( Eighteen minute read)

This might be a far flung proposition, but as we watch democracy diminishing around the world, replaced with tyranny, driven by social media lies and profit seeking algorithms, combined with climate change, we presently, live in societies that range from completely dysfunctional to marginally functional.

We cannot just fight back, mitigate harms and regulate retrospectively.

We must build a vision for a more positive future, where technology is shaped and harnessed as a force for good.

Why?

Because by imagining the future we want to see, we stand a better chance of reaching it.

Because we are now living in fragile times. One tipping point in climate change could trigger all the rest or Vladimir Putin’s current war in Ukraine could end in nuclear annihilation.

——————

History has a way of sticking around, teaching us how far we’ve come and illustrating how human nature has both changed and managed to stay the same all at once, but the coming age of technology changes and climate changes is going to change how history is made.

Even in the most advanced of our societies, immense problems threaten to overwhelm the citizenry in the decades ahead.

We have to place as much importance on political, social, economic, demographic and environmental trends as technological ones.

Most notably, technological, climate change, because either of these two mega-forces will precipitate, if not effectively countered in the near term will plunge the planet into a global war.

————–

We need to learn how to think in order to survive, and that is what we should do, and to do that, to learn how to think.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a difficult lesson in just how susceptible our world is today to human and economic turmoil, it has also – perhaps for the first time in history – necessitated global collaboration, data transparency and speed at the highest levels of government in order to minimize an immediate threat to human life.

We need to create a society that attempts to do so, in the experimental laboratory that is the earth.

Or we may not do so, fail to learn, and vanish:  Our choice.

———————

Apart from our bodies following some very strict and complex biological laws, without which we’d all be doomed, there has long been an appetite among some people for a less formalised society, a society without government, a world where individual freedom takes precedence.

Our thoughts, and the deeds that follow our thoughts, can make us greater than we have ever been, or they can destroy us utterly.

What is the ideal social and political structure for a modern society, if you had the ability to start from scratch?

Let’s take a look.

The trouble with anarchy, is that it is inherently unstable – humans continually, and spontaneously, generate new rules governing behaviour, communication and economic exchange, and they do so as rapidly as old rules are dismantled.

The same phenomenon of spontaneous rule construction when people had collectively to manage common resources such as common land, fisheries, or water for irrigation.

These rules aren’t just invented by rulers and imposed from the top down – instead, they often arise, unbidden, from the needs of mutually agreeable social and economic interactions.

Our relationship with rules does seem to be unique to humans hardwired into our DNA. In fact, our species’ ability to latch onto, and enforce, arbitrary rules is crucial to our success as a species.

One danger is that rules can develop their own momentum: And then there’s “rule-creep”:

Rules just keep being added and extended, so that our individual liberty is increasingly curtailed. Planning restrictions, safety regulations and risk assessments can seem to accumulate endlessly and may extend their reach far beyond any initial intention.

The biggest ways in which the world will change are not isolated technological advancements, but rather a paradigm shift resulting from the progression to an abundance-based, sustainable society that has been re-engineered from the ground up.

Individuals, and societies, face a continual battle over rules – and we must be cautious about their purpose.

Rules, like good policing, rely on our consent.

And those that don’t have our consent can become the instruments of tyranny. So perhaps the best advice is mostly to follow rules, but always to ask why.

—————-

What is the ideal social and political structure for a modern society, if you had the ability to start from scratch?

The first question you may ask yourself is, where do I even start, to create a new society.

What the purpose of your society will be, you’ll want to write your society’s constitution.

The society’s name, the structure of the society, the levels of membership and what each level means,

In a healthy society, money serves the economy and economy serves the people, so we need to make sure that what follows capitalism is human-centred and not oppressive.

Here is my blue print for present day.

• Harness digital technologies to improve lives and reorient technology towards more social ends;
• Empower citizens to take more control over their lives, and to use their collective knowledge and skills to positive effect;
• Make government more accountable and transparent;
• Foster and promote alternatives to the dominant technological and business models — alternatives which are open and collaborative rather than closed and competitive;
• Use technology to create a more environmentally sustainable society.

 A future technological society run by AI.

No distinction between race or sex.

No Government, the AI organise everything.

No exchange, all goods and services FREELY ACCESSED by everyone.

No Classes, no one can subjugate another as a class, wealth structure would be abolished.

No nation states, all states will be geographical areas freely accessed by the peoples of the world.

No property ownership the materials (land, fuel, transport systems, factories, machinery, technology etc) freely accessible for people to satisfy their needs.

No wages, people can freely take form what they and society produces.

All financial institutions Banks, Building societies, Insurance, Assurance buildings, automatically turned over to the people and their use decided upon by the people, whether for accommodation or local amenities etc.

All decisions within society are made by the people whether local or global as we have the technology to inform all those it concerns and everyone is accountable to the AI Cloud.  Accordingly, people would be responsible for the outcome of their decisions.

(John Dalberg-Acton), so no matter the apparent knowledge, etc., there can be no ultimate trust, only verifiable trust. And for all to receive, all must contribute.

All leaders would have a limited term, say two years.

Who fills which role and their respective duties within the society will be decided amongst the four people chosen and approved by the AI cloud, which should be clearly defined in a new constitution.

AI only task would be to review the decisions made by the people and if it found a decision to be potentially harmful, to put that decision on hold for a period not exceeding one year. At the end of the set period, the people would vote again, and the second vote would be binding, not subject to any further appeal.

These would be a president, a vice president, a treasurer, and a secretary with social media accounts ratifying outline for how to make amendments to the constitution.

But “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”

Accordingly, all who comprise a society, are of age, and not disqualified owing to acts they committed or illness that affects their comprehension, should be able to decide directly (i.e. by means of internet or similar connection) on the issues that may affect them, and to decide on the budget that would be required, and to approve of the managers that would supervise the implementation of those decisions (a different manager for each project, so as not to consolidate power in one person).

They would then allocate resources (funds, people) to present to the people all available information on the topic pertaining to the people’s decision.

Good decisions would benefit them. Bad decisions would tend to encourage them to become more informed about the topics that they decided, as well as to consider the possibly adverse outcomes of their decisions before they made such decisions.

Engineering biology, machine learning and the sharing economy would be establish a framework for decentralising the healthcare continuum, moving it from institutions to the individual.

“Je pense, donc je suis” (René Descartes) is indeed existential, because we think.

——————-

Technologies may one day offer us the opportunity to live healthily well beyond 100 years, enhance our intellectual and physical abilities and control our emotions. Technology may also enable us to become producers of our own products, track what we think and guide our decision-making.

The questions are as evolution continues, as it will there are many. 

How will we safeguard the instincts that help us survive?

How will hard-fought-for values such as tolerance, individuality and freedom of choice evolve?

Who will control the ecosystem of data and technology that influence our decisions and what accountability mechanisms will be available to us?

What would changes brought about by such emerging technologies really mean for the real ‘us’?

If in the future we can enhance ourselves “on demand”, it raises the question whether advancements to our capabilities are a means to an end or whether they are ends in and of themselves?

What will drive and motivate us if we can enhance ourselves and if choices are made for us?

Will we still feel needed and in what way?

If for the first time in our species’ history we can actively influence our evolutionary process, what will happen if not everyone has access to these technologies or if some decide to “opt out”?

Will the absence of failure in an “enhanced” society hold civilization back and will “unenhanced” humans thus be needed to ensure disruptive progress?

How will emerging technologies interact with the value systems of traditional religions?

If in the future technologies merge with the body, it could become almost impossible to disconnect from networks.

People themselves would then be part of the “internet of things”.

Will the benefits of technology such as remote medical care, for example, offset the cost in the loss of intimacy associated with personal care?

For which benefits are we prepared to give up control over our bodies and to whom?

What areas of our lives will we expect to remain private and will we continue to need private spaces?

In addition, we now can receive real-time feedback about what and who is best for us through tracking and matching tools, which tend to ignore the contradictory nature of the human mind.

Will our decisions come to be based mostly on our intuition, on data analytics, or on peers’ recommendations?

Will we have “thought-police”, reinforcing the power of a few, or will civil society use technologies to place extra checks on decision-makers?

Will we trust each other or, instead, trust what data might tell us about each other?

Finally a plan for what should happen to your assets if your society were to dissolve.

—————–

By 2025, quantum computing will have outgrown its infancy, and a first generation of commercial devices will be able tackle meaningful, real-world problems

.The roll-out of 5G creates markets that we only imagine – like self-driving bots, along with a mobility-as-a-service economy – and others we can’t imagine, enabling next generations to invent thriving markets and prosperous causes.

Technology that accelerates our ability to rapidly sample, digitalize and interpret microbiome data will transform our understanding of how pathogens spread but history will be our judge

So far despite the heroic resolve and resiliency on a country by country basis, as a world we have underperformed.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com