The Hames Report

Autonomous Weapons of Terror

I am sure readers will have noted with growing alarm the view being expressed by many people of note, from Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk to Mustafa Suleyman - a robotics expert and Head of Applied AI at Google’s DeepMind - concerning the speedy, unfettered development, of artificial intellgence within the military. Here is why they are so worried...

In the past, warfare was conducted by human combatants using everything from cudgels, swords and guns, to the ultimate weapon of destruction – the atomic bomb.

Over the centuries only one factor has remained constant: every decision related to when, where and how weapons were deployed, what or whom they were used against, and their aftermath, was made by a human being.

Today, an expectation that humans will continue to retain control over the use of weapons is frankly naive. Indeed it is far easier to envisage a future where killer robots are a cheap and ubiquitous method of maintaining social order and compliance – used as a means to ensure submission to whatever authority happens to be wielding power, whether it is the state, a psychopath with deep pockets, or terrorists.

Currently lethal autonomous weapons systems operating outside the strictures of human control are not ethically acceptable, nor legally permissible. But once they are available, they will allow armed conflict at a scale far greater than ever before, and at timescales possibly thousands of times faster than humans can comprehend.

The US and a few other nations have used drones and semi-automated systems to carry out attacks for at least the past decade. But, for the moment, fully removing a human from the loop is at odds with international humanitarian and human rights laws. That will not prevail for too much longer if action is not taken to deter the weapons industry. Low-cost sensors, rapid advances in artificial intelligence, and the seemingly irrepressible urge to push innovation beyond what is within our control, make it increasingly possible to design weapons systems that, once activated, can target and attack without any additional human intervention.

In spite of denials to the contrary, plans to combine drone swarm technology and artificial intelligence are already being developed by at least two countries. Unfortunately, there is no international law explicitly necessitating human intervention in every strike. This is why we are witnessing any number of efforts aimed at preventing the automation of critical functions for selecting targets and applying violent force without human deliberation. The concerns I have heard expressed about taking humans out of the equation, range from a dramatic lowering of the threshold for armed conflict, belittling and easing the taking of human life, empowering both state and religious terrorists, and creating global insecurity.

Make no mistake. These are weapons of terror. It matters not whether you are an activist, a political opponent, an artist who dares challenge the status quo, a member of a religious sect, or even a child with severe autism. Anyone who causes mischief can be eliminated with no effort or messy collatoral damage to justify. In that kind of future, where the source of the attack would be utterly unpredictable and untraceable, who or what could prevent any bloody-minded individual, cult leader, military tyrant, or even a duly elected official in a so-called democracy, from using killer robots to permanently intimidate and bully citizens into compliance? The carnage would be unimaginable.

Pulling the Strings

I am intrigued by power - particularly its misuse in the name of liberty or religious freedom. How does the impulse to coerce others occur in an otherwise sophisticated society? Is our ability to converse and reach some kind of consensus really that limited? Why do we hail those that use power in this manner as leader? Could it be an inherent part of being human that we treat others so? What circumstances lead to its genesis? Why do we submit so casually to the abuse of power on some occasions, yet resist it with all our might at other times? These are all questions that have bothered me since I first climbed out of my pram.

Over the centuries, the power to govern and influence the actions of others has been seized by a variety of individuals in different constituencies. Tribal chiefs, high priests, monarchs, heads of state, and tyrants have all tasted the elixir of raw power – authority derived from some form of assumed legitimacy, whether by “divine right” or nomination, where edicts are enforced through the rule of law, war or thuggery.

The power to catalyse different behaviours and change how people think, on the other hand, rests more with philosophers, poets, and scientists. Like King Arthur’s wise mentor Merlin, they are often an unseen source of inspiration and advice moving in the shadows.

Neither should we discount the link between invention and liberation, as a source of power. Inventors from Gutenberg to Zuckerberg via Oppenheimer have used their imagination and skills to craft technologies that put new capabilities in our hands – including of course the military and governments. As a result, they let loose massive power - through revolutions, international trade, politically-motivated movements, urbanisation, and peer-to-peer transactions, for example.

I venture to suggest, then, that power as we commonly experience it results from a mix of (a) deeply-held convictions, (b) situationally-applied technologies, and (c) an ignition point or motive for using power that happens to align with prevailing conditions. When these three are present the potential fusion for wielding power on a massive scale presents itself.

Each of these three dimensions exists on a design continuum. Convictions can be ethical or immoral – or in a grey space between these two. Technologies are used for good or criminal activities. Motives will either play to our inherent beliefs by remaining ethical (such as the use of inclusive dialogue) or not (enforced oppression and slavery for example).

The masterful mix of tactical manoeuvres by generals like Eisenhower in the field of battle, the vast supply of American armaments able to be deployed, together with other inventions such as the Enigma code-breaking machine, the motive supplied by Hitler’s ambitions, and Churchill’s virtuosic talent at claiming the moral high ground, eventually sapped the morale of the German military during the second world war and led to victory. This is hard power in its purest and most compelling guise.

As violence and conflict declined over the past half century soft power naturally began to receive greater attention - both from the media and the public. The soft power we take for granted, indeed tolerate virtually unopposed, most obviously exists (i) within the spheres of international negotiations, and (ii) governance of the nation-state. In the former setting, a desire for peace or trade are common motives; arbitrated contracts the most widely-used technology; while universally applied guidelines, expressing the doctrine that globalisation is good for all, is the unchallenged conviction. In the case of the nation-state, law and order, as well as social cohesion, provide motives; the use of representative voting, debate and legislation the technologies; and the conception of the sovereign nation - with its distinctive identity, borders, values and symbols - the deeply ingrained conviction.

As the term implies, soft power is considerably more difficult to employ if a particular result is desired, given that it is open to numerous diverse inputs that hard power declines. This is now the case with democracy. I know of nowhere in the world where democracy is working as it was intended. Inertia within democratic societies is an issue, principally because of the sheer numbers of citizens eligible to vote these days, and the complexity of relationships and interactions. This inertia opens up opportunities for exploitation by groups brandishing other kinds of conventional power – like lobbyists, trade unions, and peak industry bodies, for example. More serious however is the warping of democratic architectures and principles in order to manipulate, rather than liberate, the will of the people.

In theory, democratic systems, as agents of soft power, still comprise the three elements I noted previously. But today their essential quiescence has been usurped. Indeed, I would go as far as to contend that democracy as practised has been captured by a professional political class and developed into a tool for social control and consent. This is ironic given that the West’s most incessant criticism of one-party states like China revolves around that very issue.

In most so-called democracies, the mechanisms that are installed to ensure integrity, such as the separation of executive, legislative and judicial arms of government, as well as other checks and balances, too often represent moneyed interests. As a result, they have been tainted by the ideology of predatory capitalism, held to ransom by major corporations, and browbeaten by the industrial-military-surveillance complex. Consequently, we the people have been silenced, excluded from, and marginalised by, a system intended to do the very opposite: to listen to us and to enact our will. At the same time we suffer from the delusion that democracy is working. Tolerating a system where we can vote every few years for a narrow, exceedingly short-sighted, range of options, means we are now docile and lacking true agency.

This is not democracy. Indeed, based purely on current trends democracy is no longer the natural nor inevitable endgame of global development. Each year since 2006 the world has become less democratic. Everywhere we look democracy is in retreat. It is too easy to blame the obvious culprits – dictators, despots, and phoney democrats like Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Prayut Chan-o-cha in Thailand, and Viktor Orban is Hungary, for example, who cloak themselves in the façade of egalitarianism to gain political legitimacy – and foreign aid.

But we in the West are also complicit actors in this global recession of democratic ideals. We have snuggled up to openly offensive and authoritarian regimes – placing short-term expediency before wisdom; sponsored recalcitrant dictators as key strategic allies; routinely turned a blind eye to human rights abuses, including those in our own countries; and actively helped topple democratic governments when they chose not to play by our rules.

States like the US, Britain, Canada, and Australia have set unspeakably low standards for what constitutes democracy in a relentless charade to appear democratic. But can they be taken seriously when they laud democracy to the exclusion of all other possibilities, do secret arms deals with despots and criminals, call elections “free and fair” when they clearly are not, and deny the fundamentals of democracy, even to their own citizens?

Ironically such a low barrier to what is ordinarily thought to be democratic, probably ensures that government leaders in the developing world have absolutely no incentive to ever install a truly democratic society. This is especially the case when alternatives, like Singapore’s unicameral model, or China’s Congress system, appear to be so effective. Notwithstanding the vein of corruption and the tendency to use the iron fist of hardpower to crush dissent, China actually has an enviable record of continuous internal reforms, the election of government officials based on merit and real administrative experience, speedy decision-making, high levels of internal security, the collective ability to understand and deal with the complexity in today’s world, and the consistent communication of a national purpose that most citizens admire and trust. The fact that both these systems have delivered extraordinary prosperity in a relatively short time is an acknowledgement that, despite lacking some key elements found in democracies, they actually work for the majority of people.

So what is missing that leads to disengagement by so many citizens? How can we overcome and reverse the crisis of confidence in the concept of democracy? One thing is certain: the current system is so completely disabled that it needs to be redesigned from first principles. Tweaking around at the edges, or casually offering a digital replica of the current system, will only make matters worse.

The concerns compelling myself and many others to plead for whole-system renewal are hardly a surprise. Nor are solutions difficult to come by. Redesigning democracy so that it actually delivers what it is intended to deliver should not be insurmountable. There are at least seven issues that must be taken into account when redesigning such a system:

1. Choice

The choices offered to the electorate every so often are a cruel illusion - one eagerly perpetuated by the media and incumbent politicians alike, for it gives the distinct impression that democracy is working just fine and that it would be a folly to tinker with it. In fact, each time we vote, we are voting for the continuation of a failed system. It is Hobson’s choice.

Nevertheless, it leads to a complacency within society and an entrenched belief that change is unwarranted. After all politicians are constantly visible on our screens arguing a case for this or for that. But does that give us confidence they are really doing their jobs? I think not.

This ingrained inertia works against change of any kind. Even the smallest reforms are resisted in such cautious contexts. Thus, a compliant electorate waits patiently for several years to cast a meaningless vote that determines which of two, or at best three, obsolete ideologies will dominate policy-making for that period. After a general election the public is enthusiastically excluded from any further involvement.

Indeed, the prolonged aftermath between elections is little more than a spectacle put on to entertain a gullible audience and to maintain the illusion that suffrage is the only matter with which the voting public can be trusted to have an opinion.

2. Information

It is clear that voters need to have clarity regarding the consequences of voting a particular way. Ignoring for a moment the fact that most of the voting public are not swinging voters, but loyal to ideological credos that are more and more irrelevant in today’s world, the inability to know what to vote for is a serious flaw in the current system.

The problem is not with the voter. People are not apathetic if given the opportunity to vote based on information that is unbiased, up-to-date, and accurate. Unfortunately, that is uncommon. We are bombarded with so much data and propaganda that discernment becomes opaque. As a consequence we tend to go along with what others think and rarely do our own analysis. Most of us would not even be conscious of the prejudices we use to shape our opinions and attitudes. Visceral reaction is more commonplace.

Typically, we are fed two kinds of information. One, filtered by political parties, trade unions, religious organisations, industry bodies, and formidable media barons like Rupert Murdoch, deliberately restrict their advice to a narrow range of partisan interests which they repeatedly bellow at anyone within range. Expressed as a deeply-held code of belief, their most cunning weapon, other than banal persuasion, is an oft-promoted insinuation that people would be stupid to vote in any way that contradicts their fiercely-held beliefs.

The other, equally deceptive, is served up via social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. Here, opinions, feelings, conspiracy theories, and wildly emotive claims and counterclaims, become a spurious substitute for verifiable facts, destabilising what is known.

Both channels of dissemination are threats to democracy in that they dumb down reality and act as echo chambers for a set of core beliefs - rejecting all other perspectives.

3. Integrity

Representative democracy is struggling to retain its integrity in an era of such incredible socio-political and economic upheaval. There are several reasons for this.

Over the past century at least, representative democracy has encouraged a discrete political class to emerge. Familial succession has even led to the evolution of dynasties who understand little else but winning an election, often by telling the most outrageous lies, or making promises that cannot possibly be kept, and hurling streams of abuse at each other once in the parliament.

This professional elite, emboldened to believe they are entitled to govern by virtue of their wealth or standing in the community, have had their views reinforced by many political scientists who routinely trot out the old axiom that representative democracy allows the cream of society to rise to the top. If that was ever true, it is certainly not the case today. Hubris is also a factor. Indeed in a perfect world any candidate who self-nominates for election should probably be ruled out of contention automatically.

The game of the political class is unambiguous. The rules demand one thing. To stay in power at any cost. Whether that benefits society in the long-term is immaterial and exceedingly tough to assess. Behavioural codes, where they exist, are routinely flouted. Duplicity is rife. Political game-playing a much-needed talent. Mismanagement and financial waste are accepted conventions. There are no measures in place by which to evaluate the beneficial impact or effectiveness of elected representatives - other than by the ballot box. Once in power they are virtually unaccountable until the next election. When they eventually leave, many of them accept positions in the corporate world where their insider knowledge is of immense value.

4. Complexity

If it is impossible to fully comprehend a policy issue within its context it is equally impossible to draft effective legislation. Each policy question in today’s world is embedded in an intricate ecosystem of tensions and wildly conflicting dynamics. The tools needed to forensically study such complexity, so as to generate even a modicum of strategic intelligence, are beyond even the most enlightened politicians.

New dialogical methods that go deeper and beyond mere parliamentary debate, sophisticated visualisation tools, smart algorithms for revealing patterns in vast amounts of unstructured data, blockchain-enabled platforms for security and transparency, and even the use of artificial intelligence for finding pertinent acupuncture points for policy intervention and development, out of a myriad such options, are all missing from the current repertoire of tools used by our governments.

5. Trust

Elected representatives behaving badly in public, including televised sessions of parliament, sow seeds of doubt as to the efficacy of the parliamentary process, as well as the perceived competency of individual politicians to adequately represent society. Fraud, egocentric posturing, and puerile behaviour can so easily erode our trust in politicians - trust they are smart enough collectively to deal with the intricacies of policy development in a bipartisan, or at least cooperative manner; trust that they do no harm, and have the majority will in mind, as they pursue safe, secure and financially advantageous futures for the community; and trust they are not in the game of politics purely to feather their own nests. Unfortunately, the current batch of politicians in many so-called democracies fail all three tests with ease. I do not doubt the sincerity of those entering politics. But their naivety and subsequent lowering of standards that so often occur when they try to buck the system is disheartening to say the least.

One might reasonably expect most policies emerging from national governments to be bold and substantial steps for securing the health, prosperity and wellbeing of the population. Today that expectation is a futile proposition. Most governments spend the majority of their time patching up the present and running away from the future.

Many policies are unnecessarily interventionist – though increasingly commonplace in heavily-policed, modern surveillance societies. Others follow a stringently ideological path while deliberately ignoring the desires of the community as a whole. Still others attempt to wind back the programs of previous administrations. A few, particularly in "nanny state" environments, where legislation is used to control every possible aspect of contemporary life, should probably be left for individuals to determine. Let us hope that the task of routine policy development will soon be taken on by artificially-intelligent agents. They cannot possibly do a more mediocre job than the humans currently in charge.

When it comes to addressing the great moral imperatives of our time courageous, cooperative leadership is demanded. This too has become extinct. As a consequence, our civilisation is hurtling towards a climate catastrophe, while the structural economic foundations of world trade, anchored to the delusion that aid works, deliberately allows poverty and hunger to persist. Having reached a cognitive impasse, it seems we are now happy to pass on these wicked problems, caused to a great extent by the excesses of the 20th century, to our children. The excuse I repeatedly hear from politicians concerning their failure to address such emergencies is that it is “not in the national interest” to do so. It is actually an abdication of responsibility.

For the common theme in these areas is a seeming inability to design legislation that is relevant, benign and enduring; provides an elegant policy solution to the inherent dynamic complexity of the ecosystem; and has the appreciation and support of most citizens.

While a distinct lack of imagination is apparent in governments today, there is no excuse for failing to ignite hope within the hearts of the next generation. The crafting of future narratives is one of the most important roles of governments. When those stories are non-viable and fail to inspire - because of their foundations in scarcity, competition, and the deficiencies of neoliberal economics; when fear is a substitute for hope; and when contempt replaces respect; people should rise up against the ineptness, or insist that new structures replace the old.

6. Technology

Democracy has been around for a while. Several hundred years in fact. During that time, everything in our personal and public lives has changed because of advances in science and technology. But little has changed in the actual workings of democracy. On the contrary, if they were alive today, most 19th century politicians would find the workings of government very familiar.

Women now have the vote of course. The media play a major, some would say calculating, role in advocacy and forecasting. Pollsters are capable of making accurate predictions of election results. And some countries, including my own, have taken the non-democratic step of making voting compulsory. But, by and large, most other facets of the system remain the same. Ideological party structures, election schedules, selection of candidates, the concept of the ballot box, and the tally room, for example, are all venerable, well established practises. So, too, are political donations, horse trading, bullying and corruption.

Indeed, when listing them in this manner it all seems so archaic. If the main objectives of any democratic system are (i) to educate citizens about policy alternatives in a manner that is both informative and unprejudiced; (ii) enable every citizen to have their voice heard, and then (iii) find the best ways to enact the will of the majority on every matter of significance, then surely we can use our ingenuity, and the latest digital technologies, to create a system less corrupt, more engaging, and more relevant?

I will always remember feeling thrilled when my friend Adam Jacoby who, soon after, would take up the role of Chief Steward for Centre for the Future’s first venture within the theatre of Power & Governance, a project aimed at redesigning democracy from first principles, posed a crucial question from an entrepreneurial business perspective: If Steve Jobs at Apple was still alive and leading this project, how would he tackle the challenge in order to design a product of innate beauty with a compelling user experience?

Given the incredible tools available to us today – including the Internet, blockchain-enabled platforms, smart phone apps, intelligent algorithms, and the like - it should not be impossible to create something utterly convincing. The only trap would be to assume a digital makeover of the current system might suffice. With even a modicum of wisdom and foresight it is clear that would be a lazy and negligent approach, particularly as it would reify many of the flaws in the current system.

7. Society

If the current trajectory, whereby civic society disengages from the political process through either apathy or exasperation, continues then democracy itself could be a casualty. There is no doubt that an uncoupling of the public from those seeking to govern puts the integrity of any global democratic architecture at risk. In a bizarre kind of way that could also hasten the embedding of the political elite, much as in the one-party systems many of us in Western democracies are so fond of disparaging.

But the greatest threat to democracy is not just public indifference and its extrapolation to a future planetary ruling class. That notion is still relatively implausible. Nor is it necessarily the inertia that results in such avid resistance to change by incumbent and aspiring participants alike. There are two additional forces that must be understood and examined, even to know whether democracy in its most idealised form is still useful today.

(i) Globalism

In an authentically globalised world, democracy itself (as practised) could become the cause of its own demise. Indeed, it is arguable that the most optimistic endgame for the range of democratic experiments we have tried over the past few centuries would be the genesis of a genuine planetary coalition emerging from the death and resurrection of democratic ideals.

The predisposition we humans have developed for partition, with each circumscribed division colonised by self-defined groups, who consider their own welfare and security as paramount, is possibly our most fundamental design accident.

Although reasonable from a purely cultural viewpoint, the obsession with national identity and security has resulted in an excessively combatant mindset; endless, mindless, quarrels between each group; and an inability to cooperate on matters that concern us all.

Inadvertently perhaps, we have created conditions where each group happily derides others, merely in order to enforce and reinforce their own sense of superiority, prides and prejudices. Recently we have also witnessed this kind of fracturing within national borders, typically along religious fault lines. In any case this unhealthy obsession with compartmentalisation has also led to a situation where the threats of extinction are put on the back burner or passed to the next generation for solution.

In that context democracy has aided and abetted the cognitive threshold that now prevents us envisioning and enacting fundamental change on a universal scale. The solution is for the whole world to cooperate in solving the existential issues we ourselves have created. Possibly the next iteration of democracy can help us do that. But the current system is not geared up to face that challenge. Hopefully sooner rather than later, we will awake to that reality.

(ii) Patriarchy

In spite of recent attempts to remedy the gender imbalance in governments – most famously by Justin Trudeau in Canada, for example, who went to great pains to ensure that 50 per cent of his cabinet were women - we must face the fact that most parliaments are not democratic in the sense of representing the rich diversity of talent and cultural values within our societies.

Without exception, no contemporary democratic government reflects the wide variety of ages, sexual preferences, ethnicities, religious and cultural beliefs, physical disabilities, occupations, skills, educational backgrounds, and genders existing in the communities they purport to represent.

Statistically, governments are dominated by middle-aged men, many from affluent, middle-class backgrounds, whose primary knowledge base was formed in business, management or the law.

This is certainly a problem, for it depletes the creative thinking that can arise from diversity. But it is also a downstream consequence of an ingrained upstream model. For despite the efforts over the past century or more from suffragettes, feminists, equal wage lobbyists, and social activists, we still live in a patriarchy. Male-dominated power structures frame and inform a majority of arrangements and transactions in today’s world - most obviously reflected in men’s control over property, moral authority, social privilege – and the systems of political governance.

When we are told our personal needs are being taken seriously, that our voice is heard and valued by those who we elected to govern us, and that our views are amply and accurately represented in the parliament, it is only natural that we look for assurances that this is indeed the case. But when we then look around, concerned that nobody is actually asking for our opinions, see nobody who is really in touch with our own fears, joys and experience of life, and find out that - despite assurances to the contrary, most representatives do not actually want to know what we think as it might challenge their deepest assumptions - it is then that the reality hits.

Once elected, or so it seems, very few people actually care to do the job for which they were elected. Distracted and overwhelmed, they seem far more concerned to follow their own prescriptions and abide by the ideology of their party than to understand and enact the will of the people.

We cannot simply assume that because this is how things are, this is how they should be. Until we find ways to remedy the issue of gender, and other similar disparities, it is highly probable that current levels of public disengagement will worsen.

New Models

After comprehensive analyses like this it is too easy to believe we should throw out the failing system and begin again. That is as irrational as assuming the only thing we need to do is to bring democracy into the 21st century, technologically speaking, by digitising the concept of the ballot box, although that might be a good start - particularly in terms of reducing the cost of voting.

That new thinking and new models are needed is self-evident. Ideally these models must be able to address the complexities of the human condition by meeting discrete societal needs, while also responding in a cooperative manner to the emergencies facing us as a species. It is always possible that some form of hybrid, such as that which exists in Singapore, for example, albeit with certain modifications, might offer a possible way forward. Cases from the World Social Forum might point to better ways of engaging with the global community while transcending the hegemony of nations. Citizen juries, too, offer benefits, especially at the local level. Even the various prizes on offer from organisations like Singularity University and the Global Challenges Foundation might spring a few surprises regarding what is possible. Unfortunately none of these, by themselves, are likely to fulfil what we might envisage as an elegantly flawless design.

Reframing democracy is also worth trying. Even so it still might not work in every situation and we should probably stop the pretence that it is a non-negotiable panacea for the entire world. Even if we can get a reinvented democratic system to work effectively and as efficiently as possible, we might still need to accept the unpalatable truth that it is now too slow and cumbersome for our needs.

There are plenty of people around the world playing with new ideas. Some rudimentary, others well-formed and in the process of being prototyped. One such model is MiVote – an original Australian model incubated by Centre for the Future and now going global.

The MiVote model is not simply about voting. It is an attempt to redesign the entire system of how we practise collective decision-making, become well-informed about critical matters, and in ways that are sufficient for us to comprehend the consequences of our decisions, and to be free to vote accordingly.

During the early development of MiVote, and certainly during its extended prototyping, we tried to identify every possible point at which the current system was vulnerable to exploitation or corruption by vested interests – a distortion of intentions that has, at times and in certain places, resulted in some quasi-democratic systems coming closer to being a platform for social engineering and compliance, rather than a liberating force for airing the collective will of the majority.

With MiVote those early intentions have remained consistent. We intend ridding the system of corporate donors, for we see how this allows the legislative process to be contaminated by money and undue influence. We want to shake the current system to its very foundations by separating governance from the inequities of political game playing and horse trading. We want to free the system from career politicians, to ensure fresh blood and ideas continuously flow between a society and its government. We also believe it necessary to upgrade the speed and integrity of the governance system, opening it up to digital technologies, so that citizens can vote instantly on the most pressing policy issues of the day.

We want to ensure that people are fully informed regarding the consequences of voting a particular way - less swayed by the media, and unconstrained by the ideological certainties consistently demonstrated by the mainstream political parties. To that end, we moved away from the polarities of dualism, instituting four possible destinational frames for each issue, to reflect both the intricacy and the nuances embedded within most contemporary issues.

We contract with elected MiVote politicians on the basis of full transparency and a non-negotiable constitution. If they claim to represent their constituencies then they must do so by canvassing their community on every policy issue and legislating purely according to the majority view.

Above all we made sure that the new system we designed was generative and could do all that we needed it to do in the most benign and inclusive, yet least disruptive, manner.

One key aspect of MiVote is the enabling of an autopoietic capacity that the current system cannot match - least of all corrupt. Using a distributed engagement and decision-making platform, that incorporates blockchain-enabled processes to ensure transparency and the security of digital ballots, we expect MiVote will revolutionise the way in which democracy works - making it speedier, cheaper and ultimately far more engaging.

Ultimately my personal wish is that the MiVote initiative shines a light on new possibilities and alternative pathways that will restore trust in the democratic process. I honestly do not have a clue as to whether it will be adequate. I have lingering doubts about whether we can ever design a system that deals with all the flaws and threats I have identified here.

Ultimately, we need for the people to be pulling the strings rather than the professional political class – assuming we actually want democracy to be rescued. Again I have doubts. I am unsure whether democracy, even if we can get it working to perfection, will be sufficient. I am not confident that we will use it to re-engage the community - to establish less dystopian narratives, for example. I am not convinced that the crowd is invariably wiser than a small group of committed, intelligent and benevolent activists. I am not sold on the two-party logic and dialogue. I worry about the use of psychographic data to manipulate outcomes. I certainly do not believe the future can be secured based only on the consensus of a majority. Indeed it would be complacent of us to ignore the role visionaries have and might continue to play in steeling the collective resolve needed to trigger and execute transformative change.

Hopefully time will tell if there is wisdom in our collective madness. Meanwhile we continue to evolve. There are no other options.

This personal chronicle of the philosophical underpinnings of Centre for the Future’s Democracy by MiVote, a project aimed at reinventing democracy and returning it to the global community as a gift for future generations, is dedicated to every member of the extraordinary team, including the many volunteers, staff, Council members and supporters, who helped create, shape, fund, manage, and prototype this, the first step, in a one hundred year mindful uprising. 

Freedom & Other Profanities

And those who were seen dancing, were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music – Friedrich Nietzsche

Scientists recently suggested we are living in a sophisticated computer simulation created by an advanced form of intelligence. I am confused. For while I find the proposition fanciful the logic put forward to underpin this as a legitimate scientific hypothesis is very convincing, especially because the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws.

But instead of a simulation I am more inclined to describe it as a shared delusion - induced inadvertently perhaps, but methodically sustained once the privileged in society cottoned on to how well such a pervasive creed served their needs – particularly in maintaining the social order through various forms of control and compliance. And although I describe this delusion as a shared phenomenon, its presence can only ever be speculative. Indeed the only way we can test the existence of an ecology of mind is by conceding a set of coherent attitudes and behaviours, accumulated over centuries, that we then use to guide and inform our instinctive responses to the conscious experiences – variously interpreted as the nature of the human condition or how things are, or are meant, to be.

Steps to Material Fealty

Early indications of this state of mind first became evident when tribal warriors, leading their cohorts to victory in local skirmishes, began to achieve mythic status - often in folklore devised by the enemy to vindicate a defeat at the hands of “great generals”.

Although we live in a highly personality-driven society today, such veneration of individuals was unusual - a break with a tradition, stretching back thousands of years, where the framing meme had been the group. There is tacit acceptance among indigenous communities even today that family, and then the broader community viewed as an extension of family, is the fundamental organising social unit. This is not a romantic idealisation of aboriginal society, but rather a picture based on the latest evidence we have of how tribal groups cooperated with each other in order to survive.

Gradually supremacy passed from warriors to monarchs, emperors and princes. Affluent and all-powerful, many of these individuals assigned renowned painters, musicians, architects, sculptors and authors to portray their deeds, both real and imagined, in works that would captivate and instruct their audiences. Such narratives and artefacts consistently emphasised the presumed differences between deities and humans, or between masters and serfs, whilst elevating their patrons to absurd heights. Incidentally these same stories became the motivating impulse behind the hierarchically-configured “leader-follower” conventions some hundreds of years later.  

Meanwhile courtiers and prelates enshrined the “divine right” of rulers in pious evocations and dogma that served to reify the numinous nature of certain individuals over others. There was no logical basis for any difference between the medieval Lord of the Manor and serfs in the village of course. Both had blood coursing through their veins. Both would die from the same diseases. In certain respects, setting aside the prospect of ill-health, disease, and a short life expectancy, the lot of a serf was relatively comfortable and secure in its self-sufficiency. These were the days before the Acts of Enclosure deprived the right of ordinary men and women to farm common land after all. Meanwhile science had yet to catch up with a spiritual discourse based solely on superstition and myth.

But then, in the early years of the Industrial Revolution, another seismic shift occurred. This time unanticipated and socially disruptive, it deflected our attention towards machines and technology. As one invention gave rise to others, and inbuilt obsolescence created markets for inventiveness, the illusion of progress via technical wizardry gained the upper hand.

Actually the underlying collective mental state remained more or less intact. But now it was held more covertly at a subliminal level in society. Soon the original impulse became little more than a faded daguerreotype - adrift within a tortuous maze of increasing global trade and complex social transactions. But it refused to entirely vanish. Instead, acumen passed to a new emerging class.

In the early 19^th century merchants, industrialists and bureaucrats held sway – acquiring their wealth, opportunity and influence by virtue of the new technologies and forms of energy that enabled mass production and heralded the exodus of slave labour from the countryside to the new cities.

After the end of World War II that same power shifted once more. Today it includes heads of state, ultra-wealthy individuals, corporate chiefs, media barons, and the tsars charged with optimising the industrial-military complex for a never-ending war with enemies both authentic and contrived.

So what were previously localised phenomena have become pervasive today - global yet still nebulous and elusive - with links to an archetypal community of mind as tenuous as ever. This is most convenient for those in power. It means that managers and technocrats, aided and abetted by the corporate media, can continue to skate on the surface of society and patch up the present, using convictions they have extracted from the detritus of human progress. Our attention thus distracted, and the public’s penchant for bread and circuses assuaged, the elite are unhindered - left to shape events as they choose.

But the real power is not always held by those in the public eye. Often the celebrities we see and hear about are mere puppets – the public face of power. The puppet masters are often not to be found in the spotlight but lurking covertly in the shadows.

Throughout history the elite groups exercising power have been accompanied by cadres of aides who wield considerable authority and influence behind the scenes, seldom in the full glare of the public eye. William Shakespeare recognised this largely unseen presence, a very real force in its own right, as “the power behind the throne”. They are the true illuminati.

Hereafter I will refer to the credo of this potent shadow phenomenon as the worldview. The civilisational worldview to be precise. It remains a shared ideology - but only in the sense that its congealed impenetrability blocks out everything else. Rather like a black hole, whose strong gravitational pull ensures nothing can escape, the civilisational worldview leaves no possibility of a new narrative concerning the human family and the human condition, other than that held to be the self-evident truth by those who would have it so. Those in power and their counsellor-aides.

An additional complication is the fact that the worldview is still relatively unacknowledged and unknown. Gregory Bateson came close to defining this weltanschauung - in contrast to the more commonly understood mindset which is multiple, diverse, and individualistic; the result of environmental, social and educational conditioning. In other words, according to our cultural circumstances, all individuals possess a distinct mindset, whereas there is only a single worldview or weltanschauung.

In the past I have written a great deal on the factors distinguishing worldview and mindset. Unfortunately these terms are often used interchangeably. This distinction is not pedantic but a vital means of mulling over how contemporary society evolved and what should be done if the civilisational worldview is defective, or the manifesting world-system, as a consequence, is unable to meet current needs.

Essentially then my thesis goes something like this. The civilisational worldview is a deeply ingrained mental state – a tacit belief system expressing social norms that are common to most of us. Foreshadowed by warriors of old this worldview has been shared by humanity, with the likely exception of indigenous communities, virtually intact over centuries. In spite of this we are only ever momentarily aware of it - if at all. Acquiescence takes no effort.

Transcending artificial boundaries that compartmentalise knowledge of our environment by sorting them into distinct disciplines [such as geography, biology and history] the worldview is both subliminal and whole. It sustains itself autopoietically - its key tenets manifesting as pillars of a world-system which is the concrete reality of human existence - our relations, artefacts, transactions and interactions - as we perceive it to be.

In other words the worldview is an ideological code that covertly organizes, coordinates, and manipulates the way we expect relations and interactions to be conducted at a global level, leaving individuals to follow their personal inclinations as to how they live their lives, and particularly their relationships to each other, to the planet, and to other living species, via the world-system. In the meantime our mindset functions as an interface onto the world-system, helping us to interpret and translate the worldview in a unending dance of meaning-making. This gives us the illusion of being able to choose what actions we take at a purely practical level. But we never take the one step that could call the worldview into question. In that context choice itself is an illusion.

Although there have always been elements of this world-system we disparage, constantly complain about, challenge and tweak, the worldview itself remains uncontained. Inviolate. It is thus the unifying code of history. It is disturbing to think that it might remain that way in the future. Allow me to explain why I am alarmed by such a prospect.

The civilisational worldview code and its manifestation as a world-system assume five fundamental doctrines. For an effectively functioning society there needs to be:

1. A ruling power group, attended to by an underclass of compliant serfs, as well as courtiers and advisers who may or may not wield the “power behind the throne”
2. A dominant narrative, or inherent dogma, marketed as the solitary truth regarding how things must work. Over the past 70 years or more this narrative has emphasized economic growth while endorsing competition in the context of scarcity
3. All aspects of economic production controlled, and goods distributed, by the ruling elite or their proxies. Key economic features include a belief that nature can (should) be exploited as a human right and that conflict and warfare are legitimate factors in growing the economy
4. Wealth, influence and power of the ruling elite are protected by military and/or state mechanisms
5. Pervasive myths of a higher intelligence to which all others are subservient.

As previously stressed, this fundamental canon can be applied to almost any community or nation – past or present and irrespective of geography, ethnicity and ideology - with the exception of indigenous nations. This last point is especially important to understand. It becomes the rationale for why liberating the indigenous estate of all first nations globally is such a powerful idea.

We can analyze the impact of these principles on past situations and we can also examine how they are playing out in the world today. The latter is what really interests me. It is also terrifying.

The Descent of Civilisation

No political system in the world is working as originally intended – unless one includes the deliberately brutal, strong-arm, practices seen in authoritarian regimes like those that exist in Sudan and North Korea for example. Even the integrity in so-called democracies appears to be crumbling before our eyes as more and more citizens express their disenchantment with politicians behaving badly and in many cases unethically.

David Cameron’s embarrassing exit from politics after the Brexit vote in the UK turned sour was an act of pure cynicism irrespective of the spin he and his colleagues cared to put on it. Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s first female President, was thrown out of office for corruption. In an attempt to out-trump Donald Trump Malcolm Turnbull’s sanctimonious conservative party has recklessly trashed Australia’s reputation for tolerance in policies that are malicious and bigoted. In South Africa the Nelson Mandela Foundation is seeking the sacking of President Jacob Zuma having failed the test of leadership by looting state resources. President Duterte in the Philippines is simply an ignorant thug, while in a growing number of other countries we witness elected officials floundering in mayhem. The thought crosses our minds that all politicians are contemptible and should be ignored. But then we are given ringside seats to the circus that is the US model of democracy in action.

The 2016 Presidential election has descended into pure farce in a public display exposing ingrained graft and corruption among those who supposedly seek office to represent the will of the people. The situation becomes especially absurd when a majority of US citizens hold firmly to the illusion that their nation is still the leader of the free world. The fact that fewer nations aspire to US ideals, increasingly despised for its misdirected exceptionalism and acts of state-sponsored terror, is surely a reason to look for worthier models?

Of course it is not only politicians who display a thirst for power and are open to everything from sex scandals, money laundering and wiretapping to exploitation by industrial interests. But it is certainly a cause for concern when those who seek to govern also present as erratic, narcissistic sociopaths.

Not that its all bad news now that preening and posturing seem to have surpassed policy-making and planning as core business. In extracurricular activities France’s ex-President Nicholas Sarkozy was named the 68th best-dressed person in the world by Vanity Fair, alongside David Beckham and Brad Pitt. Canada’s pin-up PM Justin Trudeau lost his temper and resorted to belligerent behaviour on Parliament Hill. Thailand’s increasingly eccentric and superstitious dictator Prayut Chan-o-cha had four students arrested on charges of “eating sandwiches with political intent”. Meanwhile the clown-like antics displayed by Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi when he was in power still cause ripples of awkward embarrassment whenever he appears in public.

But that is about as good as it gets. When we need to look to Bolivia’s highly principled Evo Morales for humility, Russia’s Vladimir Putin for gravitas, and China’s Xi Jinping is held up to be the epitome of sobriety, there is something sadly amiss with the systems of governance we so readily tolerate in old empires without so much as a pause for reflection.

It is not simply the dubious temperament, ideological bluster, moral blindness and limited expertise of those elected to public office that is a concern however. It is also the bullying tactics - increasingly deployed by governments of every persuasion - to induce fear in the community. The need to uphold a semblance of social order is universally translated these days as the opportunity to hit back at critics on a scale ranging from sarcasm to pure intimidation.

Intimidation is no longer the sole preserve of petty tyrants. Indeed it has become the most commonly used and preferred strategy by ordinary politicians and their parties. Fear is used to stir up anger, cast doubt, and tarnish the integrity of those with differing opinions. It is used to threaten and cajole, to enforce compliance, to sustain war and maintain nuclear arsenals, to close borders, and even to exploit the elderly, the sick and the destitute.

The use of fear and intimidation by political leaders can be sufficient to provoke trauma in certain sections of society – especially when sustained over lengthy periods. The inculcation of national values will often be regarded as critical by governments using intimidation. This is manipulative by design - aimed at cultivating loyalty to accepted ideals and dogma while disavowing behaviour that could be regarded as unpatriotic.

In these situations citizens may even begin to identify with, and become deeply devoted to, governments that mistreat them, regard them as fools, take away their hard-won freedoms, and pay little heed to their emotional needs. Indeed citizens experiencing these conditions often develop a tendency to support government dogma to the detriment of their own emotional health and wellbeing. Citizens will also rationalise, to themselves and to others, their poor treatment as being necessary for the economy, or the security of the nation, and furiously defend their government’s actions when those actions are challenged by outsiders.

In contemporary Australia we can see these Stockholm syndrome-like symptoms playing out daily. The rise of fiercely patriotic groups who abuse each other verbally during street protests. The election of rightwing populist politicians who resort to racism and bigotry in order to engender fear and a dread of others. The rejection of an Amnesty International report that had the temerity to criticise the federal government for its abuse of asylum seekers. The gradual erosion of privacy and other human rights. The rifts that are opening up in what was once one of the world’s most tolerant multicultural societies...

Experiencing these symptoms puts more credulous citizens at risk of significant trauma. When combined with the alienation already being felt by many - the foreboding expressed by those living below the poverty line and the long-term unemployed, the despondency among people young and old who, in record numbers, are choosing to commit suicide or inject dangerous drugs, rather than face an uncertain future, and of course the existential threats to humanity from terrorism, nuclear armageddon, and climate change, topics that even the average six-year-old can talk about, one has to conclude that much of society is on a descent curve exacerbated by the attitudes and behaviours of those who market hate.

A fairly large silent majority continues to condone the more populist nonsense emanating from democracies in crisis - tolerating it more as light entertainment yet ignoring the crucial issue of how serious legislative work can be expected in such circumstances. The media, too, is often complicit in trivialising political debate and framing incessant leadership speculation in this manner. But many others (and it is a growing movement) are fed up, viewing this inane cabaret with frustrated bewilderment and looking for alternative solutions.

However, if dissatisfaction with systems of governance, as distinct from the scary ignorance of many elected parliamentarians, who seem out of their depth and incapable of bringing a sliver of wisdom or bipartisan empathy to the issues facing humanity, are indeed the causes of such detachment, action eventually becomes an imperative. The real question then becomes what to do.

Initially, frustrated individuals might seek solace in part-time activities, such as charitable work, volunteering for a social movement focused on social change, or lobbying for ecocide to become a corporate criminal activity, for example.

But if political performance around the world continues to decline, to the extent that the quality of life on this planet is significantly compromised, or that human rights are dismissed, only two alternatives become possible:

Either we can put up with a broken system, together with the ongoing charade of actors within these systems who continue to conduct themselves as though the entire framework is still secure, complete, and effective - while treating them with respectful disdain. Or we can rise up mindfully with others in activities targeted at reinventing governance in all its forms and manifestations. Reform movements such as MiVote and Democracy Earth spring immediately to mind, then the various Occupy movements of course, plus the myriad peer governance and commons-based entrepreneurial entities that will eventually displace current models in a future post-capitalist society.

Of course we might decide the best course of action is simply to seek sanctuary by throwing ourselves into activities that quarantine us from witnessing such depressing displays of folly by people like Jacob Zuma, Theresa May, Donald Trump or Rodrigo Duterte. But it is difficult to escape. The insidious nature of social media these days makes it impossible to ignore reality when it stares you in the face. Besides, turning our backs on the debilitating state of politics becomes even more tricky for parents with children and grandchildren who are heirs to the future we create in this moment and bequest to them.

In the meantime, in an unwavering effort to keep the populace quiescent, the elite react as we might expect from our preceding analysis of the civilisational worldview. They distract our attention by intoning predictable refrains to the press and to each other ad infinitum. There is no dearth of material for them to chat about. Politicians are fond of talking about the benefits of their policies relative to the opposition, how they are protecting us from evil, the need to balance the budget, jobs, jobs and more jobs, and matters that are of so little consequence or that could quite easily be left to responsible adults without legislation by Parliament. Company executives prefer to bore us with the obscene profits they are making, as well as how they are trying to remain relevant in a future they expect to be much like the past.

Finally the official media stretches credulity to the limit by diluting the news and bestowing it with a blanket of banal indoctrination. The result is often a kind of TV reality show. In this dumbing down process citizens are routinely denied the truth, while any sense of intellect is disparaged in celebrations of ignorance. Strategy of this kind is only apparent if we are really paying attention - for the aim is to shape a dominant narrative where we are blind to the underlying propaganda. In this dumbed-down debate an artificial dichotomy is established - a dual narrative that deliberately excludes alternatives. We can have left-wing or right-wing views, for example. We can have faith in a religion or be agnostic. We can equate Islam with terrorism or not. We can accept the reality of global warming or remain climate sceptics. Anyone with beliefs outside of these two main narrative streams runs the threat of being ignored or demonised.

Unsurprisingly all of this lulls us into a torpor where expectations are stultified and energy dissipates. We have become as the world-system intends – cogs in the capitalist machinery where the factories most vital for maintaining production and sustaining economic growth are the shopping malls and casinos.

Life in the Bubble

Now I realise this is perilous territory. A few readers will find all kinds of conspiracy theories embedded in my text. If that is the case then we are all complicit witnesses to some extent. It is possible that some of us are more awake to the reality of a meta-discourse while others, fearful of living in a deluded state (or even a digital simulation) prefer to take cover in the comfort of the civilisational bubble. Many may simply dismiss my proposition as socialist claptrap in spite of a genuine attempt to rise above such artificial distinctions, in order to face the hard, cold facts. Perhaps my hypothesis will simply affirm beliefs already held. But others may start to think more deeply about the civilisational model that gives rise to the conditions within the world-system we see today - for our present path is unfavourable in terms of our future prosperity, and even our survival.

We take so many things for granted – assumed and inherited axioms that have become detrimental to humanity. Yet these same axioms also prevent us imagining and inquiring into alternatives – even where the current world-system is not functioning as intended, is working as intended but to the disadvantage of the majority, or has become irrelevant given a range of new factors like technological innovation, the size of the global population, and the problems posed by climate refugees or nuclear accidents, for example.

If we really do see the need to reform the world-system in order that it generates different outcomes, we need to start by reinventing the tenets that comprise the worldview. We must start thinking the unthinkable.

Tackling elite power structures requires that we revisit governance. For example, we might decide that we want more egalitarian, feminine and distributed forms of government. It is clear that new forms of online democracy challenge many of the points at which current democratic structures fail: lobbying and infiltration by big business, corporate donations, the paucity in ideological conditioning, and politics as a life-time career, for example. But is that sufficient? Rather than attempting to institute democratic reform, perhaps we should be challenging the need for central governments of any kind. Conventional wisdom posits the need for every country to have a central government to enact legislation. We assume no society can be allowed, or would be able, to blunder along by itself. Political control is vital if the world is to continue to turn on its current axis and to avoid anarchy. That is just dogma – integral to the dominant power narrative of course, but by no means sacrosanct. Anything invented by humans can be reinvented. And if we are to alter the speed or nature of the turning world we may want to try other things. Things that make more sense given today’s contextual dynamics.

We put great faith in empirical evidence. Empirical evidence suggests the civilisational worldview orthodoxies might be misleading – particularly in terms of the effectiveness of current governance structures. For example, because of political deadlock, Spain has not really had an effective central government for the past 10 months. No new legislation has been passed. Yet it is expected to be one of the fastest-growing eurozone economies this year. And as a result the unemployment rate has just fallen from 20% to 18.9% in the past three months. If central governments are unnecessary, or could beneficially be redirected towards international collaboration rather than domestic meddling, might citizen juries be a more effective and engaging proposition for local governance? Again the empirical evidence in a variety of countries in West Africa, South Asia, Britain and Australia suggests a positive answer to this question.

Perhaps then we should apply these types of challenge to all five of the tenets comprising the civilisational worldview. For example, and again following empirical evidence, we could generate new narratives emphasising cooperation, self-sufficiency and abundance as more mutually beneficial than competition, dependency, and scarcity. We could introduce new laws that value biomimicry over the more toxic applications of chemical engineering and that forbid environmental damage of any kind. We could liberate the indigenous estate by actively engaging the wisdom of first nation elders. We could promote the design principles of permaculture so as to shift the balance between industry and nature. And we could redraft corporate law to favour peer production and commons-based businesses over proprietary shareholding entities. We might even reconceptualise the role of the military to guarantee peace rather than to wage war, and the priority for police to nurture the social maturity of communities rather than on focusing on law enforcement.

The current state of the world-system is ambiguous – a fragile pathology at best. For many of us, on many levels, life continues as it always has. We face the daily round of travelling to work, taking care of our families, doing the grocery shopping, and ferrying the kids to and from school. We relax when we are on holiday, enjoy the solitude when pottering around the garden, and look forward to the next trip overseas.

But life is not so predictable if you happen to be a member of the Standing Rock nation protesting the proposed North Dakota oil pipeline. Life is even more precarious if you happen to live in countries like Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan that have been ravaged by war. If you are a genuine refugee you will still be turned away should you approach Australian shores by boat. And if you are a child in Ethiopia or Yemen there is not enough food to guarantee you will become a teenager.

Documented evidence from organisations like the Pentagon, the UN, World Wildlife Fund, Save the Children, and Amnesty International, all point to an unsustainable end-game in some form or other. Nearly half of the world's population live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty. Approximately 1 billion of these are children. According to UNICEF 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.

Yet more than $14 trillion was spent on international conflicts in 2015. This represents around 13% of global GDP - or roughly the combined value of the economies of the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Spain and Brazil combined.

Average life expectancy in most nations is higher – mostly because of good nutrition, hygiene, and medical breakthroughs. Suicide, however, is now a global phenomenon accounting for around 1.4% of all deaths. We are far more powerful today than ever before but seem unable incapable of translating that power and affluence into peace and happiness.

When all the evidence is synthesised there can be little doubt that the current worldview has led us down a rabbit hole from which escape will be problematic. Ironically, given our ingenuity and relative affluence, we are the first and only species on the planet capable of destroying ourselves. But instead of addressing that possibility we seem intent on hastening our demise - caught up in some kind of masochism or the arrogant belief that extinction only happens to less creative species.

Having read numerous reports on every issue from drought and famine to poverty, conflict, crime and drug abuse, education, climate, global affairs, trade, employment and technology I am left in no doubt that the global outlook is one of a number of symptoms indicating a continuing and serious collapse. There is a deterioration in the conditions and dynamics of all five of the tenets comprising the civilisational worldview. But movement is exponential and so not easily observed.

Power is misused by the elite in our society and there are no signs that this will change in the near future. Wealth is owned by fewer and fewer people. Governance is inadequate, having been unable to adjust to the complexity of a globalised world. The narratives we use to make meaning are controlled by corporate media and skewed to trap us within dualistic arguments that lead nowhere. There is no destiny story - which is why we are losing hope.

The overwhelming imperative for humankind is not the various emergencies that are now besetting up. The demographics of an aging population, global warming, food shortages, degradation of soils, the divisions in society between the affluent and the disadvantaged, drought, energy, debt, pollution, poverty, terrorism, and the spotlight put on borders by the refugee crisis, are merely symptoms of a far more pressing problem.

We should stop trying to escape our terrestrial home in order to populate other planets. We humans have become a scourge on the Earth and should do our very best to reverse the unsustainable anthropocene conditions we have created by halting our tendency to patch up the present in the hope that the future will take care of itself. It will not.

In that context a comprehensive reinvention of the worldview itself is the only universal endeavour that makes any sense. It must be redesigned from first principles as a post-civilisational and post-capitalist paradigm that has the destiny of the human family and its advancement as its prime purpose. If we do not undertake this reinvention, by professing it to be too hard, or unnecessary, we can expect a continuing deterioration of current trends to the extent that they will soon overwhelm our capacity to recover.

This work has already started. Many hundreds of thousands of small initiatives all around the world are edging towards a new kind of connected global community based on equality, abundance, empathy, transparency and cooperation. The various transitions moving us towards to a sustainable, self-sufficient, low-carbon economy, are offering us important lessons in how to live more gently with nature. Likewise the liberation of the new commons, peer-based methods of production and shared technologies, will transform the rules around ownership, trade and value. Very soon the various models experimenting with eradicating corruption in politics and restoring power to the people rather than as the prerogative of a privileged class, will disrupt and reconstruct the way we choose to govern and organise.

We can expect increasing opposition from those who perceive they have so much to lose. The empire will strike back. But sooner or later the current worldview will come crashing down. Gandhi’s dictum will come true and we will be able to say: First they ignored us. Then they laughed at us. Then they tried to stop us. Then we won.

About Time

It cannot have escaped even the least observant individuals how glaringly prevalent the virtual world has become - and how precipitately digital technologies let it become that way. Our society has become a veritable technopoly – within which culture has not been forfeited so much as warped, particularly our experience and interpretation of time and space.

Today the world has about 5.6 billion mobile phone users - or 80 per cent of the total population. I know this because they are all stalking me. It has become impossible for me to walk down a supermarket aisle, or cross the street, without having to weave my way through throngs of people all gazing and stabbing their fingers at these gizmos. From schoolkids and students, workers on building sites, taxi drivers and young mothers with toddlers to elderly men in suits, they are glued to a screen that allows them to thumb instant messages, organise a liaison, check the time or the weather, watch a favourite YouTube clip, share a photo on Facebook, play Angry Birds, or monitor Google maps to get them to a location they just passed - if only they would glance up at the street numbers for an instant!

Children, some barely out of nappies, seem to be the most afflicted by this uniquely contemporary disorder. My 5-year-old son looks for his iPad the moment he wakes up and would keep it by his side - if he could - until he falls asleep at night, or the battery needs charging. The ears of our teenage daughter seem to be permanently welded to two buds that terminate in a cellphone, which accompanies her everywhere. As far as I know she even takes this accessory to the shower with her. As her tête-à-têtes stop and start quite arbitrarily, without any sign as to their on-off status, we tend to resort to hand signals if we need to attract her attention. We are totally in the dark regarding the substance of her constant exchanges, or even the identity of the "friend" to whom she chats at 2am in the morning. The only clue as to the extent to which she is immersed in this alternative world arrives as a bill in our mailbox at the end of each month. Other than that her virtual presence remains a carefully guarded secret to which we are not privy. Or at least, being smart parents, that is the illusion we are at pains to preserve!

Seriously though, for many people the wired world has become more "real" than life itself - a hybrid world we happily inhabit from dawn until dusk. Each year we spend more and more of our waking hours online - scrolling, chatting and reacting to these flickering displays - irrespective of whether we are in a meeting, shopping, driving, or seated at the controls of a 380 Airbus!

There is a downside. Slowly but surely this consensual addiction is ambushing our minds within a anesthetizing "present" that is proving irresistible to many. Life in this technological cocoon is a synthesis of transitory sounds, images and text messages - many of them trifling, yet indiscernible from others of even less import. Our sensation of time deforms as a result. The past happened a moment ago. We need only wait a few seconds for the future. The only phenomenon that really matters, because that is what we absorb, is a mish-mash of micro-events encountered as the "here and now". And as these experiential clips tumble into each other in a mad scramble to change their status from what is to what was, any distinctive resonance quickly fades. Thus memory becomes nonchalantly divorced from authentic meaning.

This bizarre bifurcation of perceived space and time also permits at least two distinct personae to manifest: a corporeal one where our tangible presence is evident to those in close physical proximity to us - the other pure avatar, a version disconnected from ambient corporeality. We can be present in either state, or both concurrently.

In the former we are limited by the laws of physics. These laws deny us the capability to move from place to place using the kind of instant transportion devices beloved by generations of science fiction writers. But in our avatar state(s) we can be in multiple places at the same time. We can communicate instantly with anyone, wherever they are - effectively transcending our corporeal nature. This spatial ambiguity has become commonplace. I can convene a video-call with my team, who are physically scattered across Asia, from my yacht anchored off the Maldives. Yet by switching off the video I could be anywhere in the world. Who would know unless I divulged as much?

Additionally, the World Wide Web allows my avatar existence to be permanently present to those who are also online. I can be physically engaged in a Centre for the Future board meeting while my online presence, simultaneously, inconspicuously, allows me to translate a Mandarin phrase into English, change a flight reservation, transfer money between my bank accounts, purchase a book from Amazon, and text my PA to cancel a luncheon appointment.

There are more profound uses for this technology. Surgeons can use composite scans to turn their patients into three-dimensional avatars, for example. Critical manoeuvres in brain and spinal surgery, where there is no room for error, can then be conducted with unprecedented precision. Patients with previously inoperable tumours can be treated using this technique.

All of which is marvellous - at the level of instrumental and automated transactions. But in terms of meaningful communications, greater numbers of interactions seem to be facile, frivolous and condensed. And so I wonder about the provisional nature of it all - the negative impact on our ability to perceive and comprehend granular detail, to distinguish trivia from salient information, to respond adequately and at speed to looming physical dangers, or to imagine and plan for the long-term.

What is lost when everything is so ephemeral and in a constant state of flux? How does our neuropsychology react and adapt? Is memory detrimentally affected? Would we know if it was? What about behavioural traits? Is the capability to empathise, for example, reduced by abbreviated attention spans? And what impulses guide relations when everything else is so provisional?

As we read this sentence, we believe this moment - right now - is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is palpable. However much we may remember the past, or anticipate the future, we live in the present. Of course, the moment during which we read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. Consequently it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open (until it becomes present) and that the past is fixed (because it has gone). As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives depends on it.

Yet as obvious as this way of thinking is, it is not reflected empirically. Science does not tell us which events are occurring right now. Indeed physics deems the perception of time passing from one present moment to another an illusion - an artefact invented by our psychology. Moreover, if the present moment does not exist, then neither does the flow of time. If each moment is equally real, the future can be no more open than the past; the past no more true than the future. The notion that time is emergent from an enduring cosmological reality reflects a metaphysical predisposition that accords well with Eastern mystical traditions. The only valid alternative is a proposition that time is real - the only aspect of reality directly experienced which is fundamental and not emergent.

To become a little more granular.... We usually think of time as having three distinct elements - past, present and possible. This device allows us to sort things out in our minds more effectively. But it is only a construction. The past is an assortment of memories that are reassembled and interpreted differently each time we bring them to mind. Without a time machine we cannot actually experience past memories. We can only remember them through a simulation of the experience. There is no objective thing that can be called the past. It resists any form of measurement. Our only contact with it must of necessity occur in the present.

Similarly, the future is a mental construct we hold from the perspective of the present. We cannot experience future possibilities unless they manifest as the present. Until then they remain fantasies. We can project what possibilities may occur but there is no objective thing we can call the future. It cannot be measured and our only contact with it is by way of the present. An expanded now. Now there’s a thought…..

Reflections on Democracy

Societies tend to suffer from unconscionably calculated meddling by their leaders or benefit, every so often in the most surprising ways, from their wisdom. It is customary to suppose that undue intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens stems solely from despots and their regimes. The Stasi secret intelligence service in the old East Germany and Hitler's feared Gestapo spring immediately to mind.

But it is not quite that simple. There are a number of hybrids where both modes fuse to bring about change - though not always to the advancement of the state. Lee Kuan Yew's relatively benign one-party rule in Singapore amply illustrates this mix. Others might make reference to Fidel Castro's Cuba where the expansion of health care and education went hand in hand with state control of the media and the suppression of internal dissent.

In a society like the US - where it is legitimate to openly disparage the President and almost a civic duty to put tough questions to an administration fixated on patching up the present and patrolling the world - the erosion of personal freedoms that started after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and is still gathering pace; corrupt alliances between big business, cashed-up lobbyists, and individual Senators; the stark naivety of left-right political ideologies; and a surge in the meddling of the state in matters best left to the judgement of individuals or local communities, all presage the undermining of democratic principles.

The great fear is that this decline - coupled with a perfect storm of global economic, social and environmental emergencies, could precipitate a period of extreme authoritarianism in a nation once held to be the paramour of democratic virtues. Dangerously imperious attitudes could so easily spread from the US to other Western nations - emboldening regimes like that of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines and Putin in Russia - with barely a nudge and a wink. If anyone doubts this could happen they should examine the present near-oligarchical state of governance in the US and the angry, deceitful poisonous rhetoric and histrionics from Donald Trump in his bid to become the nominal "leader" of the so-called "free" world. Then compare current conditions with those prevalent in Italy at the time Mussolini rose to power. The times might have changed, thus making any literal comparison impractical. But there are distinct similarities that should give us cause for grave concern.

Obviously the type of government under which people live has fundamental implications for their liberty, health and daily well-being. Like so many of my generation I have spent years observing the imperfections evident in different political systems - some trivial, others extremely damaging. I have also written a great deal on the common traits in each of the flaws and trends I identified. This has usually been with a view to proposing remedies for the worst of them - or just pointing out what citizens everywhere are passively tolerating from their overlords.

One trend in particular - exceedingly brittle and shortsighted strategically speaking - bothers me, in large measure because of its probable consequences. It is an example of how democracy is failing us - although in truth the circumstances can be applied to other political genres. I refer to the increasing surveillance and intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens - by governments of all persuasions. Invariably tighter security is justified by the quest to ensure public safety. But basic freedoms, hard-won over many decades, are now at risk as our paranoia concerning religious and nationalistic fundamentalism feeds on itself.

The obsession with domestic terrorism and its links to public security might not be so much of an issue if alternate ways of expressing and shaping a more secure future for all of humanity was being pursued at the same time. It is not. Almost without exception the current cadre of national leaders do not know which way to turn in that regard. Many of them grasp this and are feeling trapped and frustrated. With little appetite for real cooperation, and lacking an appreciation of dynamically complex systems, which might lead them to try less legislation rather than more, they are nevertheless culpable in pursuing the current agenda with such intensity. The result is a loss of liberty, greater focus on the things that divide rather than unite us, suspicion and blame cast by one group on others, and the reinforcing of state borders designed to keep unwanted others - as in refugees, asylum seekers, unskilled labourers and in some cases even tourists - out. All of this is occurring at a time when statistically one is far less likely to be killed from an act of terrorism than by lightning, fireworks, falling out of bed (I kid you not), or being knocked down by the proverbial bus.

In practical terms I had always assumed, probably gullibly, that democracy was the best possible political system we could come up with. In 1945, the year of my birth, it definitely appeared that way. Fascism in Europe had been defeated while communism, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis, seemed destined to fail at the first hurdle given its essential nature of governing by fear.

What horrified me more were the various totalitarian regimes that sprung up once their colonial rulers stepped away from their moral responsibilities. The repressive nature of petty tyrants like Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin for example, as they secured their vice-like grip on power through regulation, persecution and control, was abhorrent at the time. Yet the world watched thousands suffer and did absolutely nothing.

The hypocrisy that allows this to occur is even more baffling. For any nation to use sovereignty as the sole justification as to why others should not pry into their domestic affairs - especially when the agony of an entire populace is so highly visible - is intolerable.

This is a conspiracy of silence and we are all complicit. The world's most affluent nations seem quite ready to bomb villages in Syria or Afghanistan, turning a blind eye to their crimes against humanity, when they perceive it to be in their economic interests. Yet they swiftly gang up to disparage, condemn and bully even the poorest of nations, applying malicious sanctions, or worse, when it is not.

Although there can be no excuse for such brutal regimes as Mugabe's - or those of Assad or Kim Jong-un for that matter - there is an awkward avoidance of this issue in the corridors of power and an absence of collective leadership from any international body as a consequence. These vile despots are allowed to get away with the most brutal persecution of their people. Meanwhile the clutch of self-righteous hardliners we elect to office as part of our own democratic process, who then proceed to wage warfare on our behalf, also seem to do pretty much as they please so as to protect the flow of resources to our shores.

As an interesting side note, British and European colonies have enjoyed greater political stability after colonial rule than their counterparts under US or Soviet control. Historically this was partly due to an old-fashioned sense of duty by those that governed, as well as structural benefits - like education, health care, and administrative systems, for example - they left behind. Certainly the Americans never planned to stay and rebuild. Prolonged occupation is never a consideration. To conquer is and always has been the end game. In recent wars, like the invasion of Iraq in 2003, for example, the need for massive reconstruction and renewal, after the much-vaunted removal of Saddam Hussein was achieved, had never seriously entered the heads of those in the Pentagon. The US went to war on false pretexts and for purely political reasons. They were set on assuring the continuing supply of resources like oil and sustaining the military-industrial complex.

Another sign that democracy could be in a death spiral is the flirtation of authoritarian states with notions of democracy to create lookalikes. In these cases propaganda gives the impression of openness and selective freedoms where none really exist. The impulse for this particular game of Blind Man's Buff is aimed at suppressing dissent while profiting from international trade deals, ensuring the continuing supply of foreign direct investment, and avoiding sanctions that could be handed out to an errant nation by the UN.

Thailand is a case in point. What was until recently a constitutional monarchy toying with "Thai-style" democracy has been hijacked by the military-installed junta of General Prayuth Chan-ocha. But this coup was unlike others. Freedom of speech is outlawed and people can be sent to prison simply for deviating from "acceptable" practices. The official line is that the country is preparing for new elections in 2017, with a fresh Constitution, and the promise of law-abiding officials. The reality is likely to be very different. Democracy has wilted in Thailand, at least for the time being. It is unlikely to be restored until the current monarch dies, and his courtiers held to account, or a people's uprising seizes the day.

In truth I have never been a fan of monarchies. The thought of power and great wealth residing in a single family that rules from one generation to the next seems highly anachronistic. It is totally at odds with my egalitarian instincts. I can only assume it is the fascination with ceremony along with the accumulated history, both fiercely safeguarded by those who benefit personally from royal patronage, that beguiles otherwise sane people into a state of elation at the mere thought of seeing royalty in the distance.

So given the chasm between the unacceptable and the unachievable what kind of political system would be ideal in today's environment? What form of governance would best cater for the needs of the human family as a whole, given our sheer numbers and complex differences?

Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are inherently unstable because their political leaders do not enjoy legitimate authority - instead ruling through fear. One would hardly choose a system such as this voluntarily. But even if we could wind the clock back a few centuries and start all over again I am not at all sure that democracy would have my vote today.

Starting from first principles I would be confident in voting down representative democracy. Once the most luminous star in the political universe it has lost its luster. Apart from failing to resolve the critically important issues of our time there are other reasons for this fall from grace.

The greatest benefit invariably cited by most political scientists is that the highest levels of skills, talent and erudition are brought into play via representative democracy. The logic behind this reasoning assumes that the common people are relatively ill-informed and disinterested in running society themselves. Creating a system in which those who actually govern are the most qualified to perform that task therefore makes perfect sense.

Except it is no longer the case that the most appropriate people are elected for the job. Evidence suggests that the most talented, intelligent and well-informed candidates do not put themselves forward in the first place. The gene pool from which career politicians are drawn is actually very small, continues to shrink, and is not at all representative of most contemporary communities. The party political system, too, is biased to admit those with prior factional affiliations in preference to outsiders.

Those that are eventually elected find themselves trapped in a clutter of conventions that no longer serve the purpose of the electorate, while simultaneously needing to cope with a level of dynamic complexity in national and global affairs that is unprecedented.

The case that citizens are disinterested in politics is a myth and simply incorrect. The advent of mass media, together with the transparency this allows, has been a two-edged sword for elected officials. While social media in particular exposes politicians for who they are - ordinary men and women with (usually) the best of intentions - it has also well and truly shaken any convictions the general public might have harboured regarding the efficacy of government.

Thus the disengagement of citizens from the democratic process is not based upon apathy or ignorance but rather their diminishing trust in the propriety of politics as it is practised and, by implication, the integrity of elected representatives. This situation, together with the extent of direct activism targeted against irrelevant policies and entrenched ideological positions, implies citizens are very concerned about the inadequacies of the current democratic process and are yearning for something more viable and less degraded through practise.

It is far too easy to marginalise those whose beliefs do not accord with our own by claiming they must therefore be illiterate and ill-informed. But this runs counter to democratic ideals. Power must dwell with the people to be considered a democracy. If the public is indeed uneducated then it is incumbent upon someone in the political system to rectify these circumstances. The task of elected officials in this process is not to grab exclusive control of the political process in the false assumption that the general public is disinterested, but to ensure that all citizens are sufficiently well-informed and can contribute intelligently to policy discussions as well as providing specific input into decisions that affect them prior to decisions being made. In other words the task of the democratic system in action is to inform, listen intently, and enact the community's wishes.

This has become even more feasible with the genesis of mobile telephony. Indeed representative democracy is no longer more practical than direct democracy because of smartphone technology. By 2019 it is projected that 2.5 billion people will own smartphones and be able to use them for voting on any policy issue on any day of the week. By 2020 smartphones will account for 80 per cent of all mobile data traffic and by the year 2021 approximately 70 per cent of the population will own a smartphone. At that point all forms of governance will migrate onto digital platforms. But will it be enough to quell the doubts I have regarding the current system?

Without promoting outright anarchy, but in order to avoid damaging authoritarian practices, I need to pose the following question: why should we believe democracy to be any better from a moral point of view, or capable of delivering more to citizens than, say, a benign autocracy?

As previously mentioned, Singapore was able to achieve extraordinary results for its citizens in a little over 50 years with very little acknowledged social pain. Both as a visitor and as a resident everything works efficiently. The city is clean. Average salaries are high. Most people have jobs and somewhere decent to live.

While it is true that a few freedoms have been sacrificed, and new problems are arising from recent levels of immigration, the average wealth per capita is extraordinary for a city state that has no natural resources. In terms of GDP per capita, Singapore is the third richest country in the world. In terms of life expectancy, Singapore is ranked 4th in the world by the World Health Organisation. And in terms of corruption, Singapore remains 5th least corrupt country in the Corruption Perceptions Index released by Transparency International.

In spite of this material success, many Singaporeans admit that community relationships are far from perfect, people generally find it difficult to express their feelings, and levels of creativity are low in comparison with most other countries in the region. Widening income inequality further estranges the harmony and solidarity amongst its citizens.

And so Singapore’s future challenge is not how to sustain economic growth, but how to create a city-state of contented citizens where individuals can enjoy an enhanced quality of life while also caring for others. For Singapore’s government, that means taking better care of needy and less fortunate residents, while fostering a social culture of empathy. Those goals will undoubtedly determine the best way forward for Singapore. I expect to see a style of government that is less autocratic, that uses smartphone technology to communicate with citizens in real-time, and that listens more intently to the voice of the people. If I am correct, Singapore could be a role model for how democracy can evolve without too much pain.

For me the best possible governance model for today must reflect contemporary realities, deal with the design flaws within our current political systems that so often lead to corruption, abuse and other failures, and find ways to alleviate the worst impacts of the human condition in concert with others.

I described this preferred model to a friend a few years ago who was amused. It sounds like a modern democracy with authoritarian overtones, he chuckled. Very likely, I replied.

For if I were to design such a model I would lean towards a new type of commonwealth. One not based upon a loose alliance of nations, whose members have historical or cultural links, as in the British Commonwealth, but connected more intimately by a shared place and purpose, as well as a cooperative moral agenda. A model where political parties are superfluous as digital technology and social media are used to engage citizens and to enable the voices of the disadvantaged to be heard. One in which elected Custodians, whose authority is based upon wisdom rather than power, influence, wealth or political affiliation, and whose role is to simply ensure that legislation accords with the will and needs of the majority of citizens, serve only two terms before returning to their private lives. One where wisdom is rewarded and corruption is rooted out. One where foresight and imagination combine to generate meaning, health and well-being for everyone, rather than merely reflecting the jaded dualities of deeply entrenched ideologies.

 

This brief piece was written as a personal tribute to my friend and erstwhile mentor Richard Neville who passed away last week at the age of 74 thoroughly worn out - as he would surely have wished. Ever the amiable, unassuming, most urbane and gentlest of men, Richard possessed an enthusiasm for life which he used to critique our epoch with great gusto and even greater precision. The last time we met was in Bangkok. He and Julie were returning to their home in the Blue Mountains after a visit to Cuba. I will always remember the boyish delight shining through those glistening eyes as he regaled me with stories of an exotic, heady, crumbling culture - stories conveyed with such clarity I could almost smell the decay and hear the echoes of lazily played salsas through air made syrupy from cigar smoke and rum. Possibly because of his charm and his knack of telling a good yarn Richard was often branded a "pop" futurist. This is a great pity albeit a partial truth. For under the surface of his scintillating writing and speaking there danced a deeply humanitarian soul and an intellect unmatched by any of his contemporaries.

Capitalism on Trial

In the November 28^th 1969 issue of Science magazine, the eminent American biophysicist John R Platt wrote these words:

There is only one crisis in the world. It is the crisis of transformation. We are undergoing a great historical transition to new levels of technological power all over the world... What, finally, makes all of our crises still more dangerous is that they are now coming on top of each other - a crisis of crises. It has now become urgent for us to mobilize all our intelligence to solve these problems. If we could learn how to manage these new powers and problems in the next few years without killing ourselves by our obsolete structures and behavior, we might be able to create new and more effective social structures that would last for many generations. We might be able to move into that new world of abundance and diversity and well-being for all mankind which technology has now made possible.

I often feel that I straddle two dissimilar ecospheres. Day after day I see the same people going about their lives, undertaking the same tasks, following the same routines, using the same infrastructure. On the other hand something novel, a fresh impulse, dances around the edge in what seems like another dimension altogether.

Each of these ecospheres is marked by its own distinctive energy. One centralised, overcast, encumbered by legacy. The other dispersed, networked, more agile. I see them both so clearly.

Most bureaucracies and corporations have been mesmerised by a form of capitalism that, once embraced within the context of modernity becomes rapacious. This mode of economic activity is driven by greed and an overwhelming need to compete for scarce resources. At the same time it is burdened by an obsessively unending quest for growth and the accumulation of wealth.

In so far as they are aware of the new post-capitalist upstart in their backyard, orthodox institutions seem decideldy uneasy. There is a justifiable logic to their anxiety. Peer production is disruptive to capitalism. For one thing it undermines the inviolability of competitive markets. And while it is implausible to think models of peer production could displace our deeply entrenched capitalist tendencies in the near future, they are certainly making commons the more compelling impulse for activities generating financial and social value.

This is why the social economy is viewed with such trepidation and suspicion by our current masters of the financial universe. Their doctrine depends upon the use of private labor to generate value, which is then seized by private corporations and sold in markets based on artificially contrived scarcity.

The social economy circumvents such capitalist constraints. It supports a paradigm based upon collaboration and access to an abundance of resources. Instead of allocating surplus value through the market or hierarchical systems, peer production creates value through open, voluntary contributions, and massive mutual coordination.

It is clear that the majority of people and state institutions are unaware of this doppelganger in our lives. Each one of us occupies a here and now - familiar, mundane, yet so comfortable that we remain totally oblivious to emerging epistemes - barely a glance away. In this case, however, popular awareness is imminent. The power of smart mobile devices, coupled with an innate desire to collaborate, are conspiring to erode industrial modes of production. As an alternative we are offered a social economy in which civic society is not just serviced by the government - industrial complex but is a productive powerhouse in its own right.

We are all achingly familiar with the tedium of our everyday ecosphere. Many of us experience it as a world of scarcity and injustice where rampant economic growth and wealth creation drive us almost to despair. Reportedly this is a world spinning out of control, where complacency is used as an excuse for unprincipled behaviour, and terrorism is blamed on anyone who has beliefs that differ from our own. A world in which corporate greed is excessive and corruption is rife. A world where fear and lies are routinely drafted to keep social order. A world in which we resort to using vicarious thrills and other distractions just to help keep us sane.

In this world there are many irresolvable problems. Some say it is no worse than it was a century ago. That we just notice the crime, the immorality and the injustice more than ever before. I beg to differ and worry that this world, much more than its façade, is in a state of decay and potential collapse.

But then I take immediate comfort in the grace and élan of the emergent ecosphere with its more benevolent and empathic protocols. Far from perfect, these new modes cradle us in hope for an expanded common wealth. It is a domain in which all life is sacred and where communities share and prosper in a spirit of transparent generosity and reciprocity. This is a domain in which Platt’s words of abundance, diversity and well being for all humanity are fast becoming the unadulterated impetus for social progress.

But these two ecospheres are not just about differing economic models. They offer different choices for humanity – each with its own distinct functions and moral authority. In many respects the alternative domain of “sufficiency within abundance” is already operating. Patchy perhaps. But presaging a shift to a healthier condition that will not be the paradigm-shattering doom-and-gloom disaster proclaimed by the proponents of “free” markets.

The potential relationships between these two ecospheres are not immediately apparent, far less fully understood. But two things are clear:

1. In a globalised world these modes interact and cannot remain separate phenomena. Some degree of interaction is inevitable.
2. We cannot expect a linear transition from a capitalist to a post-capitalist society and world-system. We are too heavily invested in capitalism.

So what can we expect? Currently these two ecospheres tend to be distinct genres - each with their own personae, values, functionalities, modes of production and transactional etiquettes. That is likely to persist for the time being. Many advocates of peer production expect their domain will continue to be shielded from the more exploitative elements of corporate capitalism. I find that a fairly tame proposition. Healthy coevolution would be my preference. But what would that entail?

The worst excesses of the capitalist model can be likened to coal in the annals of fossil fuels. Both are deadly to human health. But this is something we have only just begun to comprehend. So my hope is that an integration of these two ecospheres would start to temper the social harm and corrupt practices that have become ingrained within capitalism as it is practised. Industrial capitalism and peer production could yet fuse together in ways that would cleanse and restore health to the economic world-system – thereby generating more sustainable futures for the human family as a whole. With a few exceptions I doubt that such a vision is on most people’s radar.

There can be little doubt that those of us associated with peer production, open source practices, and the wealth of the commons, are being constrained in our desire for a more benign, post-capitalist future, by many whose success is inextricably hitched to the old growth and greed formulae of neoliberal economics underpinning modern capitalism. The capitalist use of language is symbolic of scarcity, fear, envy, and insecurity - while their beliefs and trappings prolong the tensions between private ownership and serfdom.

But such impediments are already beginning to fade. For our insights and collective knowledge are far greater than before. The symbolism of our language is more erudite and precise. Labour is becoming more flexible and fluid. We know what we are doing to our planet and each other far better than we appreciated in the swinging sixties. We also have tools, and processes for putting those tools to better use, that were not previously available. We are awakening from our slumber at last.

Yet what is especially disturbing is a realisation that we are probably no closer to avoiding a harmful end-game than we were when Platt wrote his article in 1969. Our wisdom has not kept pace with technological developments. It has not yet evolved to a level where we can collectively choose an alternative to that which currently persists.

I believe Platt was also wrong in one vital respect. The crisis to which he refers is not simply about societal transformation. What is clearer today than ever before is that the real emergency is twofold. Most certainly it is a lack of transformation. Of intentional coevolution. It is also a crisis caused by rampant competition in preference to collaboration.

The social structures and systems we fabricated in the past, many of which are still in use today, together with the symbolic language and tools that allowed them to function, were designed for an earlier era. An age where there were far fewer people on the planet. An age where travel was leisurely and where news took days or even weeks to spread from one place to another. An age where almost any well-educated young person could select the career they most wanted and be assured of employment in that field from graduation to retirement.

These structures have undergone rapid external metamorphoses - mostly from the impact of computer technology and its convergence with nanoscale materials, robotics and biotechnology. But at some stage we became complacent, failing to realise that the internal physiology of these structures was not keeping pace with their external appearance. They often looked different on the surface. Their exterior morphology had changed. But inside they remained the same as before in terms of one critical factor: they were never designed to evolve consciously with changing external conditions.

In other words the systems, structures, institutions and practices we fabricate and shape, frameworks that are increasingly ineffective because of their inability to adapt to changing conditions, are now shaping us in ways that were never envisaged or intended.

Think about that. While we continue to view, understand and explain “wicked” problems from within the outmoded belief memes informing old frameworks, any solutions will, of necessity, be captive to those memes. Thus, while at first glance our solutions may appear to have a novel, even revolutionary morphological impact, they are actually only tweaks to conventions applied from within the boundaries of orthodoxy. In many cases this practice of improvement and innovation from within the current episteme can actually be detrimental.

A good example of this phenomenon can be seen in some of the most notable and innovative contemporary business models - models that give the appearance of positive disruption but in practise still sustain the extractive and exploitative components of collaborative consumption. In the final analysis companies like Airbnb and Uber, for example, are toxic to social relationships. They extract value from our social exchanges and transactions but seldom reinvest in the trust and reciprocity that is common in social communities. This often results in considerable social precarity because private companies obtain benefits – as in skilled workers, networks, relationships, and software - for which they do not necessarily pay anything at all.

Given this knowledge, it stands to reason that if we wish to stop the more exploitative procedures to which we have so easily succumbed in order to preserve those things in life that are truly meaningful to us, the things we cherish and value above all else, then the continuous renewal of our world-system and its practices through purposeful change by design is an imperative. In terms of economics and production that means re-framing any such systemic reinvention(s) from one or more “post-capitalist” perspectives.

If genuine transformation only becomes possible when we can escape the traps of orthodox thinking, the issue then becomes one of assuring higher levels of consciousness are brought to bear within the processes of redesign and reinvention. At that stage a deep appreciation of contextual intelligence becomes critical - as does anticipatory foresight.

I am intrigued by four fundamentally different directional paths silently pulling humanity into alternative future states. These paths have richly entangled interdependencies that are neither discrete nor mutually exclusive:

1. One possible path leads to extinction. This is not something we like to think about. It is deeply disturbing. Which does not make it any less real of course. Human life could be extinguished through the impulsive use of nuclear weapons, for example, or by a pestilence that simply wipes out the species across most of the planet. As far as we know human beings are the first and only species to possess the power for self-destruction on such a scale.
2. Another path leads to involuntary yet intensive serfdom. Our tendency to combine hubris with indifference could well result in artificially intelligent (AI) robots servicing our needs up to a point where their intelligence surpasses our own. Even Stephen Hawking seems to be worried about the possibility for AI to go rogue. For technocrats like Raymond Kurzweil, though, such a future is not only probable but highly desirable and exhilarating. Kurzweil obviously does not envisage the same miserable end-game as Hawking does in that regard. An intriguing side-show within this scenario is the science-fiction synthesis of man and machine leading to the cloning of a new species.
3. A third path is one of loss through escalating division and discord. Increased surveillance and repression of individuals by institutions of the state - of the kind we are consistently submitting to these days - are prosecuted until humans become so compliant they have no more freedom of action than social insects. We are already being unwittingly herded in this direction by ill-advised and crude reactions to issues like climate change, the refugee crisis, nation state antagonisms, organised crime and acts of terrorism.
4. The fourth path is utopian by comparison. Here most people are content and at peace with themselves, while our society is in ecological balance with its environment. This is a world of unity and empathy - without war or unnecessary suffering. The problem with this scenario is that most of us want a comfortable life but do not have faith in it any longer as a viable possibility. It is too idealistic for most people to swallow. The human condition has battered us into doubting that escape is now possible.

But here is the real snag. Contemporary humans, with all our anxieties and inhibitions, our relative affluence yet fear of each other, our penchant for competition over cooperation, our love affair with materialism, and our mistrust of social change, almost certainly cannot survive the accelerating structural changes being wrought on us by relentless technological and economic growth. The human family will either be destroyed or liberated.

The thought of the present deteriorating into a vapid perdition most of us do not want cannot endure for much longer without some kind of antiphon emerging from sources that are increasingly awake to the dangers.

Of course only a Luddite would be foolish enough to suggest that new technologies per se are responsible for human conflict and other follies. It is not how we fashion our tools that matters, but the activities involved in using them. The current madness of Pokemon Go, for example, is probably nothing more than a harmless fad. But the deliberate misuse of technology by a technocratic elite that favours technological growth and gadgetry over finding solutions to humanity’s real needs - which are then neglected in service to an interminable cabaret of trivia - has made them an unbearable burden. Once again we are trapped in prisons of our own invention.

And so recovery and rescue, if that is what we want, can only emerge from transformational design which, in its generative state, becomes a form of conscious coevolution.

Our world-system depends upon healthy and productive interactions between the state, business and civic sectors, together with intelligently informed insights and responsible feedback from the media, to sustain and improve our quality of life. But at some point these critical relationships failed to alert us to a “perfect storm” of complications that were brewing.

We did not see that an explosion in the population meant more and more people would be spending their income on material goods. We did not see that rampant consumerism would put tremendous strain on systems that were never designed to cope with such pressures. We did not see that as more and more people began to fall into poverty, and fewer people owned the wealth produced by society, that tensions would worsen. We did not see that as these systems started failing we would begin to blame each other for the consequences. Nor did we see the alienation and disengagement from society of great numbers of people who could envisage little hope for themselves in a future where opportunities for advancement were in decline. The responsibility for all of this cannot be attributed to any single factor. But market economics, unbridled competiton, and the capitalist meme, must surely take their share of the blame.

The introduction of free market economic policies – particularly the mix of deregulated trade, privatisation, and fiscal austerity in the 1960’s - were largely responsible for shaping our interactions around two flawed tenets:

1. Economic growth and the endless accumulation of wealth is a virtue in itself
2. Competition for scarce resources is the most natural way to deliver such growth.

There are inherent problems with this formula – not the least being inequities resulting in an increasing gap between the poor and the well-to-do. Thus in the capitalist market system the role of governments is crucial – intervening on behalf of citizens in ways that allow more people to benefit than would otherwise be the case.

Competitive behaviour is a blight on relevance. But while collaboration is desirable, in fact vital in such a dynamically complex globalised world, existing state institutions are not geared up to collaborate nor to move rapidly. Indeed the fundamental concept underlying the activities of the modern nation state is one of healthy, albeit cautious, competition. This belief spills over into the functioning of international non-government enterprises - like the United Nations or World Trade Organization for example - institutions that even compete internally and with each other. It is therefore highly improbable they could implement strategies of reform or reinvention that would curtail or end their power and influence, even if they were capable – which they have proven many times not to be.

I do not suggest for one moment that such organisations are unaware of the problems facing humanity. On the contrary. Many NGOs routinely establish dedicated research teams to study the most wicked problems facing human life styles and their impacts. However, the value system ingrained within the upper echelons of these organisations commonly results in a distortion of the problems under investigation. These are frequently accompanied by lengthy justifications designed to prevent such research ever being implemented. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the IPCC’s regular reports on climate change offer clear indications that awareness does not necessarily lead to rapid or effective action.

What then? Revolution? War on terror? Massive change? Disruptive innovation? Violent civil disobedience? To some extent all these ideas (including even peaceful civil disobedience and the in-vogue notion of a grand transition) seem so very contentious - so locked into confrontational stereotypes. Quite apart from the high probability of failure in today’s complex world these expressions, and others possessing a similarly joyless impulse, hark back to the vocabulary of struggle, exclusion, discrimination and war. They use the language of apartheid - symbolising discord and fragmentation when what we really need is a dialectic of hope, unity and affiliation.

We cannot constantly go to war with each other in order to institute changes that make the world a better place for everyone. Nor can we keep plunging into aggravated conflict in the deluded belief that peace will emerge as a result. Yes, we need to decide on a new destination. Yes, we need to adjust to a new course. Yes, we need to find new meanings and tell new narratives. But together. If we can possibly avoid it nobody should be left behind. Alienation of one group, one political party, one nation, one ideology, or one religion, from the rest is unacceptable simply because it perpetuates today’s status quo and inevitably leads to further deterioration and the very real danger of collapse.

So let us rise above any cosmetic differences. Let us accept that my DNA is the same as yours - whether you are tanned, Muslim, conservative, a Head of State, an itinerant, smart, really stupid… Or just trying to live your life in the best possible way with the love and support of those closest to you.

Nor will blaming “the system” help. Although we may feel a deep sense of powerlessness in any system that does not meet its own ideals, or acts against our needs, any clash between the “system” and an enlightened public hell bent on activism is bound to make matters worse at some level – either immediately or down the track. Any public-versus-the-state venture could well end up destroying the technological base and social fabric needed to facilitate a better world. And it is certainly not the solution we are looking for if the desired outcome is a more empathically aware human family. So let us remain alert to that fact.

Far better the notion of a mindful uprising – an agenda intent on making the world work better for everyone - arising from a genuine understanding of how large, complex, social systems work and how they can be designed for enhanced effectiveness. The rules in such a manifesto would be simple enough:

• start with a forensic understanding of the whole system so as to locate the most critical design flaws – some might not be that obvious
• think small - intervene modestly at the most appropriate acupuncture point
• avoid instituting a massive insurgency that crashes and burns in the face of opposition
• ensure local relevance – solve our own problems first
• deploy the least disruptive change tactics – the more benign the better
• use a series of gentle nudges to the “system” rather than resort to a single massive change
• focus on shaping a world that works for everyone
• appeal directly to and engage with those affected negatively by the system.

The various emergencies and global crises we are experiencing are not always a direct result of systemic failure. It is true that some systems are collapsing under the sheer weight of a population approaching 7.4 billion. Others were simply designed that way. The idea of in-built obsolescence, for example, was deliberately introduced by Alfred Sloan into the manufacturing process as a way of generating long-term sales volumes by shortening the replacement cycle.

Systems crafted by humans can only produce what we intend for them to produce. If the systems we have in place generate unwanted or unforeseen consequences then we must change the design. If the systems we have inherited constrain us from taking the most effective action then that too is a design flaw. Planned obsolescence will not be eradicated until we are prepared to design for long-term sustainability. Likewise, famine, pollution, over-population, corruption and terrorism, will always be with us until we redesign the systems by removing the constraints that allow these things to occur. Transformation begins with design but does not end there.

I have no doubt that bottled up in each of us is a host of suppressed anxieties we feel about our career, our children’s future, our chances of survival, and the disappointment that flows from feeling trapped and powerless in an uncaring world. Many young people in particular are alienated in one way or another from themselves and from others. This alienation runs deep. It can be intensely unsettling - leading to apathy and a sense of emptiness and futility. In this state we become afraid of our own shadow. Frightened of facing up to our humanity, and unable to trust others, we play games instead.

If this were not serious enough in terms of individuals it is positively alarming at a societal level as it prevents us mobilising to the extent that is needed to transform ourselves and our systems. This is why we vainly cry out for leadership. Usually all we hear these days are the reverberations of such pleas vanishing into a void of incomprehension.

If nothing less than the transformation of human nature is the objective then leadership is certainly critical. By this I do not mean the wholesale restructuring of our social institutions that many call for. That can wait. Nor am I referring to the hollow practices, accompanied by weasel words, effected by individual executives, and that masquerades as leadership in so many of our enterprises.

On the contrary I am referring more to a shared moral impulse - an unwavering integrity that enables wise and mature engagement, the allocation of sufficient intellectual resources, and responsible, rapid, collective decision-making – that we need in order to shape the conditions needed for genuine transformation to occur.

This kind of liberating experience and praxis cannot be mandated. Nor can it be imposed from above. Much will depend on the shifting of investment capital from capitalist schemes to more socially collaborative, value-generating modes of production - along with adequate legal means of protecting these from private appropriation.

There are also far-reaching implications in all of this for governments and the apparatus of provisioning for citizens. When the post-capital economy becomes critical to social well-being the state must begin to perceive itself as a facilitator of individual self-sufficiency, rather than an administrative control mechanism or a mere service-provider. This is far removed from from today’s conventional market-state functionalities.

Of course, new forms of social collaboration such as peer production do not necessarily resolve ingrained injustices in the current world-system - especially those involving race or gender, for example. But they are pioneering a more equitable system of value-creation that transcends the exploitative logics underpinning conventional capitalism. This approach is far more likely to open up new opportunities for social tolerance and empathy than our current system, which is invested in pitting insurrectionary social movements against each other.

In order to maintain the benefits offered by these new approaches we must ensure that in future our most life-critical systems are designed in ways where they are always capable of consciously adapting to changing contextual conditions. In the final analysis I suspect nothing less than the total application of our collective intelligence to these matters matter will be adequate. And as always the deeper question is whether we are wise enough to survive our own success – either by transcending or reinventing those systems that no longer adequately service our needs.

This essay was inspired by the work of my good friend Michel Bauwens - founder of the Peer-2-Peer Foundation and the world's foremost thought-leader in terms of peer production and the commons as a social economy - from whom I have taken ideas and their expression as well as the occasional direct quote from his various writings and lectures. 

Enabling the Human Spirit to Soar Again

In any closed system - like planet Earth - the ecological viability of economic activity is an inextricable component of past and present performance as well as latent potential.

All human activity is reliant upon nature in one form or another. Our industrial economies draw a combination of physical supplies (metals, fish, timber and oil for example) and intangible benefits (such as photosynthesis, pollination and decomposition of waste) from nature before pumping waste back into the environment. Physical laws and constraints we knowingly design into this panarchic framework ultimately determine overall performance of the world-system.

It is pretty clear that if we neglect nature, opting for destruction or depletion of natural resources in order to pursue material affluence, a point will be reached where any malfunctioning within the natural ecosystem will inflict loss, pain and damage back into the economy. Recent extreme weather events are a striking example of how we inadvertently create undesirable feedback loops between economies and the environment - although we hardly ever talk about such events in these terms. In this regard we are witness to an inviolable truth: when nature responds to human excess the economic costs are considerable.

This, of course, is precisely the concern regarding global heating. Extensive burning of fossil fuels by increasing numbers of people over the past century or more, hand in hand with land clearing that has reduced the role of forests as carbon sinks, has caused a considerable build up of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, trapping in heat and disrupting natural climatic cycles.

Clearly there are some profound questions we must ponder. For example, how did we get into the habit of thinking of the economy in isolation from nature? What must change in order for us to be capable of seeing the consequences of future industrial activities with heightened awareness? And how should we best adapt - given that prevention, and possibly even mitigation, have become all but impossible?

Today these questions are self-evident. They are on everyone’s minds. But what if climate change is merely the first, most palpable, instance of adverse feedback between two random factors in a world-system we intentionally constructed and conscientiously maintain? How can we become more conscious of the entangled causation between systemic factors so that future emergencies can be anticipated with greater accuracy? What if the world-system itself (in terms of intentions, assumptions and shared values) is inherently flawed?

With hindsight the trap into which we have fallen over the past few decades is easily expressed. In its most basic form it has two obvious aspects plus a third facet that is, as yet, insufficiently appreciated:

1. Following the industrial revolution most economic models were built on the primary role of "market pricing" as the single most important device for coordinating economic activity. However, much of the natural environment remained in public hands. Lacking a market price, nature was not considered part of the dominant economic paradigm. It fact it was invisible to most economists. Being “external” to the real economy, nature was wittingly excluded from any calculations to do with societal progress.

2. Since the early 20th century almost all economic indicators have paid allegiance to ''national accounts'' with most attention being accorded the "bottom line" of gross domestic product – the market value of all goods and services produced in a country over a certain time. While GDP is a reasonably fair indicator of employment conditions, for example, it fails to take into account the rate we are using up natural resources. Nor does it factor in the cost of any damage economic activities are doing to the environment.

3. By focusing on (mostly technological) solutions to current problems - virtually excluding past decisions and alternative possibilities from serious consideration - we effectively relinquish control of the future. This is a design issue. Alas, it is also a fairly common human folly.

This third element (the lack of foresight) is the wild card in the pack. Not only has it caused the most damage, it allows orthodox wisdom, however irrational, to persist. Indeed one might argue that if our pathological tendency to focus only on present problems could be corrected, and design automatically considered an "expanded now" comprising a landscape of past, present and possible options, the other two factors would not present such an impasse.

Of course, a century ago global economic activity was tiny relative to the vast tracts of the natural world. Unless we had mindfully thought the unthinkable, posing specific questions about the unintended consequences of our actions within the closed system we call Earth, we could not possibly have anticipated that economic activity would grow exponentially over the coming decades, fuelled by a rapidly expanding global population and ever-rising material standards of living. We could not have known how damming rivers, irrigating crops and sinking bores would interrupt the water cycle; how clearing land, running farm animals and growing crops would interfere with soil quality; or how ever-improving technologies would strip our oceans of fish.

Indeed I suspect we only really took stock of our reality when we saw our "blue marble" for the first time - the exquisite beauty and frailty of Earth taken from space in 1972 by the astronauts of Apollo 17.

By paying attention only to the present, by framing current performance as a series of discrete process problems, by disregarding exotic cultures almost entirely - unless it is to pillage their resources, by arrogantly pursuing strategies intended to defy and conquer nature, and by relying on linear, reductionist thinking that accommodates only the most rudimentary methods of systemic inquiry, we have failed to uncover key questions that might have indicated other, more viable, ways forward. We have also escalated the risk of civilizational collapse.

Personally I have no desire to continue wondering why we repeat mistakes that could have been avoided if only we had been more inclined to study our multi-dimensional past. I do not want to spend my time trying to convince the ignorant among us of the need to design the future. On the contrary I want to shift from thoughtful words to mindful action. The ancient Mayan calendars, frequently and willingly misinterpreted by the more paranoid or fearful among us, intimate the potential for humanity to enter a prolonged cycle of cooperation, empathy, prosperity and abundance. But we need to make it happen.

The rationale for my own life's adventure arises from an unconstrained love of the human spirit, a sense of innate curiosity about the future, and the need I feel to help reinvent obsolete models in the design of viable futures where all human knowledge is used to far greater effect. For these reasons, and in a spirit of abiding hope and optimism, I have initiated a global navigational project - code named Wayfinder.

Wayfinding refers to an ancient knowledge tradition that allowed Micronesians to travel vast distances on the open ocean. Using finely-tuned observations of the stars, the sun, the clouds, the ocean swells, and other signs of nature for clues to direction and location of a vessel at sea, these master navigators were voyaging with pinpoint accuracy for thousands of years before the invention of European navigational instruments. By continuously monitoring the environment they knew where they were, relative to where they had come from. Wayfinders held their vessels to be fixed points on a star compass - the art and science of wayfinding enshrined in their ability to visualise a destination until it materialized on the horizon. These mental constructs ensured they did not get lost.

Today, our society is in urgent need of master navigators in addition to a process for finding our way into the future we desire. Having lost sight of where we have come from, and perplexed by current conditions, our future has become unclear and the way confused. Indeed without revised plans and a drastic course correction we risk losing our way completely.

Provisions on our vessel Earth, once plentiful, are now insufficient - demanding that we get to a safe haven fast. Industrial modes of subsistence have become incapable of providing for a human family of seven billion people. Systems we once took for granted - including those which provide us with energy, food, water, a healthy environment and a vibrant economy - are all highly stressed or failing. They were not designed for present circumstances, nor are they viable in their current form. Many of the institutions upon which we rely for sustenance and security are also struggling. Born out of an impulse to compete they are ill-prepared for the cooperation we need to overcome the most perilous dilemmas of our time.

Alternatives are essential. Some can already be detected - just over the horizon. We are beginning to think as one world. An alternative story of the human family is emerging from the fog of uncertainty. This is a story of renewed purpose and unbounded aspirations. A story that embraces cultural diversity, human ingenuity and planetary stewardship. A story attracting more sensitive provisioning and more enduring solutions to the most life-critical issues facing us. Most of all a story demanding our devoted attention - for it is the future story of humanity on Earth.

But where are the modern master navigators with the skills to recalibrate our current course and lead us unerringly to that future? Where can we go to find that rare capability of pragmatism tempered by wisdom, intelligence inspired by creativity?

Imagine an advanced, technologically-sophisticated meeting place – a decision theatre where powerful imaging and information technologies are tuned into detecting (even anticipating) relevant shifts in world-system dynamics. Imagine these technologies have the capability to convert information into a variety of real-time visualizations - maps that allow those so ordained to comprehend, monitor and respond to complex emergent data far more effectively than exists elsewhere.

Now imagine an interconnected network of such "agoras" located in strategic hubs around the world – in Tehran, Kampala, Brasilia, Beijing, Geneva, Singapore, Johannesburg, New Delhi, Canberra and San Francisco perhaps. Imagine, too, community leaders, entrepreneurs, indigenous elders, artists and influencers from all walks of life, and from a mélange of cultures, convening in these decision theatres for one purpose – reconfiguring the current world-system - process by process, issue by issue - so that it is sustainable in every conceivable way and justifiable from every point of view.

Imagine highly-trained curators guiding participants through a unique process of integral inquiry - enabling a synthesized wisdom from past and present traditions of knowledge, intelligence, spirituality, emotions and practices, and capable of transcending present-day problems, to evolve. Imagine cadres of contemporary Wayfinders openly sharing new wisdom in ways that enable more viable systems to be rapidly designed, prototyped and deployed - wherever they are most needed.

Finally, imagine new forms of liquidy democracy being used to refine and deploy new knowledge instantly, in every corner of the world, generating resilient change, helping established agencies to implement alternative policy options, and connecting at the grassroots with social entrepreneurial movements and activities.

What you are imagining is Wayfinder. A politically neutral, internationally-collaborative approach to assuring a future of abundance, radical empathy and viable systems.

Wayfinder is both a planetary nervous system, an autonomic governance mechanism, and a globally-distributed design laboratory whose practice field is the renewal of society’s most life-critical systems. Our intention is to create empathic communities of mind sufficient to supplement, refocus and further the reform ethos of discrete international bodies and sovereign states.

Into this environment we are inviting masters and artists from multiple disciplines and demographics, to experience and design viable futures for humanity and in ways that allow us to consciously evolve the human species. These are the Wayfinders. Their praxis is wayfinding - a deeply engaging process in which their collective energy is devoted to improving the human condition by awakening (in themselves and others) new ways of thinking, doing and being.

Based on the principles of viable living systems Wayfinder connects all sectors of human society, across all physical, religious, political, economic and psychological borders, to consciously advance a radically empathic society with an equitable economy and morally sustainable practices. In essence Wayfinder is a global mechanism for enabling the human spirit to soar once more.

Convergence@Speed

A few years ago I started talking about the emergence of a plausible planetary technoculture resulting from the unpredictable conjunction of a few seminal streams of human invention, and the activities related to them. I was particularly fascinated by the effects of information-based technologies on what we currently do and how we do it – especially when divorced from more serious questions related to why we do it.

But now we also need to add the speed of change as an additional defining factor. Outside of its more everyday use as metaphor there is little current appreciation of the speed of change - still less concerning the conditions the speed of change could generate through technological innovation.

There are a number of significant convergences occurring that will transform human cognition and performance. The convergence of biotechnology, nantechnology and robotics, for example, is already radically transforming healthcare, war, security and manufacturing. Similarly the merging of in-memory computing, the Cloud and device mobility is shifting our capability to access knowledge, anywhere, in real-time – impacting how we interact with each other, undertake business transactions, and move to more participative forms of democracy.

Of course there are other more estoeric intersecting epistemologies that are potentially far more interesting than focusing on computer science and informatics (the convergence of quantum science, indigenous wisdom and spirituality, for example, that could well give rise to a new human cosmology) but these are outside the scope of this article.

How these conjunctions evolve, and how they will overturn everything we take for granted, make for a fascinating study for one overwhelming reason: the perceived rate of technological change is exponential. In other words we will arrive in the future much faster than anticipated. This is not a new phenomenon. One only has to review the time it took to decode the human genome or comprehend the illusion of time created by the exponential growth of a toxic weed in a pond, for example[1]. But it is still so often misconstrued and leads to patterns of human behaviour that lack foresight and wise judgement.

For the most part we cannot readily conceive of change at this magnitude because our intuition about the future tends to be commonly expressed as linear extrapolations of the past or the present. Consequently we tend to ignore, misinterpret (or drastically underplay) the impact of exponential change on our lives. This has huge implications for investors, ethicists, designers, engineers, entrepreneurs and government policy makers, as well as technologists themselves.

Let’s spend a few moments considering what exponential change implies vis-a-vis how we currently think about progress and habitually make decisions based upon assumptions derived from more conventional understandings.

The arithmetic of logarithmic (or exponential) functions is easy enough. Essentially it is a simple formula: when relative growth of any kind (e.g. population growth, compounded interest, resource extraction, inflation or consumption) is a constant measured as a percentage over time, the doubling rate of what we are measuring (in other words the time it takes for a quantity to double in size or value) will be 72 divided by the unit of growth. So for example, if the economy grows at an average 7 per cent per annum it will double over the span of ten years. If the growth rate is an average of 10 per cent per annum then the doubling factor will be just 7 years. And so on…

In this context consider what China has achieved since 1980. The Chinese economy has been growing at an annual rate of 10 per cent for the past 30 years. That means the economy has doubled a total of 4 times over that period. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty during that time. Many new cities have been built. A modern infrastructure of highways and railways has transformed the landscape, opening up the hinterland and making it far easier to travel to the major cities. In 2010, China had 18 million households with an annual income above USD 16,000. By 2020, this number will be 167 million households. That's almost 400 million people! What is more, Chinese brands are now competing with (and out-performing) the world’s best.

Astonishing economic acceleration of this nature is unprecedented on such a scale. But there are always unintended consequences. For example, if you were motoring on the highway between Zhangjiakou and Beijing in late 2010 it would have taken you many days to reach your final destination. Massive traffic jams regularly clog this highway – occasionally stretching to more than 60 miles. On this occasion thousands of commuters were stuck on the road for days, living off water and food sold to them by vendors wandering through the semi-parked cars. Apart from ongoing construction on this highway and the carriage of illicit coal and other materials from Mongolia, it is the explosive growth in car ownership (Beijing alone is adding cars at an astonishing rate of 1,900 every day) that's the most likely cause of this urban nightmare. It has created a paradoxical situation where the number of drivers on Chinese roads now negates any benefit from travelling in cars.

Back to our exponential function. We can apply the same mathematical logic to population growth. In 1986 there were 5 billion people on the planet. The growth rate was just 1.7 per cent per annum, meaning that by 2027 we would have reached 10 billion people. By 1999 the population had reached 6 billion but the growth rate had slowed to 1.3 per cent per annum, meaning that it will take until 2052 to reach 12 billion. That still means we are growing at a rate of 80 million people a year on a planet unable to provide adequately for 7 billion. Problematically most growth is occurring in undeveloped countries that can least afford large populations and where education hardly exists – nations like Burundi, Niger and Uganda.

But the population problem also exists in economically developed countries. In Australia, the city of Melbourne has experienced 1.88 per cent population growth over the past decade. One might regard that as modest growth, but that is not the case. Indeed if growth continues at that rate Melbourne will overtake Sydney in 2028, when each city will have about 5.6 million people. No other city in Australia has ever experienced growth of this size. It has taken city planners completely by surprise (because they presumably did not do the maths) and strained the city's infrastructure and services - adding to road congestion, overcrowding on public transport, increased waiting times in hospital emergency wards, the demand for energy and water, and a host of other undesirable outcomes. All of this in a relatively affluent country where annual immigration numbers are controlled by the Commonwealth government; the total fertility rate, of 1.78 per woman, is below that normally considered to be the replacement rate for a population; and where the potential impacts of exponential population growth on the city should have been apparent and handled differently in terms of systemic urban design.

Obviously we can also apply the same mathematical logic to the extraction of fossil fuels (like oil, gas and coal) the loss of biodiversity, the rate of global warming – and, of course, the increase in computer processing power.

All of which brings us back to the matter in hand: namely the speed at which technologies are converging and the subsequent role they will play in the future. For the astonishing truth is that it is not simply the rate of change in discrete fields or disciplines to which we should remain alert, but also the rate of change in that convergence. It is this speed of change that led US inventor Raymond Kurzweill to predict that the “singularity” (the year in which artificial intelligence exceeds that of humans) will occur at some stage within the next two decades.

The examples to which I have referred should show us that exponential change demands a far more sophisticated approach to systemic design, taking into account many potential features and points of view, while also pondering deeply the social, moral and ethical dimensions of the futures we are creating. All of which is easier said than done, especially when the subject is rampant, seemingly unstoppable, technological invention.

Kurzweill maintains that by 2030 we will be interacting with technologies that are billions of times more powerful than those available today. While this is correct in terms of logarithmic change I can’t help wondering if this is what we really want.

There are three paramount dilemmas we encounter when considering such possibilities as those anticipated by Kurzweill. The first has to do with distinctions between fate (the inescapable future) and desire (the preferred future). The second concerns the inability of human minds to imagine beyond what is known through experience and to translate these imaginings into a design capability. The third raises the issue of morality. In the end all three dilemmas relate to our intentions – the territory where the most difficult choices must be made.

1. The enigma of fate and desire

Depending upon the culture in which one is literate, the potential for shaping events is taken either to be severely limited (i.e. it is the role of a higher intelligence) or theoretically infinite (i.e. mankind is creator and capable of anything). Most of us occupy a space somewhere in between these two extremes.

For me, as a Buddhist and a practising futurist, the main problem I have with the kind of positivist determinism confidently proclaimed by many scientists and technologists is the irrefutable inevitability accorded most technological expressions of the future. Currently there seems to be a huge disconnect between what convergent technologies can potentially bring to humanity, and what we want those things to be. Nor are there many opportunities to discuss or debate such issues.

The notion of a reinvented species of humanoid with super intelligence in which humans can finally discard their earthbound carcases holds no joy for me. Nor do I believe there is anything inevitable about this evolution.

2. Imagining beyond the event horizon

Envisaging how our lives could be so utterly different from how they currently manifest is problematic for most of us. Other than artists and other visionaries we tend to construct our “probable” futures from linear extrapolations of present circumstances and past memories. This is the “here and now” of our daily experience and it undoubtedly limits our ability to step into a place of infinite possibilities – an “expanded” now compressing all past, present and possible options. One of the reasons Steve Jobs was not interested in asking customers what they wanted from Apple was because they had little idea of what was actually feasible. They did not know what they wanted until they could feel and see it in their hands and play with it. In other words they could not see beyond a particular event horizon.

Apart from those rare individuals who perceive the world from an altogether higher plane of awareness, there are several accepted ways of amplifying human creativity and imagination. Using hallucinatory drugs, for example, or accessing new tools such as virtual reality, allow us to perceive possibilities that would have been previously barred from us. Few people have access to simulation facilities and the immersive experiences these provide, however, as most are still privately-owned or used purely for entertainment purposes.

Perhaps we need to think more seriously about investing in the capability for the expansion of human imagination as a pre-requisit for more sophisticated social designs. Obviously an increased capacity for imaginative cognition may ultimately be provided by the technology itself. But by then it will be too late to influence the design of the technology and many ethical concerns will possibly have been overlooked.

3. The Moral Dimension

The moral issues, including many ethical questions that require resolution and will have a considerable bearing upon the various choices that may need to be made, have incredible consequences and are too important not to be considerd as part of the original impulse for design of any socio-technological ecosystem.

Meanwhile the inexorable tide of technological innovation that sweeps everyting before it gives us little time for any considered thought on these matters. For example, some clusters of transformative technologies could improve the human condition by prolonging life, enabling the human-machine interface, and eliminating disease. One might consider these critical to humanity’s future did they not exacerbate the population problem. It is ironic that most of what we regard as being good for humanity (medicine, peace, sanitation and law and order for example) actually worsen the population problem, while an alternative strategy for resolving the problem, (by promoting conflict and disease and encouraging murder for example) is morally obscene.

 

 

---

[1] If a toxic weed doubles every day and covers the entire surface of the pond in 30 days, then it wil only cover half of the pond’s surface on day 29. This, of course, is part of the reason we see so little action to combat climate change. Looking at it today doesn't seem to be so bad. Unfortunately we do not see past the 29th day to tomorrow!

The Third Industrial Revolution

Our industrial civilization is at a crossroads. Oil and the other fossil fuel energies that make up the industrial way of life are sunsetting, and the technologies made from and propelled by these energies are antiquated. The entire industrial infrastructure built off of fossil fuels is aging and in disrepair. The result is that unemployment is rising to dangerous levels all over the world. Governments, businesses and consumers are awash in debt and living standards are declining everywhere. A record one billion human beings - nearly one seventh of the human race - face hunger and starvation. Worse, climate change from fossil fuel-based industrial activity looms on the horizon, imperiling our own species’ very ability to survive.

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in the summer of 2008, governments, the business community, and civil society have been embroiled in a fierce debate over how to restart the global economy. While austerity measures and fiscal, labor, and market reforms will all be necessary, they are not sufficient to re-grow the economy. Let me explain by way of an anecdote. Just months after arriving in office, the new Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, asked me to come to Berlin to help her administration address the question of how to create new jobs and grow the German economy in the twenty-first century. I began my remarks by asking the chancellor, “How do you grow the German economy, the EU economy, or, for that matter, the global economy, in the last stages of a great energy era and an industrial revolution built on it?”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Second Industrial Revolution is dying and that industrial induced CO2 emissions are threatening the viability of life on Earth. What we need now is a bold new economic narrative that can take us into a sustainable post-carbon future. Finding that new vision requires an understanding of the technological forces that precipitate the profound transformations in society.

A New Economic Narrative

The great economic revolutions in history occur when new communication technologies converge with new energy systems. New energy revolutions make possible more expansive and integrated trade. Accompanying communication revolutions manage the new complex commercial activities made possible by the new energy flows. In the 19th century, cheap steam powered print technology and the introduction of public schools gave rise to a print-literate work force with the communication skills to manage the increased flow of commercial activity made possible by coal and steam power technology, ushering in the First Industrial Revolution. In the 20th century, centralized electricity communication - the telephone, and later radio and television - became the communication medium to manage a more complex and dispersed oil, auto, and suburban era, and the mass consumer culture of the Second Industrial Revolution.

Today, Internet technology and renewable energies are beginning to merge to create a new infrastructure for a Third Industrial Revolution (TIR) that will change the way power is distributed in the 21st century. In the coming era, hundreds of millions of people will produce their own renewable energy in their homes, offices, and factories and share green electricity with each other in an “Energy Internet” just like we now generate and share information online.

The establishment of a Third Industrial Revolution [TIR] infrastructure will create thousands of new businesses and millions of jobs and lay the basis for a sustainable global economy in the 21st century. However, let me add a cautionary note. Like every other communication and energy infrastructure in history, the various pillars of a Third Industrial Revolution must be laid down simultaneously or the foundation will not hold. That’s because each pillar can only function in relationship to the others.

The five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution are (1) shifting to renewable energy; (2) transforming the building stock of every continent into micro–power plants to collect renewable energies on-site; (3) deploying hydrogen and other storage technologies in every building and throughout the infrastructure to store intermittent energies; (4) using Internet technology to transform the power grid of every continent into an energy internet that acts just like the Internet (when millions of buildings are generating a small amount of renewable energy locally, on-site, they can sell surplus green electricity back to the grid and share it with their continental neighbors); and (5) transitioning the transport fleet to electric plug-in and fuel cell vehicles that can buy and sell green electricity on a smart, continental, interactive power grid.

The creation of a renewable energy regime, loaded by buildings, partially stored in the form of hydrogen, distributed via a green electricity Internet, and connected to plug-in, zero-emission transport, opens the door to a Third Industrial Revolution. The entire system is interactive, integrated, and seamless. When these five pillars come together, they make up an indivisible technological platform—an emergent system whose properties and functions are qualitatively different from the sum of its parts. In other words, the synergies between the pillars create a new economic paradigm that can transform the world.

The public/private financing of the Third Industrial Revolution infrastructure build-out across the world will be at the very top of the agenda for the international banking and financial community in the first half of the 21st century.

The Shift To Lateral Power

The Third Industrial Revolution is the last of the great Industrial Revolutions and will lay the foundational infrastructure for an emerging collaborative age. Its completion will signal the end of a two-hundred-year commercial saga characterized by industrious thinking, entrepreneurial markets, and mass labor workforces and the beginning of a new era marked by collaborative behavior, social networks and professional and technical workforces. In the coming half century, the conventional, centralized business operations of the First and Second Industrial Revolutions will increasingly be subsumed by the distributed business practices of the Third Industrial Revolution; and the traditional, hierarchical organization of economic and political power will give way to lateral power organized nodally across society.

Lateral power is a new force in the world. Steve Jobs and the other innovators of his generation took us from expensive centralized main-frame computers, owned and controlled by a handful of global companies, to cheap desktop computers and cell phones, allowing billions of people to connect up with one another in peer-to-peer networks in the social spaces of the internet. The democratization of communications has enabled nearly one third of the human population on earth to share music, knowledge, news and social life on an open playing field, marking one of the great evolutionary advances in the history of our species.

But as impressive as this accomplishment is, it is only half of the story. The new, green energy industries are improving performance and reducing costs at an ever accelerating rate. And just as the generation and distribution of information is becoming nearly free, renewable energies will also. The sun, wind, biomass, geothermal heat and hydropower are available to everyone and, like information, are never used up.

When Internet communications manage green energy, every human being on earth becomes his or her own source of power, both literally and figuratively. Billions of human beings sharing their renewable energy laterally on a continental green electricity internet creates the foundation for the democratization of the global economy and a more just society.

Distributed Capitalism

Energy regimes shape the nature of civilizations - how they are organized, how the fruits of commerce and trade are distributed, how political power is exercised, and how social relations are conducted. To understand how the new Third Industrial Revolution infrastructure is likely to dramatically change the distribution of economic power in the twenty-first century, it is helpful to step back and examine how the fossil fuel–based First and Second Industrial Revolutions reordered power relations over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Fossil fuels - coal, oil, and natural gas - are elite energies for the simple reason that they are found only in select places. They require a significant military investment to secure their access and continual geopolitical management to assure their availability. They also require top down command and control systems and massive concentrations of capital to move them from underground to the end users. The ability to centralize production and distribution - the essence of modern capitalism - is critical to the effective performance of the system as a whole. The centralized energy infrastructure, in turn, sets the conditions for the rest of the economy, encouraging similar business models across every sector.

Virtually all of the other critical industries that emerged from the oil culture - modern finance, telecommunications, automotive, power and utilities, and commercial construction - and that feed off of the fossil fuel spigot were similarly predisposed to bigness in order to achieve their own economies of scale. And, like the oil industry, they require huge sums of capital to operate and are organized in a centralized fashion.

Three of the four largest companies in the world today are oil companies - Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, and BP. Underneath these giant energy companies are some five hundred global companies representing every sector and industry - with a combined revenue of $22.5 trillion, which is the equivalent of one-third of the world’s $62 trillion GDP - that are inseparably connected to and dependent on fossil fuels for their very survival.

The emerging Third Industrial Revolution, by contrast, is organized around distributed renewable energies that are found everywhere and are, for the most part, free - sun, wind, hydro, geothermal heat, biomass, and ocean waves and tides. These dispersed energies will be collected at millions of local sites and then bundled and shared with others over a continental green electricity internet to achieve optimum energy levels and maintain a high-performing, sustainable economy. The distributed nature of renewable energies necessitates collaborative rather than hierarchical command and control mechanisms.

This new lateral energy regime establishes the organizational model for the countless economic activities that multiply from it. A more distributed and collaborative industrial revolution, in turn, invariably leads to a more distributed sharing of the wealth generated.

The extraordinary capital costs of owning and operating giant centralized telephone, radio, and television communications technology and fossil fuel and nuclear power plants in markets is giving way to the new “distributed capitalism,” in which the low entry costs in lateral networks make it possible for virtually everyone to become a potential entrepreneur and collaborator, creating and sharing information and energy in open commons. Witness twenty something young men creating Google, Facebook, and other global information networks, literally in their college dorm rooms and thousands of small businesses converting their buildings to green micro power plants and connecting with one another in regional electricity networks.

What I am describing is a fundamental change in the way capitalism functions that is now unfolding across the economy and reshaping how companies conduct business. The shrinking of transaction costs in the music business and publishing field with the emergence of file sharing of music, eBooks, and news blogs, is wreaking havoc on these traditional industries. We can expect similar disruptive impacts as the diminishing transaction costs of green energy allow manufacturers, service industries, and retailers to produce and share goods and services in vast economic networks with very little outlay of financial capital.

Democratizing Manufacturing

For example, consider manufacturing. Nothing is more suggestive of the industrial way of life than highly capitalized, giant, centralized factories equipped with heavy machines and attended by blue-collar workforces, churning out mass-produced products on assembly lines. But what if millions of people could manufacture batches or even single manufactured items in their own homes or businesses, cheaper, quicker, and with the same quality control as the most advanced state-of the-art factories on earth?

While the TIR economy allows millions of people to produce their own virtual information and energy, a new digital manufacturing revolution now opens up the possibility of following suit in the production of durable goods. In the new era, everyone can potentially be their own manufacturer as well as their own internet site and power company. The process is called 3-D printing; and although it sounds like science fiction, it is already coming online, and promises to change the entire way we think of industrial production. Think about pushing the print button on your computer and sending a digital file to an inkjet printer, except, with 3-D printing, the machine runs off a three-dimensional product. Using computer aided design, software directs the 3-D printer to build successive layers of the product using powder, molten plastic, or metals to create the material scaffolding. The 3-D printer can produce multiple copies just like a photocopy machine. All sorts of goods, from jewelry to mobile phones, auto and aircraft parts, medical implants, and batteries are being “printed out” in what is being termed “additive manufacturing,” distinguishing it from the “subtractive manufacturing,” which involves cutting down and pairing off materials and then attaching them together.

3-D entrepreneurs are particularly bullish about additive manufacturing, because the process requires as little as 10 percent of the raw material expended in traditional manufacturing and uses less energy than conventional factory production, thus greatly reducing the cost.

In the same way that the Internet radically reduced entry costs in generating and disseminating information, giving rise to new businesses like Google and Facebook, additive manufacturing has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of producing hard goods, making entry costs sufficiently lower to encourage hundreds of thousands of mini manufacturers—small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) - to challenge and potentially outcompete the giant manufacturing companies that were at the center of the First and Second Industrial Revolution economies.

Already, a spate of new start-up companies are entering the 3-D printing market with names like Within Technologies, Digital Forming, Shape Ways, Rapid Quality Manufacturing, Stratasys, Bespoke Innovations, 3D Systems, MakerBot Industries, Freedom of Creation, LGM, and Contour Crafting and are determined to reinvent the very idea of manufacturing in the Third Industrial era.

The energy saved at every step of the digital manufacturing process, from reduction in materials used, to less energy expended in making the product, when applied across the global economy, adds up to a qualitative increase in energy efficiency beyond anything imaginable in the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. When the energy used to power the production process is renewable and also generated on site, the full impact of a lateral Third Industrial Revolution becomes strikingly apparent. Since approximately 84 percent of the productivity gains in the manufacturing and service industries are attributable to increases in thermodynamic efficiencies - only 14 percent of productivity gains are the result of capital invested per worker - we begin to grasp the significance of the enormous surge in productivity that will accompany the Third Industrial Revolution and what it will mean for society.

Near Zero Cost Marketing and Logistics

The democratization of manufacturing is being accompanied by the tumbling costs of marketing. Because of the centralized nature of the communication technologies of the first and second industrial revolutions - newspapers, magazines, radio, and television - marketing costs were high and favored giant firms who could afford to devote substantial funds to market their products and services. The internet has transformed marketing from a significant expense to a negligible cost, allowing start ups and small and medium size enterprises to market their goods and services on internet sites that stretch over virtual space, enabling them to compete and even out compete many of the giant business enterprises of the 21st century.

Consider Etsy, a brash, web start-up company that has taken off in the past seven years. Etsy was founded by a young New York University graduate, Rob Kalin, who made furniture in his apartment. Frustrated that he had no way to connect with potential buyers interested in hand-crafted furniture, Kalin teamed up with a few friends and put up a website designed to bring individual craftsmen of all kinds, from around the world, together with prospective buyers. The site has become a global virtual showroom, where millions of buyers and thousands of sellers from more than fifty countries are connecting, breathing new life into craft production—an art that had largely disappeared with the advent of modern industrial capitalism.

Connecting multitudes of sellers and buyers in virtual space is almost free. By replacing all of the middlemen - from wholesalers to retailers - with a distributed virtual network of sellers and buyers and eliminating the transaction costs that are marked up at every stage in the marketing process, Etsy has created a new global craft bazaar that scales laterally rather than hierarchically, and markets goods collaboratively rather than top-down.

Etsy brings another dimension to the market - the personalization of relationships between seller and buyer. The website hosts chat rooms, coordinates online craft shows, and conducts seminars, allowing sellers and buyers to interact, exchange ideas, customize products, and create social bonds that can last a lifetime. Giant, global companies mass-producing standardized products on assembly lines operated by anonymous workforces can’t compete with the kind of intimate one-to-one relationship between artisan and patron.

Although still in its infancy, Etsy is a quickly growing enterprise. In 2011, Etsy’s sales topped nearly $500 million. In a recent conversation, Kalin told me that his mission is to help foster “empathic consciousness” in the global economic arena and lay the foundation for a more inclusive society. His vision of connecting up “millions of local living economies that will create a sense of community in the economy again” is the essence of the Third Industrial Revolution model. Etsy is only one of hundreds of global Internet companies that are bringing together producers and consumers in virtual marketing spaces and, in the process, democratizing marketing costs across the global economy.

As the new 3-D technology becomes more widespread, on site, just in time customized manufacturing of products will also reduce logistics costs with the possibility of huge energy savings. The cost of transporting products will plummet in the coming decades because an increasing array of goods will be produced locally in thousands of micro-manufacturing plants and transported regionally by trucks powered by green electricity and hydrogen generated on site.

The lateral scaling of the Third Industrial Revolution allows small and medium size enterprises to flourish. Still, global companies will not disappear. Rather, they will increasingly metamorphose from primary producers and distributers to aggregators. In the new economic era, their role will be to coordinate and manage the multiple networks that move commerce and trade across the value chain.

New Business Models and Jobs in the 21st Century

Germany is leading the way into the new economic era. The Federal Government has teamed up with six regions across Germany to test the introduction of an energy internet that will allow tens of thousands of German businesses and millions of home owners to collect renewable energies on site, store them in the form of hydrogen, and share green electricity across Germany in a smart energy internet. Entire communities are transforming their commercial and residential buildings into green micro-power plants. To date, more than 1 million buildings in Germany have been converted into partial green micro power plants. Companies like Siemens, Bosch and Daimler are creating sophisticated new IT software, hardware, appliances and vehicles, that will merge distributed Internet communication with distributed energy, to create smart buildings, infrastructure, and green mobility for the cities of the future.

The transition to the Third Industrial Revolution will require a wholesale reconfiguration of the entire economic infrastructure of each country, creating millions of jobs and countless new goods and services. Nations will need to invest in renewable energy technology on a massive scale; convert millions of buildings into green micro power plants; embed hydrogen and other storage technology throughout the national infrastructure; lay down a green energy internet; and transform the automobile from the internal combustion engine to electric plug-in and fuel cell cars.

The remaking of each nation’s infrastructure and the retooling of industries is going to require a massive retraining of workers on a scale matching the professional and vocational training at the onset of the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. The new high tech workforce of the Third Industrial Revolution will need to be skilled in renewable energy technologies, green construction, IT and embedded computing, nanotechnology, sustainable chemistry, fuel-cell development, digital power grid management, hybrid electric and hydrogen-powered transport and hundreds of other technical fields.

Entrepreneurs and managers will need to be educated to take advantage of cutting edge business models, including distributed and collaborative research and development strategies, open source and networked commerce, performance contracting, shared savings agreements, and sustainable low-carbon logistics and supply chain management. The skill levels and managerial styles of the Third Industrial Revolution workforce will be qualitatively different from those of the workforce of the Second Industrial Revolution.

The lateral scaling of the Third Industrial Revolution shifts the fulcrum of power from centralized global companies to distributed small and medium size enterprise networks. The rapid decline in transaction costs brought on by The Third Industrial Revolution are leading to the democratization of information, energy, manufacturing, marketing, and logistics, and the ushering in of a new era of distributed capitalism that is likely to change the very way we think of commercial life. The Third Industrial Revolution offers the hope that we can arrive at a sustainable post-carbon era by mid-century. We have the science, the technology, and the game plan to make it happen. Now it is a question of whether we will recognize the economic possibilities that lie ahead and muster the will to get there in time.

This article was written by Jeremy Rifkin and is reprinted here with his permission. Jeremy is the author of The New York Times best selling book, The Third Industrial Revolution, How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. He is an adviser to the European Union and to heads of state around the world. He is a senior lecturer at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program at the University of Pennsylvania and the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C.

Economies of Scope

The competitive dynamics of industrial capitalism are well-known, and they are all about economies of scale. Producing more of a unit enables companies to drive the unit price down and thus outcompete the competition. Multinational corporations and global brands now have very complex value chains, in which various parts of a product are mass-produced in different parts of the world.

Nevertheless, the system has obvious weaknesses. One weakness is that it tends towards monocultures, both agricultural and industrial. An example is the dependence of the Chinese coastal economy on exports.

Because competition drives prices down the dominant western players changed their strategy in the 1980s. They abandoned costly western workers, moved low-profit industrial production to low-wage countries, and expanded the intellectual property (IP) regime using patents, copyrights and trademarks. As Thijs Markus has written, if you want to sell $5 shoes for $150 in the West, you'd better have one heck of a repressive IP regime in place. Hence the need for SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and other attempts to criminalise the right to share.

But there is, of course, a more fundamental problem: the whole system of globalising the advantages of scale fundamentally rests on cheap global transportation and, thus, the continuous availability of fossil fuels. Once the era of cheap oil ends it is more than likely that the whole regime will come tumbling down. Competing on the basis of scale, even if it is still effective today, ultimately can only be played by those who do not care about the destruction of our planet. What game can the others play? Rising fossil fuel prices mean that innovation and competition have to find another outlet.

Actually, it's about inventing another game altogether.

This type of economic transition has played out before. In the late fifth century, as the Roman Empire was coming to an end, Christian communities prefigured the values of a coming era of relocalisation based not on an economy of scale, but on an economy of scope - in which the cost of production becomes lower through shared infrastructure costs.

As the Roman Empire decayed and supplies of gold and slaves became gradually more problematic, the smarter landowners started to free their slaves, but bound them contractually to the land as "coloni", or serfs. Meanwhile, the increasingly taxed and bankrupted freeholders sought protection from the very same landowners. Thus, one side of the equation was localisation, since the system could no longer bear the global scale of the empire. But the new post-Roman system also invented a new system of innovation, based on the advantages of scope, not scale.

Indeed, as the cities were emptying out, the Christians invented monasteries as a new type of agrarian knowledge centre. The Christian Church actually functioned as a global open design community. Monks and manuscripts travelled, and with it the many innovations of the worker-monks. While Europe initially decayed as the remnants of the Roman empire crumbled, eventually, after the first European social revolution in the 10th century, this new system created the seeds for the first medieval industrial revolution.

Between the 10th and 13th centuries, Europe started blossoming once again, based on a unified culture of knowledge. Its population doubled and its beautiful cities, many of which were run democratically by the guild councils, grew again. Peer-to-peer universities were founded in Bologna in the 11th century. This first renaissance was based on economies of scope, a unified body of knowledge that European intellectuals and artisans could build on. The guilds may have had their secrets, but they took them with them wherever cathedrals were built.

The same experience happened in 1989 when isolated Cuba was no longer able to rely on the Soviet system's advantages of scale. The Cuban crisis of 1989 prefigured the current world situation: the country experienced its very own peak oil situation when the Soviets abruptly stopped delivering oil at below world market prices.

While the Cubans initially went back to using donkeys, its government launched several interesting initiatives. It allowed some entrepreneurship by granting more autonomy to local agricultural co-operatives, and mobilised the population's grassroots knowledge. But perhaps most importantly, Cuba created several agricultural institutes with the goal of spreading local innovations. Whatever the other faults of the country's totalitarian system, this open design experiment succeeded beyond all expectations. As documented by Bill McKibben and a number of documentaries, Cuba now produces more nutritious and organic food, using less fossil fuel, because sharing knowledge created economies of scope. Agricultural innovations could spread quickly across the country and be adopted by everyone.

Indeed, economies of scale work well in periods of energy ascent, when the supply of energy is plentiful and increasing, but work less well in periods of energy descent. In these circumstances, economies of scope are needed. These types of economies are exactly what peer production (which encompasses open knowledge, free culture, free software, open and shared designs, open hardware and distributed manufacturing) is all about.

Our current system is based on the belief of infinite growth and the endless availability of resources, despite the fact that we live on a finite planet. Let's call this pseudo-abundance. The system also holds that innovations should be privatised and only available by permission, or for a hefty price, making sharing of knowledge and culture a crime, Let's call this enforced artificial scarcity.

Peer production methodologies are based on the exact opposite tenets. Peer production communities believe that knowledge is a commons for all to share. Therefore no innovation can be withheld from the human population as a whole. In fact, withholding a life-saving or world-saving innovation is seen as distinctly unethical. Peer production designs for distribution, inclusion and small-scale fabrication. Planned obsolescence, which is a feature and not a bug of the current system, is totally alien to peer production logics. In other words, sustainability is a feature of open design communities, not a bug.

So what are the economies of scope of this new age? They come in two flavours: the mutualising of knowledge and the mutualising of tangible resources.

The first principle is easy to understand. When an individual doesn't know something, it's more likely that a community, whether local or virtual, does know. Hence, the mutualising of knowledge and crowd-accelerated innovation are now well-known features of the collaborative economy. But the advantage of scope is created when that knowledge is shared and can be used by others. With this social innovation the cost of production that depends on knowledge can be dramatically reduced.

Take the example of the Nutrient Dense Project. This global community of agrarian workers and citizen scientists experiments with better nutrients to obtain better quality food. They carry out joint research on nutrients in various soils and climate zones, which can benefit not just the participating community but, potentially, the whole of humankind. Strategies based on privatising intellectual property cannot obtain such advantages of scope - at least not at that level. Or take the example of the urban homestead of the Dervaes family in Los Angeles who managed to produce 6,000 pounds of food annually on a tiny city plot. Because they share their productivity innovations many other people have learned how to improve their own lots.

The second principle, of sharing physical resources, is exemplified by the trend towards collaborative consumption. The general idea is the same. I may lack a certain tool, skill or service, but it is likely that someone else in a community has it, and that other person could share, rent or barter it. There's no need to all possess the same tool if we can access it when we need it. Hence the proliferation of peer-to-peer marketplaces.

Let's take an illustrative example: car-sharing. Car-sharing projects can be mutualised through the intermediary of a private company which owns the cars (like ZipCar), through peer-to-peer marketplaces that link car users to one another (like RelayRides), or through public entities (like Autolib, in Paris). But they all achieve economies of scope. According to a study cited by ZipCar, for every rented car there are 15 fewer owned cars on the road. Furthermore, car-sharing members drove 31 per cent less than when they owned a vehicle. So, in 2009 alone, car-sharing diminished global carbon dioxide emissions by nearly half a million tonnes.

What will the new system look like if economies of scope become the norm, replacing economies of scale as the primary driver of the economy? Global open design communities could be accompanied by a global network of micro-factories producing locally, such as the ones that open-source car companies like Local Motors and Wikispeed are proposing.

This would require organisations to organise their material activities in order to minimise the common costs of the various networks and not just in terms of sharing knowledge. In other words, who will play the role that the Catholic Church and its roaming monks played in the Middle Ages? This was not just an open design community but an effective material organisation giving leadership to a whole continent-wide cultural sphere. Do we have a potential peer-to-peer version of this that can operate globally? The answer to this question will be for a future article.

Michel Bauwens is a theorist, writer and a founder of the Peer-to-Peer Foundation. He is also an Honorary Fellow of the Asian Foresight Institute. This essay was first published in the opinion pages of Al Jazeera on the 22^nd March 2012 and is reproduced here with the author’s permission.