Vinay Gupta http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/other/the-beautiful-world -2262 star. Our goal is "A Beautiful World" as christened one of my colleagues. I revisit this concept to be unraveling from there the thread of what can be done with available resources. first thing I want to believe is that we live in a world where there is no shortage / scarcity. "Earth provides enough to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed." Mahatma Gandhi I have discussed the specifics of this again and again, but in essence there are three technologies that promise to divide by two or by four global health problems related to poverty: biosand water filter, stove Rocket, and dry toilet compost produced. There are other candidate technologies: solar water pasteurization, the wood gasification stove and thermophilic composting toilet, but the first three are sufficient . Adding agricultural training can approximately double the harvest, we all ingredients for a world where being poor is no longer associated with a dramatic increase in mortality or premature death terribly. Rebuilding the underworld, making the ghettos, slums and remote villages are places with a basic dignity, rather than places of misery and disease in our lifetime we can solve one of the biggest problems world, even possibly within the next 20 years if they got a technology package that can build self-sufficiently with local materials using instructions available on the Internet or mobile phones of people. This is simple. I hesitate to say it, but it is something that is in the field of possible futures. Unless I've drastically wrong in my interpretation of technical data, to have clean drinking water, a stove to ignite or to avoid smoke inhalation and a long-term hygienic toilet will be somewhat accessible to most people using these technologies at a price they can afford those in need. This is good news no doubt. That these essential tools for living can be manufactured at low cost enabling that even the poor can acquire, is a breakthrough of some magnitude. Implementation awaits a stronger political will, but the technical possibility exists of ending many or most of the mortality associated with poverty without dramatically increasing the complexity of the system and the environmental impact and without imposing new structures policies. In all likelihood, we can eliminate most poverty and hunger most without changing the political structure of world by simply adjusting a bit technical base. The difference between growing up in a house that is cooked over three-stone fire, in which both you and your mother you breathe smoke every day and every night for all your lives, and the same house in which a small metal Rocket stove uses half or a quarter of fuel and smoky bit, it's just that you have a little more money and a substantially better health. Does not degrade your culture, your religion is not questioned, does not solve the rest of your problems, not educational or you change your world in any way. Since there is almost nothing that is not practical to solve a technical problem, there should be minimal resistance to the adoption of these technologies if they can demonstrate its utility in a similar (though less spectacular) to what happened with the mobile phone. Yes, I am suggesting technological solutions to social problems. Yes, I am aware that many believe this is a sin. But in Victorian London rather than doubled the life expectancy due to public works such as sewerage and wells. An approach to public health through "decentralized public works" in remote villages and slums in the world is eminently practical and well adapted to the actual local conditions, particularly in an era of austerity. So go to that beautiful world. The Big Three - a reevaluation. The three big problems we face are the destruction of the environment, the risks of nano-biotechnology and nuclear war. We have a remedy for these problems that is relatively painless and quick and to solve its worst aspects in the same way that the stoves, etc. resolve the worst of poverty. All these problems are solvable with good global governance (BGG), but BGG is something lacking as I have explained extensively in Synthesis, where he discusses some of the facets of the issues related to BGG. Moreover, the Big Three risks (environment, nano / bio, nuclear) are the result of human actions. We
seven billion, each one pushing and pulling a little, and it exerts a considerable force. The climate and environment are the result of what Antonio Dias called "zombies" - many, many people who act without thinking collectively causing a huge global problem. The risks of nanotechnology and biotechnology and nuclear war are the result of what he calls "vampires" - small groups of people with an extraordinary power or ability that we hump the rest. The "nuclear vampires" governing nation-states and, in general there to fight each other. The nuclear elite vampire the USA was created to fight the vampire elite Nazi or Soviet nuclear. The Nash equilibrium let everyone sitting on nuclear arsenals because the unilateral disarmament let your vampire with no teeth and your people to the mercy of these evil vampires there. Now, I will open a brief parenthesis, according to my best estimates, the socialist vampires killed about 10 times more people than the vampire capitalists. So it's not all give the same, and commanding rates are all equally evil bastards. There are real differences between the sides, but no one to carry a nuclear weapon is a friend of animals and young children at the end of the day. biotech Vampires are earned substantially more dangerous because creating a nuclear threat will require significant technical resources, obvious and easy to detect. Biotechnology is different and tends increasingly to machines that look like large copiers organisms printed from a handful of very pure chemicals but quite simple. But we have not reached that yet, obviously, much less, but the basic machinery for biotechnology becomes cheaper from year to year and push synthetic biology and similar developments will give sufficient power to vampires who abuse biotech their technical knowledge for destructive purposes or just the gaffes. Biotech vampires are especially dangerous because are not seen as coming biotechnology can be done with a relatively limited budget, does not require a lot of energy and emits no radiation. Vampires nuclear instead, they sit in their high and deep bunkers, backed by the industrial production of entire nations, glowing softly with an eerie luminescence radiation. The different patterns of biotechnology and nuclear vampires, and the nature of the problem self-replicating nano-bio - hijacking the machinery of life itself! - Is what worries me more biotechnology these days pump. But this is a parenthesis in a parenthesis, because I'm struggling to see how to express the next part. Forgive me. No evil men ... Let me show you the crack of hope through which I think you can reach the World Fair. Nobody wants to destroy the world. There are no Bond villains. There is an old Hindu "evil men are not dangerous because evil is self-limiting. Good men who are wrong are really dangerous. " Sympathy for the devil. Hitler wanted to unify the world under a system of orderly government and psychotically believed that getting rid of the Jews was to improve the world. It's crazy, but the basic thrust is a comprehensive reform distorted by dementia. The Germans followed him because they wanted a change and believed Hitler's promises to improve things. Lenin and Stalin imagined a prosperous Soviet Union in which ordinary people would not be enough food and no more oppressed by the Czars and the landowners. Mao succeeded in out of absolute poverty to more people and faster than anyone could have imagined and personally led a life of hardship to get there. Those gentlemen imagined a world vampires beautiful and screwed up so that their names will never be forgotten. The big problem of the nuclear age is that put the plutonium in the wrong part of the rocket (more details on this argument in the link). Because the basis that these people supported was not solid, when they gave strong push to transform the world, when channeled through material power structures they had built the historic power of generations in search of freedom and prosperity The consequences were horrible. This was their mistake: they fought to control state power, rather than fight to restrict state power. Jefferson and Franklin and Washington were no less heroes charismatic, but in their minds, the balance of power must shift to the individual, based on the fundamental belief that free individuals would find out how to manage a reasonable and polite society. Although accumulated power at the top, power was surrounded by all kinds of measures - in three parts (executive, legislative and judicial), balanced between two chambers with different election cycles, with regional powers such as governors with judges and sheriffs elected by ballot. Can not emphasize enough the importance of the concept of election by vote of those responsible for law enforcement in democracy American. Mahatma Gandhi went further, ruling India by personal example and polite request. No one collected taxes he ordered. If he asked people to do something, and you did not, nobody went to your house and knocked on the door. Lead by example is not a trivial act - it is not obvious whether this approach can work outside cultural institutions in India with the concept of Avatar and Mahatma in the minds of ordinary people, but it shows that not all power flows from the point of a gun. And so, we have our opportunity to achieve a world beautiful. Medical treatment of tyranny at home What we really want is quite simple: a place to live, a home, something to eat, friends, family, love, entertainment. There are complicated things, but bad cultural values \u200b\u200bhave tortured us in all sorts of strange distortions. Consider the history of sexuality - in the days before birth control and safe sex, natural hazards were so extreme sex and ignorance about their duties so acute that just having all sorts of insane beliefs passed from mouth to ear from mother to daughter and from father to son since the ignorance of antiquity until today. When Freud and Jung began to dig around it and examine its contents, belief systems were so rare they could be considered pathological. If Jung had had access to the language of memetics, maybe he had expressed the collective unconscious as the Fauna and Flora Memetics Environment. With our technical capabilities, to meet these basic needs for all of us should not be difficult. "For the first time in history is now possible to meet the world standard of living getting higher than ever known before. As recently as ten years the technology that helps achieve "more with less" reached a point that allowed so. All humanity now has the option to have lasting success. " Buckminster Fuller, 1980
Bucky 30 years ago said we could do it. Gandhi 60 years ago taught us how to organize without violence.
So here's the key. Strongmen, dictators, the people upstairs - are driven by a genuine desire to see the world become a place better, and we betray their limitations. Stop evil as mere caricature. Ten Sympathy for the Devil - because if the founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation respects to Dick Cheney, you should consider that the world is much, much more complicated than it seems.
foothold What gives us this? If you can see all these men - and almost all men - as solutions to problems, so we're competing in a marketplace of ideas and actions to resolve issues that cause you tyrants come to power and our goal is to solve our problems before generating a tyrant to solve them. Do you understand what I mean?
Take the example of Saddam Hussein. What made you keep Saddam in power all these years is that Saddam solve three problems for three different sets of people. For the USA was a pawn in the Middle East and had to do with oil. For the elites in Iraq, Saddam solved the problem to prevent Iraq from exploding in sectarian violence or break into many countries. For the ordinary people of Iraq, Saddam was a secular socialist regime that provided health care free medical and a good level. Iraq was a middle class country before being invaded by the USA!
Saddam had a role. Knocked from power by a violent hand, all functions performed his regime stopped and I suspect that most Iraqis believe that life was better before Saddam was removed from power. And this feeling is probably the root of much of the tacit acceptance of insurgent activity.
unseat the strongman using voluntary cooperation to solve the problems that a strong man could used to take or keep power. Supposed to fight the concentration of power in the hands of corrupt people solving local problems to a level, depriving tyrants of their support base. This is not an anarchist or libertarian perspective, conventional, rather I am talking about systematically reduce the need for governance as a way of solving problems that have arisen in the synthesis.
Take another example. Monsanto feeding of hunger in the world. They promise to cure a problem - people are hungry, one billion people each year are malnourished, and if you let Monsanto horseplay with the genetic structure of planet, Monsanto will fix it (staying at a good profit). If systematic scale agricultural education, organic farming, permaculture and 50 other things that increase food production without harming the world, and if we tend toward vegetarianism and healthy diets (do not ask what weight) we eliminated the justification Monsanto moral to exist.
Setting the record
ploy
-
There is a problem.
-
The problem can be solved by cooperating voluntarily. Like most problems.
-
Until we have not solved in a cooperative way, someone might suggest to fix it by coercion the deception or by other toxic and harmful practice.
-
The world is full of powers that each chained to a global problem differently and doing the best he can. Nuclear, oil and others.
-
The worst of these entities have become institutions that perpetuate themselves and to advocate precisely those problems whose solution was formed.
-
However, many of the established powers are willing to cede control if they can prove that the problem that justifies its existence has disappeared.
-
Other powers that be are willing to cooperate enthusiastically with new forces that are ready to work on the problem at his side - Apple, for example, cooperates with the BSD community via Darwin. The Department of Defense of the USA probably would welcome U.S. energy independence - see the work of Jim Woolsey.
-
The powers are progressive willing to cooperate with global civil society is probably our best allies against the repressive powers that be trying to corrupt our processes for solving global problems to perpetuate their own existence. I'm looking at you, Microsoft!
However, this strategy has already been proven. I've had great success as a volunteer assistant with great powers established primarily for the project Hexahurt , and I discovered that at least the Department of Defense USA is actually a friendly port a world view based on local infrastructure and personal empowerment. It is not sold, it is a legitimate interest convergence between two groups of people who want both better care for refugees. And it's not easy interface, but DOD has no interest in perpetuating the refugee problem. They want the refugees to be served, and that is a conjunction of interests between them and the refugees themselves .
This highlights the sensitivity of a trading strategy that involves a close with the establishment. But what we are looking for are breakpoints in the overall balance of negative Nash is preventing the bright potential for our planet becomes a beautiful world, springing from every corner and every basement into history and into reality - we are looking for the keys to unlock our potential for global prosper, grow and flourish . And we will not get no respect the foundations on which our lives are built, including the work of governments to try to manage the complexity of the world and the exquisite horrors and dangers of the twentieth century.
Synthesis tells us clearly that the government can not hope to keep pace with the complexity and rate of change of the world's problems. It is not only to command and control, is also a matter of transparency, integrity, participation, consensus and many other requirements for good governance - all produced horrible problems when facing the modern world and new challenges. One possible answer is a regression to a bad government - resorting to the use of a centralized feudal to resolve, by decree, and authoritarian and simply the Gordian knot that are complex systems. In this model could well be calls for a global government and then later, increasingly repressive to go by to make clear that the world is governable pruning requires exquisite rhythm, splendor and complexity. Our counter-strategy should be to solve problems involving the government twitched so that no government intervention required to allow the government to do what it does well and eliminate the problems of evil dictators that feed and monopolists. A good and usable Linux is the answer to Microsoft, not the ongoing antitrust trial of the European Union. We need a central government to provide Linux support and protection to defend against unfair competitive practices, for example, but ultimately everything revolves around the problem in a way that leaving no room for the existence of monopolies and the establishment. The Middle East peace will come when Israelis and Palestinians are no longer scared to want to repressive and violent state apparatus to defend them to each other. That's how you get.
This approach is stable because in the case of voluntary cooperation fails and does not solve the problem, the established power remains. The failure of a bid for a new open source operating system, it leaves behind nothing more than code that is not maintained and waste of time. An unsuccessful attempt to crush an evil monopoly laws and cause millions in losses. Of Similarly, voluntary cooperation to reduce the level of mistrust and fear in the Middle East probably will not hurt anyone even in cases where things do not go as silk, and a critical mass of this type of activity is probably only safe and sound imaginable to end the conflict. The problem is that all the energy mobilized to resolve the conflict is channeled through the state monopoly then acts as a negative, repressive power set, which feeds the problem has been tasked to resolve. When it is established that there has appeared a repressive established power, the question must be then whether to proceed without it in mind, waiting pressure from above, or whether to change gears and deal with other problem solving .
What the Big Society (Great Society) really meant, but could not
The Big Society [translators: UK initiative to restore social support functions of the state the whole of society] is an example of an ill-considered intuition rather sloppy government work on slippery rocks in the depths of an economic winter. The idea that the state has no more cards to play is at the heart of the Big Society, but not can say no more "we have no money and this will get worse" and keep pretending that you reelected. So instead, we hear the rhetoric of devolution of power to the community without the necessary fire financial need to support the ideology. In this case, ideology meets the requirements, but the established government can not simply disclose that fact and expect to prosper. So we have instead a complex interface and careless about exactly how voluntary cooperation can begin to address some of the problems that are currently the responsibility of the state?
Questions on State responsibility, on the reduction of duties on "where to go then the tax money into bonds" for the bankers? "only serve to obscure the fact that the state shrink to a size now sustainable is critical to have at least to some extent, an effective state if the global financial crisis turns into a second Great Depression.
So here's my final thesis, a little rough on the corners and late, but essentially complete.
-
Evolution , Complexity, urgency and unity represent solid boundaries for the efficiency of both government and governance in the twenty-first century.
-
Many problems, such as renewable energy generation in our own roofs, can be solved without resorting to governance. There is a National Network, is your roof .
-
A systematic approach to solving world problems through voluntary cooperation in line with progressive powers that have the potential to allow ordinary people to work together to solve world problems without requiring a lot sacrifices and without conflict with the established powers of repression.
I think this is a great political strategy that can afford to build programs agreed to resolve some of the biggest problems the world without the kind of destructive conflict that turned into a disaster 60 years. I've been groping my way in this direction with the project Hexahurt over the years. Is a project that has strong support from both the community Burning Man Project as STAR-TIDES (in the U.S. National Defense University), so I think I'm qualified to say that there is a real possibility of dissolving the artificial distinctions between progress and power, between citizens and government, between people on both sides of the table and the two sides of the line battle, to say that we know that ye know not solve the problems of the world and we are here to help.
For the twenty-first century will require all of us and the division between activists and government has to close for society as a whole to use all his strength to push back the chaos that the century XX has unleashed. You have to understand the so-called adversaries find common cause and to cooperate to end the underlying problems that tie us to the negative equilibrium conditions in which we are trapped.
(It may take several years to make this visit to be as concise, clear and concise as is the rest of my work, and I apologize for the vastness and complexity of this argument. Will simplify and find clarity as time permits. Thanks for your patience)
Vinay Gupta appeared in a video Guardian Royal Society for the great year past.
(To read more of this series of articles The Summary - an introduction to # TheBigDeal (the big deal )
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
