservation of (i assume) humans.
Best Wishes,
Haris
(ps: I may take a while to get back to you, as in 3-4 hours or a bit more, please don't be offended, it's just that I'll be off to watch football in a bit :) )
No rush in Replying Haris, Football is a thing too here in the Caribbean!!
As to your question on progress - my answer is Yes we did have a lot of progress but it is slowing down and most of us are becoming more seemingly confused of what is our role in this lifetime - I can say that 90 to 95 percent of society is not utilizing their potential and is either 1) following a wrong narrative or 2) too busy with the struggles of life - work, relationships, parenting (which is a viable answer to be honest). We have not found a ground breaking theoretical physics since Einstein. What we then put ourselves since that is abilities like to alter evolution through genetic engineering/ birth control or the God like power of nuclear energy. So I see true progress in my own view as something we aspire as a human race and not only in the hands of the few that aspires for it. If we are aiming for multi-planetary governance - we should see that a rock solid meta-ethic can work on different worlds where gravitational force or water resource may differ.
To answer your second comment / question: Most governments are becoming lesser and lesser objective in their pursuit of societal welfare - or at least this is how it looks like to me as probably the decline in the method where we entrust our lives. We might be reaching the limits of what governments are as the rapid increase in technology have proven that policy makers are unable to catch up. Well that is why I believe the future fund had listed this topic in their project ideas - what can a futuristic governance may look like - hence I took a shot at trying to stretch my mind on the concept, where very much so I agree with them that we need a cohesive approach to becoming a multi-planetary species - a concept that can apply to worlds with varying physics and resources.
Enjoy the game Haris. Btw, which league it is? =)
Dear Miguel,
Happy mood over here, it was the english premier league, Liverpool FC vs Tottenham Hotspur and I'm a massive Liverpool supporter! There were a couple more big games (greece and cyprus - i'm from cyprus) but we didn't stick around with my friend.
Mm interesting, I know really like your angle, explicitly the critique of current politics (let's call them that, for a lack of a better word) and the pressing need to improve and find a way of good governance for the long-term future. To be honest, that's something i'd really like to work on (my work so far has been on the relationship between democracy and science). However, in my view, the politics that you criticise would (or maybe even should) continue to exist, especially if after expanding into other worlds leads us into radically different worldviews because exactly of teh differences in physics and resources that you mention. Hence why for me, consensus and setting things aside as a product of agreement rather than as a product of truth finding seems more like the way to go.
I hope the above is clear and not too fluffy, as I'm feeling a bit tired right now and my brain is not at its clearest.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hey Harris,
All was clear and good. You know we can both help each other sharing ideas about the topic, especially its not a lot of people who are discussing the far future from a governance perspective.
Agreements can become biased to people's interests. This is the reason why a meta ethic in my view is better - well grounded concepts (empirical and meta-truths) is a better structure to ground policies in my perspective.
Thank you for your time on this Dude. Hope the Liverpool match gave you a great time too =)
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Liverpool duly obliged last night (first away win to a difficult opponent!!), so all good!
Sure we can continue chatting and something can come out, if not for others then at least for us.
I think we need to think the following thought-experiment: Do we want to provide something like the american constitution, a text that will survive and people will be meant to follow for many (hundreds, thousands or even millions of ) years? In my view, such a document will just become obsolete as it will either age or as the conditions change due to planetary expansion or whatever. Also, (ok, if you check my work on Researchgate, my phd work is a bit critical of the institution of science), i remember reading somewhere that scientific truths nowadays have a very short half-life. So if we'll look for truths we'll need to use sth like Rawls' veil of ignorance or another mechanism.
In my view, interests are not bad per se nor are they unavoidable. Hence why my stance is put everybody's cards on the table, have a negotiation, sign it off as a responsible group of deliberators, and then maybe have that revised or re-agreed upon every few generations or years. However, an objection to such a view would be the concept of agonism (the theoretician here would be a lady called Chantal Mouffe) who argues that in politics there's always a group left out.
Ok, enough of my blah-blah, back over to you!! :) - what I want you to tell me if you want is to elucidate a bit what you mean by truths as we may not be too far away anyway, on second thought :)
Best Wishes,
haris
Hi Harris,
I'm erring on the side of self-interests as more leaning to bad side because of how primal or self serving most policies are approved / enacted. I personally have seen it on the highest echelons of politics and to the lowest forms of governing units.
There are some truths that we cannot argue against with. Examples of these are Einstein's theories, Evolution, History, Bits (Zeroes and Ones), Stoicism - rock solid concepts that stood the test of time. I am advocating for robust policies based on ideas that will not shake whoever biased politician, prime minister in positions of wealth or power will bend or break....
What Is see as this project is very difficult I am well aware of the complexity of the topic but understanding how deep each policy should be nailed into fundamental truths - is the only way forward in my honest view.
Thanks for your ideas Haris. All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Are you (even a tiny bit, please don't take this as me showing off) familiar with Aristotle on virtues? The (very broad, perhaps to a criminal extent of me distorting it) idea is that the virtuous person has their interests and the virtuous courses of action aligned, so by default they behave in a virtuous manner and their actions and decisions are virtuous. I think such an approach, in other words an institutional environment which encourages virtuous people to become leaders, would be better than trying to eliminate all self-interest (which I think can't happen, or at worst may lead us into worshipping very extreme personalities).
As for the truths you mention, just to be a bit pedantic and score some low points, Einstein is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, evolution also continues to evolve (pun intended, hehe) as a theory, if you take the approach of history as your main approach then the natural sciences will (and they already do, hehe) hate you and look down on you, bits, well, there are now qubits (quantum computing ones-and-zeros-at-the-same time) and so on. Stoicism, again, I would applaud, but then, if stoicism, why not christianity or buddhism or cynicism or something else? they also have good elements.
But ok, the above paragraph we don't have to bicker too much about if you don't want it either.
Here are some thoughts I had and was dying to share with you: what do you think about decentralisation and use of resources? here's what i mean: if we consider ten billion living on Earth, then the structure we'll probably have in order to sustain ourselves and feed ourselves and mind the Earth will be much more different if there are 109 billion of us spread on five or ten different planets. If it's the latter case, then the way to go would probably have to be a stratification and strict centralisation. if it's the latter, then maybe respect to each other and decentralisation would be better. What do you think?
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Harris,
Thanks for sharing your views with Aristotle and yes, a virtuous person is more capable than a person that have eliminated their self interests.
Hmmmm. Well that is the purpose of the idea I propose - seek a better foundational structure to where we can lay our ideas and move forward with the ability to grow and adapt. Obviously I am stepping outside the realms of my expertise here but in my experience those concepts have worked out for me and was able to help a lot of people that is why I see them as "my applied foundational truths", as to my proposal is Truth serves life on Earth and Future Worlds
As far as decentralization is something that is a holy grail for keeping up with the accounting of distribution of records, kind of achieved by bitcoin and crypto using distributed ledgers, but unfortunately we do not have the physics yet to sustain the energy and computational requirement of it - data transfer between planets is another problem so we need new discoveries in order to facilitate this.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Yeah, we can agree that perhaps some common foundation may be required, and focus on the minimum we can agree on - with most of the points you make in the original being points that I agree with (adaptability, innovation, nature, etc) and perhaps some others that we can try to find if you so wish :). I guess for me it's not that important (it is, but only relatively so, hehe) as to whether these are agreed upon because they are true or because they are agreed upon full stop :). I'm more concerned to think of the content at the moment, rather than the how.
As for decentralisation, maybe i used the wrong word, what i meant was that the idea would be to allow each population to govern themselves and have a very minimal set of common principles, as opposed to a highly organized and perhaps centralised structure which will be required in order to share limited resources for many people in one single planet (whose useful land we're limiting day by day). I think one of the key goals of a constitution would be to ensure the flourishing of all (another aristotelian theme) and avoid wars and unnecessary killings.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
Yes, a baseline foundation that is not anti-life. We both agree on it.
As far as to your concept of Decentralization, hmmmmm. History does explain even in the existence of a great baseline, succeeding rulers can still tilt the whole government or empire to a very diabolic direction. I truly can't find of a better view to the problem - especially transacting resources from one world to another will definitely require a common procedure at the very least.
Very interesting discussion Haris. I look forward to sharing more ideas with you in the future.
All the Best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Here's the podcast i mentioned above (it's a bit long but definitely worth it): https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/ian-morris-big-picture-history/
I've also got the book they're discussing, though not sure i can send it to you, it's called Foragers, Farmers and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve
Right, got to hit the sheets, it's past midnight here, looking forward to tomorrow!! :)
Best Wishes,
Haris
Dear Miguel,
First of all, many thanks for your kind words, also for me our interactions are brainfood and nourishing in a very vivid sense of the word!!
Now my admission: I never understood the concept of baseline, even though I've come across it very often (ok, i know you'll tell me 'just google it', hehe). So i'm a bit confused by your middle sentence there about succeeding rulers. you mean about for example the succession of alexander the great by his generals or i don't know obama by trump, am i hearing you accurately?
I think we have some resources from history (i am a great fan of history) about transacting resources: the solution will be something akin to money (insert your favourite actual thing, like shells, gold or crypto). The point is that we need to find a way that will make it unappealing to people to collect too much of this money. I think you must have missed it, but last Sunday there was a discussion on a book by a historian who was linking the development of four key values (attitudes to violence, to gender parity, property and hierarchy, or something like that) to two seminal events, the transition to agriculture and the industrial revolution (i can send you i think a podcast and the title of the book if you're interested). So his main claim was that you can explain the whole of history based on the big jumps in energy consumption. i found it very interesting, it may be productive for our discussion.
Ok coming back to our discussion, for me the key would be to eliminate killing - not dying out of illnesses, but killing and war and domination. I am a very big believer in democracy and equality (though a bit of a less of a big believer in things like growth and free markets, but that's negotiable, hehe :) )
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
Thanks, and its an honor to be slugging ideas out with you. What I meant as baseline was history being the measuring stick that we evaluate how bad or good a succession of power is especially no single king or president lives forever. Succession of power always is the thing in governance - so many examples of bad apples that destroyed great legacies here and there.
Capitalism for it solves the inequality issue that is very difficult to solve. People bestowed with great talents and energy can never be equalized at any degree....as you can see Elon Musk amassed so much resources because of this and fortunately he is trying to use it for the good and the far future.
I also do not advocate for war and killings. Democracy is not for everyone as not all people can think properly to make educated votes and equality? equality of outcomes or equality of opportunity? Because if you say equality of outcomes - this is a horrible idea for the reason that I mentioned why Capitalism works. But equality of opportunity is another holy grail that we should try to achieve in this lifetime.
I will listen to the podcast Haris. Thank you for sharing your ideas.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Hehe, after the compliments comes our first clash :) - i think Elon Musk is really misguided at best, and actively very evil and dangerous at worse, hehe. And I think we really need in our constitution about huge wealth differentials as I think that such differentials would bring along hierarchies and inequalities with them.
For me democracy is for everyone and there's no better decision-making procedure (especially if the decisions are about living together and about very important topics that affect all citizens current and future, ie about politics and the stuff EA should be concerned with). If you want to see how passionate I am about this point I can refer you to my biggest academic success, a 15min presentation at an academic conference where I defend just this.
As for trying to convince you, there is some stuff in a field labelled political epistemology that talks about the epistemic (knowledge) value of democracy, and a theorist called Helene Landemore who believes (and there's a theorem in maths that she cites, although you may know better than me that there are theorems proving everything and nothing out there) that a bunch of average thinkers, if diverse enough, would arrive at conclusions on any given topic which wouldn't be inferior to those of experts.
Mind sending me a link or what to look for for equality of outcomes and equality of opportunity? I think I've seen it somewhere in EA but not sure how to find it again.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
Not at all a clash but I would appreciate you pointing out the evil in Elon in Greater Detail. I have followed his projects and have seen the methodologies to work. But please elaborate it.
Definitely that wealth inequality is a problem but I do not see the constitution being the prime solution to it - as we have tried equalizing statuses and resources of people before and for numerous times millions of people died - communist countries have tried it.
hmmmmm. I hope you can point me to that also, the average thinkers = experts opinions. I h see that there is a very wide gap between the differences in cognitive abilities as pioneers and innovators have paved way for the modern world to exist - that is why I think that no amount of average thinkers can trump a single fundamental discovery in biology or physics.... It's just is not that I like the idea of us being useless compared to Einstein or Dirac. They just have figured out solutions to how we should interpret reality properly and the average mind cannot comprehend the complexity that they did.
This is a video on Why Chasing Equality Of Outcome leads to the wrong direction..
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Good morning!! Ok, this is where I need to wave my hands around! First of all, I've listened and watched the video, and my gut reaction was similar to the grimaces of the lady in it, mostly that I wouldn't want to have a drink at the pub with the main speaker. Why so in terms of arguments, I'm not yet sure (and they may come out slower today than yesterday when I was just throwing out things at you) sure - I think I would attack claims as callous what he says about everybody being free to exploit everybody else, also I'd attack what he says about the studies in Nature, by saying that Nature can also be guilty of (natural) scientizing things that it shouldn't be scientizing, for example there's a lot of social construction going on in the concepts involved in the study for Nature to be able to provide a natural angle to them and I think that's evident in what he talks about (i can be forced to talk a bit more about this if you want me to explain a bit more).
Now, touching on other things briefly: I've looked up on wikipedia (another example of the wisdom of the many) the terms equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, I have to say that my gut says equality of outcome is very important and i'm all for. I think I can maybe turn this argument back into something where I may be more convincing, to the question of whether truth is easy or not to achieve and how (this would make us go through expertise and into the outcome-opportunity question, as in do we want the best to run our company/state or is there no such thing as 'the best'?). Here's the link to the researcher I mentioned and maybe a key paper, in it you can find the mathematical theorem (if you can't find it then it won't be hard for me to find it for you, I mean to go to the relevant footnote in the paper): https://yale.academia.edu/HeleneLandemore (the person) - and i think that's the paper i'm referring to, the mathematical theorem must be in one of the footnotes if i remember correctly: https://www.academia.edu/31286808/Why_the_Many_Are_Smarter_than_the_Few_and_Why_It_Matters_Published_version_
As for the Constitution not having as its main business the wealth inequality because of the many deaths and suffering in 20th century regimes, I think you put it very elegantly, but I think we need to think about it. I remember once an anecdote that Lenin said sth like 'but i want everybody to travel first class' when it was pointed out to him that there were first and second classes in the trains, something like that.
As for Musk, I find his claims on free speech as very irresponsible, I find his move to ask the US government to pay him for the Ukrainians internet after the Ukrainians disagreed with his views callous (if he doesn't want to intervene, then don't intervene from the beginning, rather than flip-flopping - let the politics to the politicians, or then acknowledge his huge power). In general, I am very critical of him and Zuckerberg on pretending that their riches do not give them a political role. They are deeply political and they had better a) recognise this and b) behave responsibly with their wealth. Besides, as for Musk specifically, I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that a) the US government or other bodies helped him financially many times when he was in deep debt, despite his projections that he's the best investor there is and b) one of his daughters changed her name so as not to be associated with him (not a good sign).
As for Dirac and Einstein, I would classify them along with great artists or sportsmen and music-people. What do you think about this idea? :)
Best Wishes,
Haris
Ps: i may be a bit slower in answering today, as I have some other things to read too - my heart is here though my head, enslaved by the capitalist logic that I have to put food on my table, says that I should focus on the other things too :)
Hi Haris,
No rush in replying and I appreciate your honesty and time on these concepts.
Equality of outcome is so difficult to achieve - how many race or ethnicities do we need to level down or up? How many age do we need to evaluate? do we prefer men or women? kids vs. Adults? Outcomes can never equalize no matter how hard we try and again, we tried it in communist countries as the idea of aiming utopias have birthed to the deaths of millions (Maoist China, Russia's Stalin and Pot's Cambodia). Equality of opportunities is what I prefer - all have the freedom to choose and opportunities are available to everyone.
I have not read Musk charging for his support in Ukraine so I need to read more - but if that is the case and there was no reason for it that is viable. But the free speech and buying twitter can become something that is worth to see in the coming months, I agree on his take on revamping the mechanism of twitter and make it more objective rather than subjective like the twitter board so its yet to see if his claims of freedom of speech will prosper. We will see.
I will read the one you attached here and will share my ideas later.
In some sense Dirac and Einstein are unique individuals like those that have talents similar to music and sports. But the works they did became foundations of other great things - the theoretical physicists have helped us paved the modern world like no other group has...
Again, no rush in commenting and i hope you have a great day today.
All the best.
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Would lotteries and random selection (or a mix between random selection and CVs) be a way to secure equality of outcome? I actually agree with you that we can generate at nauseam differences that we'd have to level up or down (for example why not bald people if we accept people with more obvious disabilities or whatever), I am a big fan of lotteries though - you may find some examples how this can be achieved (and some arguments for) in Landemore's work.
To be honest, I don't use Twitter and know even less about how it works. However I do remember that even J.S. Mill in his classic work on free speech makes the point that there's a time and a place where you can say certain things, let's say you for example it'd be irresponsible to argue that firefighters are against the state in front of a burning building.
As for Dirac and Einstein, one question, are you aware of the state of modern theoretical physics? If you thought that Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's cat example was crazy, what do you make of parallel universes, dark matter and simulation? for me, these are far beyond fairy tales as regards their nonfalsifiability and fanciness. It's just fanciness with a few numbers thrown in :)
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
Thank you for your swift reply!
I would be okay with lotteries as a solution for simple problem eg. distributing small amounts of wealth - but in solving mind bending issues that humanity face, We need the best of the best and them being agreeing together for the benefit of all.
I'm perfectly aware of the stagnation and the fall of string theory to deliver its promises - thus staining the legacy of those that walked before them in the field of physics. We are in need of new solutions - resource distribution and allocation is a big component of how multiple worlds thrive. I'm in the middle as far as parallel universes and simulation as there is no evidence to the contrary though dark matter is something that can be better studied through experiments and observations - maybe the JWT (James Webb Telescope) can help in making better data captures for future modeling / measurements...
Free speech out of context is not free speech and basically just being either noisy or disturbing. I argue for free speech that is on point and not out of context.
Hope I explained myself well in this one. Let me know of any more clarifications needing to be addressed.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Greetings! Thanks for your well-thought out answer, don't worry, you've expressed yourself perfectly well (apart from one clarification that i'll ask below!).
First of all, I'd like to push you a bit on the experts and the best outcome. A problem would be the problem of legitimacy, without which you just won't get people to do what the experts want them to do (for example on climate change). I have argued in the past (in the 15min video that i told you i could send you or in a powerpoint i can send you of another conference) that scientific expertise (the best of the best as you say agreeing among themselves) may not be sufficient to compel citizens to action, and that this may be achieved better if the deliberating body is seen as a political body (akin to a parliament) rather than as a scientific committee.
Glad to see your feedback from my provocation on physics, I'm a bit sceptical even about dark matter and dark energy, even that seems to me a bit ad hoc and made up just to make the back-of-the-envelope calculations add up.
As for your last paragraph though on free speech, that's where I'd like the clarification and the bit of elaboration: how would one distinguish between noise and something which is to the point? We all believe that what we say is to the point, yet sometimes others decide that it is not and that it is mere noise or even worse, provocation, swearing, libel, and so on.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
Definitely agreeing on experts and the problem of determination on who really is worth following. Unfortunately, we outsourced this problem to the markets and the best solution always gets paid - services and products always gets patronized by consumers. Capitalism ain't perfect but it does have the best model so far for rewarding productive efforts.
btw please show me your presentation, give the link =)
So what I have a came across as the best option for distinguishing which decision, speech or action is on point and simply a distraction? Neitszche's argument on truth - that truth serves life and anything that fails to frame his /her actions on serving the preservation of life is surely doing it wrongfully.
Hope I brought better ideas in this reply,
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Hi, hope you and yours are all well!
I'm afraid you'll have to help me a bit on your last post, as two things weren't clear to me: first, on experts, you first seem to qualify it as unfortunate that we pay for the best solution - and then you qualify capitalism (talk positively of it) in rewarding 'productive efforts'. In these two sentences, are 'the best solution' and ' productive efforts' the same thing?
Also, on the second paragraph, I remember from back in the day that Nietzche was regarded as being a perspectivist on truth (truth through one's own perspective), so I'd ask you to tell me which of the following you are arguing for, the preservation of (one's) life (ie subjective) or the preservation of life (or even Life) in general? If the latter, then unfortunately my question persists, who decides about what is relevant for the preservation of Life in general? the biologists?
As for the presentation, let me find it, I think it's this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326829642_Scientific_Expert_Committees_Wicked_Problems_and_Procedure
I'd be happy to revisit it and discuss it :)
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
All is well, thanks. Hope you are well too.
Do you have any other methods that is better in solving the problem of inequality other than the rewarded service or product by consumers? It is not a perfect solution because this system can also get corrupt (again human self interest as an issue) that is why I am not fully comfortable that we can go all in with capitalism towards the future - but it's way better than communism. Sorry for my choice of descriptions to my ideas, I will try to be more clearer in this one and the succeeding replies.
Any decision that preserves human life and the natural world is what I refer as truthful. Why would arguing with a fireman from saving a burning house be debatable if you so believe that certain actions are not feasible? Too much of the semantics keeps us from really making viable solutions to the present and far future. Actions that matter preserves life. I am not asking you to agree with me but this concept have literally made me do a lot more than my previous mode where I just continiously ask questions and do not get things done.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
I think some sort of status recognition, for example more participation in the decisions concering the collective could induce more equality - though to be honest i haven't given this much thought. Maybe otherwise a redistribution of resources or starting from zero every few generations.
However, I cannot see how capitalism and giving money for solutions can do anything other than create and sustain inequality. I may be missing something from your reasoning.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
Again, aiming for equality of outcomes is not a great idea for the reasons I have stated earlier. It's an unsolveable problem.
Can you outline the reasons why you think capitalistic endeavors creates ONLY inequality? I mean isn't the exchange of goods or services for credit and/or money a fair one?
You can also point out which of my reasoning is flawed.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Do you think there are unsolveable problems? Though about the specific one, I think it can be solved by a mix of selection or just by random selection of candidates (in the context of public decision-makers).
Mm to answer your second question first, I struggle to see the connection between fairness and the exchange of goods for money. For example, I could well envisage a gift economy or exchange of time instead of credit and material goods. Though again, not sure all of this would be fairer rather than just alternatives. I'll have to look into the notion of fairness a bit more. I remember a bit of Rawls and justice as fairness, but I'll have to spend some time dusting that up in order to have something interesting to say.
As for why I said exchange for money only produces inequality, i guess what i meant was that if one medium of the exchange (money) can be used for anything, whilst the other has specific uses, then I guess the person who ends up with the thing for anything is better off - especially if they start specialising in collecting this use-for-everything good and yardstick. In plain words, I guess if some people end up with more money and others with less, then that for me is inequality enough.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
The problems under the Millenium prize that needs to be solve is a great sample of "unsolveable problems". My day job currently is a accounting and operational control - and in my everyday experience - different sets of problems needs different sets of solutions, moreover the more difficult it is - the more expertise is required to solve problems quicker and cheaper. We do not outsource design issues to the design staff and vote for solutions - we go straight ahead for the Chief designer. There are many examples to be honest of how we aim to solve issues quicker and cheaper.....and heading directly to the experienced ones.
I do not again discount the role of corruption in producing inequalities all over the world, have seen this in the highest echelons of society upto the loweest form of governance - as corruption can trump any system of governance - even capitalism. Having said that, In great economies were an exchange between two people or entities happen after agreement - The role of money solves so many issues for both: 1) simplification of measurement, 2) easily accountable, 3) easily understood by all parties and even those not transacting (eg. banks and governments); 4) Accepted by all even banks and governments - and the list goes on...
Pareto principle is a terrible observation but it is a hard truth to swallow: why the strongest pride of lions gets to dominate the large swat of African wilderness, why 20% of clients drive the most revenue for any business, Why 20% of content drives 80% of the traffic in a website, and yeah 20% of the rich people accounts for 80% of the wealth. It is a trend that is observed that the more one has, the more opportunities it will gain and we do not have to agree with this terrible truth but it is happening not only in money but everything that requires a hierarchy or distribution. Again, I do not like this fact but unfortunately it is a phenomenon that keeps happening everywhere.
Thank you for your time here. And I appreciate all your thoughts, ideas.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
First of all, it seems to me that your first paragraph on expertise seems to go against the firefighters (and free speech) example. As for money, I take home the standardizing function (what you label as simplification of measurement), however, about that and then about capitalism, I think we can agree to disagree as to what facts and truths are in this given discussion. I don't think these facts are important for lions for example, so maybe we can try to live like lions? Or like foragers for example? :) (especially if we don't all have the space constraint by all being constricted on Earth).
Many thanks for your ideas too, they're good food for thought and a reality check for me!
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
I was expanding about the pareto principle concept which applies to not only humans, but everything that has hierarchies or distribution in it - computers, animals, money it applies...not only us. I do not say I agree with inequalities of distribution of wealth, resource, selection etc. But knowing it does exist in varying fields is very helpful especially in constructing better arguments.
All the best,
Miguel
Hey hello,
As you may have found out by now, I'm sometimes a bit sceptical about such 'scientific principles' - also you may have seen what I hinted about before, that there have been human societies which didn't have hierarchies, so it's not totally not impossible.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
I have seen records that even lobsters 350 million years ago share the same neuropharmacology with serotonin - the transmitter in our neurons for determining dominance hierarchies...that is actually as old as the first trees in the planet. The problem of inequality has been with us forever. Not only in humans - but nature has it too.
All the best,
Miguel
Hey hello,
wow, that sounds really interesting, the lobsters evidence! Though if you ask most people they'll probably say that humans are 'something more' than just animals, be they either god's images or just rational beings (suggesting that other beings are less or not rational).
Best Wishes,
Haris
Yes Haris, the hard problem of inequality in nature, animals and us - existed a third of a billion years ago. That is why it's not human only problem. I really do not have a viable one size fits all solution for inequality..
All the best,
Miguel
Hello Harris,
On Helene's Paper and I stopped reading after this assumption -
I would agree on this if yes her claim that scenarios occur "all things are equal" can happen but unfortunately in reality it is not very feasible as again , equality of skills, talents and personalities never happens . Collective opportunity to speak and explain (freedom of speech) is very much encouraged but not all people that can speak can think well enough especially if the complexity of a certain issue is requiring technical ability. That Is why I believe EA projects geared towards prizing mechanisms for difficult problems is geared for those who can dissect and synthesize issues and bring light to them with a reward. EA does not survey their way for answers from the forum - they look for people who can directly solve the problem.
I hope there is just an easy answer to all of our aspirations for the future but I'm afraid we need the world's brightest minds to bind together - those who can filter the complexity of physics, computational science, geometry, biology to find a proper solution to the far future.
Thank you though for sharing, All the best.
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Greetings, I just checked where the paragraph where you stopped is and it was in page 3 out of the 10 pages, I think you didn't give poor Helene much of a chance, hehe :)
oh dear, can you tell me a little bit more about how EA works? I would try to propose ways of pooling collective wisdom to solve problems, I hope it doesn't mean that I'm in the wrong place.
By the way, apologies if i delayed in answering this, I totally missed it and scrolled down luckily just now.
Just one question though: If you think that democracy has no value in giving answers to important questions, do you still value it and if so as what? Would you prefer rule by an englightened class of people, the knowledgeable ones? (it's called epistocracy)
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Haris,
No worries on the delay. To answer your question on how EA works especially on difficult problems? I am not as familiar to the totality of Effective Altruism but my understanding is all are trying to solve issues as effectively as possible - in which is in line to for me to not seeing a mechanism where the average wisdom being utilized for grand scale issues. We are talking about difficult issues here, not average problems that we have solutions already.
Again, my understanding is the government might be reaching the limits of capacity to harnessing democracy as a prime selector of talent - politicians that we place in positions of responsibility and are unable to cope with the rapidly changing world that we have. I would not say that knowledgeable people are the ones should lead too...I will try to put a blog on this so I can answer the question extensively. I will link it here. Probably tomorrow.
Thank you for your questions. I read the powerpoint - I did not understand the flow, better send the actual presentation so maybe I can review it or try to explain it here.
All the best,
Haris
Dear Miguel,
Many thanks for this, quite thought-provoking. Looking forward to your blog post, I hope I can brag a bit that I played a role in it by giving you some food for thought :)
As for the powerpoint, mind telling me what you mean by flow? As unfortunately I don't have the video for that one, we may have to go either with focussed questions or just a video session where I walk you through it. I suppose one think you can get started, do you know what 'wicked problems' are? You can get a bit of an idea about them by wikipedia, i trust the wisdom of the crowd on that (otherwise i can refer you to the original paper).
Best Wishes,
Haris (not Miguel, see above, hehe)
Hi Haris,
Thanks Haris, I will hit you up tomorrow once that blog about seeking talent is. This blog series btw are topics cited in the Project Ideas of Future Fund. I am just following that list - That is where the constitution of the future initially birthed.
Hmmm what does wicked problems refer? I mean to a degree - life is a tragic story so all problems in between seem wicked but for those who understand that meaning can be extracted from solving this problems - all are not as wicked or just merely "problems".
Yeah if you can expand on what wicked problems are, that will be a good starting point.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel, so this Project Ideas of Future Fund gives out money for things such as a constitution for the future or other decision-making tools? You're tempting me there, I'll have to check it out.
As for wicked problems, here's the wikipedia post, it's a bit more specific than what you mention there, let's see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem this could be a good start.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Hi Harris,
You should check out the list on their page. I am just writing more as I learn deeper into the effective altruism world and hopefully get to join one of the organizations that are trying to make the world or the far future extremely good. Let me know your thoughts.
I'll look into it, the wicked problem wiki and will let you know my ideas.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel, thanks I'll check them out!
I'm here also because I want my life to have a bit more of an impact on others and the future. It's a journey that I have only undertaken recently (I mean with EA), we'll see where it leads me - you never know, we may end up working together, hehe :)
Yup, let me know of your ideas - it may even affect our discussion above about experts and problems.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Yes Haris! It will be an honor to work with you as you have the same energy as I am trying to understand the nature of each topics. Let's talk more in the next topics. Share me some of your work if you need some opinions or comments too.
All the best,
Miguel
Dear Miguel,
Excellent!! I saw you've posted on another topic but haven't read it yet. At the moment I have no further work than what you can see on my Researchgate profile (where the link of the presentation you saw is) I'm mostly interested in decision-making and governance, though also with the AI/AGI alignement problem (though I don't have the background in computing). I'm taking the policy-making course by an EA affiliated entity (it starts the week after next) and the EA course (was supposed to start yesterday, but will start next Tuesday) and in the meanwhile just scoping around for ideas.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Yes Harris,
I'm trying to expand my understanding with all the future ideas that is being tackled by EA...good luck with your course and let me know if you need someone to bounce around ideas. I would be more than happy to share my time dude.
All the best,
Miguel
Hey hello,
Thanks, let's digest stuff a bit in the next few days and see how it goes. Thanks for the offer, same goes for me, at the moment I've got time! :)
Best Wishes,
Haris
Thank you for your time on my blog post Haris, really appreciate it!