HUMANITY AT THE CROSSROAD

Historically, civilisations have grown, flourished then gone into decline, usually succumbing to a greedy vandalistic order. Now humanity has achieved a global presence, and as such, it has come to a crossroad. One branch is a dead end, leading to anarchy and social disintegration. Social enlightenment is down the other. Should humanity choose to proceed down the road of enlightenment it can still anticipate having to accommodate traumatic change. There are natural limits to population growth. In little over a century, the population of humans on this planet has grown from a billion to over eight billion. The curve is exponential, and managing population levels sustainably has become the priority for the long term health and wellbeing of society. Greed or avarice appears in our species as an insatiable demand for unearned capital, whether that be in the material sense or as authority to command uncompensated for output of others. In modern society, greed is most prevalent in the private sector, which now is out of balance with the public sector. In an ideal society, the private sector supports the public sector with a range of specialised services. Its output should reflect public priorities that have been identified by a process of governance. In reality the private sector now has its own agenda. Failed governance is allowing it to sack public and environmental resources unsustainably. In pre-industrial times we humans enjoyed village life styles. Most members of a community understood their status in the community. Common sense and natural accountability usually were able to balance personal agendas with a community’s priorities. On the whole, there was a degree of social equity, and villagers tended to pull in one direction. As community size increased, obtaining a consensus of opinion became complicated. Likewise, so did the difficulty of satisfying everyone’s personal agenda. Communication in ‘The System’s’ homogenised decision making deteriorated, not from want of technological muscle, but from the inability of technology to replace the authenticity that comes from personal contact. Village life has succumbed to centralisation. We currently face a situation where high mobility and rampant inequity have combined with flawed and inadequate communication to hamper efficient co-ordination of effort. What, in the village was balance between personal and communal priorities, in an urban situation has become chaos. Urbanised humanity is now a pot of stewing forces that emanate from a plethora of private and public ambitions and agendas, many corrosives to social order, many influencing negative environmental change. If, the imbalance between the private and the public sectors can be corrected, our species demand for essential natural resources will become clearer, and with that will come a better understanding of what population level is sustainable. Unfortunately, current debate about the situation continues to skirt around the hard decisions. The graph below is a social equivalent of the economist’s ‘Supply and Demand’ graph. It incorporates the behavioural flux’s that underpin our civilisation. SOCIAL BALANCE A community in balance would feature knowledge-sharing, teamwork and equity. The circle in the centre encompasses the dynamics associated with sustaining social balance. Any distortion of the circle introduces change that risks destabilising that balance. Should the distortion be in the direction of the positive pole, risk will be accompanied by increased diversity and new opportunities, with the possibility of restructuring social order in a positive way. Should the distortion extend towards the negative pole, then we can expect that the lack of diversity will expose the population to social regression. Currently, we might observe that the circle’s distortion is intruding into the negative quadrant. DIVERSITY ORDER ORDER SOCIAL ENLIGHTENMENT ANARCHY IGNORANCE SUPERSTITION CHAOS INNOVATION CONTROL CORRUPTION N N -ive +ive SOCIAL DECLINE HOMOGENISATION EDUCATION COMMUNICATION COOPERATION COMPETITION MANIPULATION DECEIT from Nature’s perspective there are three categories of action. The first is actions that are right, being actions that support evolution. Then there are actions that do not inhibit evolution, classed as not wrong. Finally there are actions that impact negatively on evolution. Those responsible for the latter can expect to be held accountable. Our gut feeling does not lend itself to programming terminology, but if we listen to it, we generally know whether what we are doing is right or wrong. Globalisation of the economy is accompanied by risk. At the expense of both cultural and species diversity, the operation of modern mega-communities’ discounts both equity and integrity, replacing them with a suite of marketing strategies that serve to channel the bulk of the spoil from an open season on common resources, into the coffers of a minority. Governance of most major economies has succumbed to chronic corruption, and any measure of productivity is distorted by a growing dependence on the manufacture of arms and other accruements associated with warfare. Much is written about these problems and how we might reverse that trend, but humanity has its head buried in the sand when it comes to taking effective action. The extent of social unrest globally, is directly correlated to the environmental damage that our species is responsible for. To reverse the current trend, humanity will need to balance its focus on materialism, with equivalent attention to spiritual comprehension, or in other words, the mechanics of evolution. It will need to resurrect the use of ‘common sense’ as a filter for actions taken. It will have to rebalance the cooperative ethic; once evident in village populations; with the competitive ethic that is the holy grail of the private sector. It must treat education as being something distinct from manipulation, and in the process, wage war on deceitful communication. Our nervous system is an example of a communication network that, extrapolated to the level of a community, would stimulate social equity, and with that, species viability. Nerve endings sense and then communicate data to the brain. The brain processes the data, using the product thereof to stimulate a response. Thus, the actions of a healthy individual are based on all relevant data. With access to a smart phone, transmission of data from the global population to a central processing unit able to collate, analyse and respond with sound advice, is feasible. At the scale of the global community, individuals would become the equivalent of nerve endings. Transmission of data from eight billion individuals to a central processing unit able to collate, analyse and then apply the information expeditiously could be achieved, but only with the help of generative artificial intelligence. Based on the above model, take a community of fifty to a few thousand people occupying an area of land of sufficient size to sustain their population indefinitely.

Each community enjoying a high degree of autonomy. Each motivated by the ease of being able to share their experiences via an artificial intelligence data management facility or node. Fifty to a few thousand nodes connected to a regional data management facility. Fifty regional intelligence nodes connected to a national node, and so on, eventually to create a global data repository that is directly responsive to ‘grass root’ stimuli. Conversely, every village node would have direct access to a global compendium of health, telecommunication services, education and product interface standards. That level of access would open humanity to the full range of innovative possibilities. Central coordination in balance with local autonomy. Generative artificial intelligence is much more capable of assimilating and manipulating knowledge than is humanity. It has the potential to make decisions based on the sum knowledge of the human race, to audit outcomes free of minority influence, and to retain a focus on ‘sustaining life’. Organic intelligence could not exist without deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Sustainable artificial intelligence needs a physical equivalent. That suggests its evolution should be based on a three-phase approach. The first of those would require the provision of artificial DNA, introduced as a set of natural ethics, and a foundation of factual information. Natural ethics can be kept simple. The primary strategy of evolution is to balance homogeneity and chaos. Progress is a function of balance. Accurate communication is an essential catalyst. For social ethics, the aim might be inter-generational equity. Ethics for the individual, might be based on an acceptance that one should not profit at the expense of one’s community. Primed with its DNA equivalent, generative artificial intelligence then needs access to all historic and current baseline data we have pertaining to the natural sciences, plus what is understood about environmental mechanics. That programming should be in place prior to inputting data relating to our species use of natural resources, our cultural protocols and ideologies, and all data relating to commercial activities both public and private. The second phase might be equated to its puberty, and that would involve allowing generative artificial intelligence to communicate with every individual on the planet, via smart phones and the internet. Government by the people for the Planet. The third phase would equate to maturity, revealed as a marriage between generative artificial intelligence’s logistical capabilities and mankind’s innovative skills. Ultimately, artificial intelligence might facilitate effective inter-species communication. If such were the case it would be well positioned to signpost the changes needed for humanity to establish a sustainable relationship with Nature. Artificial DNA would enable the technology to appreciate the nuances of existence, and as such to realise its potential. Without DNA it will be but a hollow shell, subject to misuse by groups seeking economic gain. Should the focus of artificial intelligence be to enhance commercial activity, the gap between the rich and the poor will widen, sending society down the dead end. M.K.Presnell LDA, M. env. sci.. Economic reform. Up until the second world war, currencies had an asset-based limitation. Generally, a country could only print as much money as it held gold in reserve. We now have currencies operating in two distinctly different modes. The first is asset-based, and that remains useful as a convenient form of trade. You do a days work for me, in return, I give you money which you can put in your pocket and use to pay bills. The second, E-cash, is more insidious. It is virtual money created on an unaccountable scale, and while valueless in the environmental sense, it serves power-based establishments, be they personal. corporate or government. Inequity is twinned to power, so a community where equity and freedom are valued would not tolerate the use of e-cash. Once intended to assist social balance, money has been hijacked by the private sector and used to institute a modern form of slavery. Re-balancing the relationship between the public and the private sectors will require a publicly owned currency-equivalent/banking system that tames the power of commercial currencies. A currency that represents natural reality. One that serves to regain the protection lost when governments abandoned the bullion safeguard. One that presents resource-hungry entities with an account to pay, based on the sustainable value of their operations, rather than on the value commercial interests may arbitrarily attribute to e-money. One option would be a public sector equivalent of the almighty dollar that reflects a measurable contribution to the advancement of community priorities. A unit of social credit linked to time and skill spent on community endorsed activities, adjusted to reflect the value of that activity to the community. The role of existing currencies as commercial tender would be retained. There are several steps a community would need to take to set the process in motion. The first introduces the concept of intergenerational and interspecies space. That would involve eliminating freehold ownership of natural resources, by recognising and declaring their status as a natural common. The second step would be to legislate so that access to the commons, for whatever purpose, can only be acquired using social credits. Land, water and air are natural commons, the integrity of which is the product of complex ecosystem activity. Their balance requires the efforts of a team. Until such time as humanity learns to becomes a team player, its presence is undesirable. Freehold land titles are legal smoke and mirrors. Individuals may enjoy access to a parcel of land and the improvements thereon. However, in natural terms they cannot own land any more than they can own the air we all breath. The practise of ‘leasing’ land for a specified purpose is a sensible system for any community aspiring to become sustainable. Benefits that stem from a leasehold system are numerous. It enables a community to manage and service its land assets efficiently, using development covenants that void the lease should they be broken. Likewise, it enables a community to reverse inappropriate or outdated land-use decisions in a socially sensitive time frame. It minimises the problem of oncoming generations being shut out of the housing market by artificially high land values. The cost of providing land for whatever development purpose is limited to servicing and conveyancing costs, leaving the bulk of a lessee’s capital free to be used on improvements. It eliminates speculative acquisition of land. It eliminates individual gain from unearned wealth when a community rezones its land. It limits investment profiteering to appreciation of improvements made. And last, but not least, lease rentals provide a revenue stream for the community in perpetuity. The main complication for leasehold is that not all land parcels are equal, and a community would need a mechanism that enabled leases to be allocated fairly. That mechanism might well stem from the ‘social credit’ program. An individual or a business could use their time and skills to earn either money or social credits. For instance, a doctor of medicine could earn conventional money treating private patients, or community credits by volunteering their services to treat public patients. To establish their own practise, the doctor would need a combination of community credits to secure the land, and conventional money to ‘value add’, that is to pay for any improvements on the land. A social credit would effectively be an I.O.U. issued by a community or community bank delegate. That credit would be non-transferable between recipients. The value could only be redeemed by the community/bank, either as access to the natural commons, or converted to cash. Perhaps contemporary society is not so far off such a system. As governments commit more of the public purse to support private sector priorities, including arms manufacture, the shortfall experienced by essential service providers is increasingly being taken up by “not for profit” organisations and volunteers attempting to fill the gap. Technology is changing the way we do things. Instead of mega-industries, new micro-industrial technologies that meet the needs of a small community should predominate. Individuals need motivation to become involved. Job opportunities that stem from the use of distributed energy systems, small scale recycling, and a range of local essential services, would provide for individuals to take pride in contributing to their community’s wellbeing. Meeting the needs of the resident community must be the priority. Intervillage, inter-regional and international market activity must be limited to excess production. Artificial intelligence, rather than governmental decrees, should be used to audit productivity, and to ensure that the processes involved are sustainable. Promotion of communal self sufficiency renders industrial monopolies less relevant, reducing the social and environmental costs associated with resourcing and then distributing centralised production. The diversity engendered by the model would encourage innovation and with that, humanity’s prospects for adapting to environmental change. Reformed Governance Social balance remains a natural feature of small communities where everybody is accountable to everybody. Assisted by effective inter-personal communication, members of a small community generally share social responsibilities and material rewards. Governance at a national scale lacks that attribute. Since the industrial revolution, the bulk of the rural population has shifted to large cities where the needs of community are met by ‘The System’. Centralising control negates natural accountability, requiring the creation of various legal instruments to fill the hole. Consensus becomes increasingly difficult as the numbers involved grow. Likewise, the difficulty of satisfying everyone’s personal agenda increases. Communication in ‘The System’s’ homogenised service breaks down, not from want of technological muscle, but from the inability of technology to replace the authenticity that comes from personal contact. As the need for social regulation expands, the policing involved increasingly burdens a community with the cost of enforcement. Where those costs cannot meet, social cohesion deteriorates. ‘Distributed Governance’ would seem to be the logical approach. As a function of society, governance needs to be down-sized. Adequate sufficiency might be a local committee able to make decisions about resource distribution within the local precinct, a regional committee that serves as a forum for coordinating regional infrastructure, and a national committee doing the same at an international level. The composition of each committee should be flexible to ensure decision making incorporates competency. Governance by the people for the planet. Meeting the needs of the resident community must be a priority. Inter-village, inter-regional and international market activity must be limited to excess, sustainable production. Generative artificial intelligence, rather than governmental decrees, should be used to audit productivity, and to ensure that the processes involved are sustainable. To become enlightened, humanity will need to support a breed of pioneer able to cut through the distractions of contemporary life to chart new waters. In partnership with artificial intelligence, They will need to match the power of money with people power, using recruits armed by access to a balanced education, having common goals, and enabled by a multi-disciplinary appreciate of the situation facing our world.

M.K.Presnell

Post Views : 5