I recently gave a carefully considered answer on Quora, one of my last, to which someone responded simply, “Keep dreaming”.
I don’t object to criticism; indeed, we consider it vital to improvement in a systematic approach. Cynicism, however, is a mindset that offers unthoughtful hostility to new ideas, especially those proposing improvements.
That comment wasn’t the reason I’m leaving Quora. The reason is that, looking back over years in which I’ve made thousands of postings, very few have led to meaningful interactions and fewer still to new alliances. The final experience was when I spent many hours preparing a response to a question from a Verified Quora user.
Verification on Quora is not generally available. It is offered only to celebrities, and then only–supposedly–after Quora’s inspection of government-issued ID. So I trusted their representation that this was, indeed, the individual in question.
Subsequent private interaction persuaded me that, in fact, this was not the person, and that therefore I cannot trust Quora.
In it, historian Rutger Bregman highlights the real-world case of a group of boys marooned together on an island. It turned out in a very positive manner; entirely different than the cynicism of Lord of The Flies. Yet, somehow, it’s Lord of the Flies being taught in high schools, not the Boys of Ata.
To be clear, we’re not opposed to for-profit enterprises or to capitalism as a principle. We believe that ACS will become the crowning glory of capitalism, eventually completing it into what Adam Smith envisioned as a world of “universal opulence”, where people continue to play capitalist games as they may please, consistent with a given society’s Charter. (We expect that, like Lewis Carroll’s Cheshire Cat, capitalism will over time become more and more gamified and less and less significant in any practical sense, until eventually all that remains is the smile.)
However, those who favor competitive capitalism, as opposed to monopoly or oligopoly, will recognize that the label of “capitalism”, like nearly all labels in the modern world, can be and has been hijacked to serve particular narrow ideological purposes. For example, even though some like to label the Scandinavian countries as “socialist”, that is false. They are–being descriptive and not ideological– social democracies with capitalist economic systems.
Any system in which the residents decide voluntarily and consensually how that system operates in a manner respectful of others is agreeable to us, and potentially could become ACS.
In truth, there are no purely “capitalist” systems on Earth. Well, almost none.
Recently, some “for-profit” charter cities have emerged, generally in specific venues designated as politically and economically free zones under contract with existing nation-states. In this design feature of a long-term lease with independent government, similar to Hong Kong under its agreement with Britain, we are aligned.
That said, using Prospera, a for-profit libertarian city on coastal Honduras as a representative example, there are many significant differences:
LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Prospera. Has a 4,202 page set of “laws” that one must agree to uphold, merely to enter the city.
ACS. Each ACS will have its own Charter, a statement of Principles which all of its residents will swear (or solemnly affirm) to support. Visitors will similarly affirm, for the limited and specified duration of their visit. (We cannot imagine any Charter exceeding a few pages, though a body of plainly stated and briefly worded laws will also be enacted, always consistent with the Charter.)
SOURCES OF INCOME
Prospera. Most of their income comes from allowing people to incorporate businesses domiciled legally in Prospera that don’t actually exist in any physical form. While such businesses may be legally valid and even ethical, this is rife with potential for abuse.
Further, Prospera disrespects certain laws of their host country in favor of profit. (Example: a 14-story building when its host country Honduras caps building heights at 7 stories. Granted, this was contractually allowed. But is it respectful?)
All profit stays in the hands of the businesspeople of Prospera, or the owners of Prospera, not the host country, so it’s extractive.
ACS. We favor a commitment to a mutually respectful, mutually beneficial and long-term oriented relationship with each such host country, where the establishing agreement is viewed more in the Japanese manner of a source from which understandings evolve rather than as something cast in stone, awaiting litigation to settle differences, per the American legal model.
Each ACS will be founded with at least two different sources of revenue flowing from that ACS to its host country: (1) A long-term (e.g. 99 year) lease fee, or purchase price, for the land, and (2) An annual payment from the gross revenues of the ACS to the host. We envision this as 3% of the revenues.
In addition, we see each ACS as becoming a major tourist destination, with by way of example six-star restaurants offering gourmet cuisine available nowhere else in the world. This will become possible due to local, automated greenhouse growing of a number of the 1,800 fruits and vegetables now available for cultivation but not cultivated due to difficulties in growing, transportation, or storage. Only about 200 fruits and vegetables are currently grown commercially. Difficulties in growing can be greatly reduced through automated 24/7 use of sensors, robots, and AIs governing the robots; all supplemented by humans who enjoy the hobby of tending plants. Transportation and storage issues disappear with food locally grown, then harvested for immediate consumption.
LEGAL SYSTEM
Prospera. Doesn’t have a court system, but rather an arbitration board. We are uncertain how they handle those found at fault, but a for-profit jail with very long sentences for infractions considered minor elsewhere would not be against their principles. (Note that, in the US, for-profit prisons are not only a major industry, but are allowed to pay lobbyists and make campaign donations to lawmakers who then legislate into existence new crimes or lengthen the prison sentences for existing crimes. This is a perversion of justice, by any reasonable and caring understanding.)
ACS. Each ACS will have its own judicial system, with an emphasis on speedy, fair hearings (meaning: the same treatment for all, regardless of wealth or connections). In addition, the whole system will emphasize prevention, restoration, remediation, and atonement.
Never will justice be punitive, with arrest and segregation from the population–when necessary–handled with compassion and respect.
The presumption in ACS is that most conflicts are misunderstandings. Arbitration will be available, with judges as required. Given that all necessities will be provided to all by the automated systems of production, theft will be rare. Rather than heavy-handed laws and regulations, ACS will emphasize nudges toward behaviors consistent with its Charter, both through cultural aspects and use of complementary currencies.
CULTURE
Prospera. It appears that, in Prospera, anything not expressly prohibited by its 4,202 pages of laws is permitted. This would presumably, by way of example, include such things as: garish or jarring public-facing decorations or architecture, odd clothing (or nudity), smoking, loudness, and so forth. (Caveat: we haven’t read those laws, and we suspect that almost no one does.)
ACS. Everything in ACS will be established through consensus of its initial residents, then evolve based upon changes to its laws and its Charter (rare and difficult, but much easier to change than the US Constitution) made by the Citizens, who will be its government.
ACS will not be privately owned societies, but rather each will exist under a legal compact valid under international law. ACS will support private ownership of land, of means of production, and of objects and enterprises, consistent with its Charter. All activities will be permitted that are not prohibited by the Charter or by a specific law subordinate to the Charter.
TRANSPARENCY
Prospera. There is apparently zero transparency in Prospera. This leads to many issues with trust.
ACS. Everything not expressly designated as Private will, by default, be public. Public means transparent. To assure safety of the young, the elderly, and other at-risk persons, there will be universal surveillance in designated Public areas, with surveillance in Private areas only by consent of all adults present or a particular court-issued warrant. All financial transactions will be electronic and traceable, to minimize tax evasion, and thereby support very low tax rates.
CONCLUSION
Prospera aims to increase the wealth of already wealthy people by circumventing existing government laws and regulations, and by exporting profits out of the country. There will be some wealth generated for citizens of the host country, but it will be a fraction of the whole.
ACS aims to increase the prosperity of all residents (noting that Citizen is an office, hard-earned and available to all residents). By giving to the host country a fixed percentage of its gross revenues, as well as including selected elements of the host country’s culture, ACS aims to create a permanent partnership valuable for both sides. In addition, certain citizens of the host country who wish to help found that particular ACS will receive the benefits of living there, provided they abide by its Charter.
Residents of ACS will found numerous corporations, headquartered in the ACS, enjoying low, fixed tax rates and streamlined regulations–not no regulations. Each such corporation will be expected to operate in accordance with the Charter, to transparently report its cash flows, accepting and paying only in traceable electronic monies, and to donate at minimum 10% of annual profits to the general welfare fund. Through this and a simple flat tax, administered fairly, in accordance with Adam Smith’s Maxims of Good Taxation, the society will invest in public works which make it a pleasant place to live and work, and one in which–like Singapore–public service workers are well-compensated, respected, and impartial.
Those already wealthy will be welcome to live in ACS and to invest there. Their property rights will be fully respected, consistent with Charter compliance. Those who become wealthy will be lauded, given that their wealth will be generated not extractively but through honorable, enlightened service to others.
Jennifer Dunne, whose Vision to Reality three-month coaching program is transforming visionaries from thinkers into doers, is also a Distinguished Toastmaster. Less than 1% of all worldwide Toastmasters earn this, their highest award for public speaking competency.
Jennifer has generously narrated a five-minute PowerPoint slideshow. It depicts a Grand Celebration, aspirationally set in the year 2045 in the future city-state of Dogun. (Means “Dawn” in Icelandic.)
This slideshow offer a clear, comprehensive overview of the vision, which we are now systematically turning into action towards an actual society flourishing in 2045.
Note: If possible, open this in Microsoft PowerPoint, Slideshow, Play from Start. Other ways of playing it have sometimes shown glitches.
AI infringement upon performers’ rights is an interesting topic, but I believe that most of the current debate will soon become moot.
When CGI can create photorealistic scenes, and AI can string these scenes together into video that is indistinguishable from professional film-making (at least, to the layman), then the limiting factor becomes the capacity of AIs to turn well-written scripts into well-performed movies and television.
As with other cases of technological unemployment, this will create even more opportunities for superstars while crowding out other performers.
Much like with writing, video “stars” are recognized as such by virtue of having established strong platforms, reputations or followings.
Once the copyright issues are sorted out, which I am confident will redound to the benefit of the performers, superstars will selectively license use of their images into AI-generated video productions and enable their estates to do so, when they are deceased.
This will make it far more challenging for new artists–in all creative media, not just video–to break into what are already extremely rarified professions.
By the 2030s, I would not be surprised to see producers offering viewers their choice of actors for a given role, from a set of licensed image and voice attributes that define each “actor” for copyright purposes. Each such “actor” will then receive a “per-performance” fee, and probably also a one-time “right to use” fee. (Would you like for the lead role in the mystery film you are about to watch be played by Humphrey Bogart, Marlon Brando, Leonardo Dicaprio, or Robert DeNiro? Click on the name to see a trailer featuring that actor.)
The huge numbers of people behind the scenes who participate in the making of a studio film or television episode (just watch all of the credits to appreciate how many are involved), will also lose most of their employment opportunities. However, in these cases, when the human expertise of superstars is used to add an extra “wow” factor to the finished product, the public will likely never know the names of the professionals who are involved.
One of our AI expert allies advises that, eventually, we can anticipate studios creating entirely synthetic superstars. How? By creating “avatars”; each with a distinctive face, mannerisms, and voice, and then using such avatars for roles in movies and television. Instead of having fifty takes of a scene with human actors, the director can have tech people tweak the delivery and especially the emotional reaction in the synthetic performance. So, eventually even human superstars may not be marketable–though I expect that those of us who have favorite actors will continue to want to watch them, so this development should be decades away.
All of this will enhance consumer options while reducing prices thanks to the slashing of production costs. It will be yet another case of technological unemployment, among a rapidly growing set of such cases–all of them increasing superstars’ incomes and corporate profits, while reducing consumer prices and, sadly, leaving non-superstars without an opportunity to earn incomes in their preferred professions.
Ultimately, this will prove to be further evidence that societies need a universal basic income that is both viable and sustainable. The only such proposal of which I am aware is the MOUBI from Basic Income Australia, conceived independently by both our ally Michael Haines and Robert Heinlein (!)
Some, who are outraged by all of this, will demand that studios never use AIs to produce films and television. Should such indignation ever gain real traction in the marketplace–and we must never underestimate our human capacity for shortsightedness and foolishness–the main effect will be to shift video production from countries that restrict it to countries that don’t. (Consider the US’ shortsighted attempts to ban stem cell research early in this century. The main effect was an exodus of talent to more receptive nations.)
Any attempt at such regulation or law must contend with many thorny issues. Among them:
What differentiates AI from other software? (There is zero chance of banning software use in general, and our AI expert allies advise that it is almost impossible to draw what attorneys call a bright line between AI and other software. Trying to rule that specific uses of AI are valid will be like wrestling with the proverbial genie, who provides what was requested but rarely what was wanted.)
Should use of AI be banned in the making of commercial film and television, what will prevent the use of same by “amateurs” on Youtube and elsewhere, whose production quality will rapidly approach that of professionals, thanks to AI?
Given the complete long-term failure of previous historical efforts by Luddites to block technological improvement, how can laws and/or regulations work this time? (Tip: they can’t.)
Any attempts to legislate such shortsightedness will create many more jobs–for lawyers; and later for legal AIs.
I wrote that book accidentally. By this, I mean that I set out to understand economics from a solid footing. I did not intend to write a book. However, once I had finished distilling Smith and making my own separate observations in the form of endnotes, a book existed.
That footing was not self-evident. Given that there exist whole “schools” of economics which hold each other in contempt, I had made several observations:
Economics is not a science. In no field of science do there exist multiple schools which so differ in their worldviews that the schools themselves detest each other. (Yes, individuals and even small groups may do so, but that tends to be transitory.)
Some “schools” may have more in common with religion than with science. In particular, this is so when predictions consistently fail to materialize yet followers remain devout.
To properly understand the field, I needed to see if there was any common ground. To my relief, I discovered that all of the “schools” continue to revere Adam Smith, centuries later. (Aside: I later discovered that some who revere him also willfully ignore or distort key arguments of Smith.)
I simply set out on what became a two-year project, to carefully read and completely understand An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, as the book was originally named. This involved reading each paragraph at least twice, and usually three or four times; on rare occasions, as many as six. (Having done so, I now believe that there are two pp’s in the book which no one has ever understood, as they are incomprehensible.)
With that tiny problem acknowledged, the book has much to say which remains trenchant and timely, yet remains little-known. For example, his section on the proper treatment of colonies could help to guide today’s evolving US/China relations.
Smith understood technology much better than has been appreciated, while remaining ignorant (as did everyone) of its inherent exponential rate of change until Kurzweil established this.
Smith thought the idea of balance of trade to be an oxymoron, and had no problem with governments engaging in multi-generational programs of borrowing. He never would have compared a government to a household, as some of his devotees are wont to do.
Smith thought paper money to be a perfectly fine tool of commerce, and the oft-quoted invisible hand was intended as a metaphor; a concept of which Smith was well aware. (In an Appendix, I hosted a “debate” between two professional economists regarding this question. While I strived to be even-handed–please pardon the pun–I came down squarely on the side of Prof. Gavin Kennedy.)
Smith proposed Four Maxims of Good Taxation. While he considered taxation to be essential, the chasm between his remarkably commonsensical Maxims and today’s extant systems of taxation is breathtaking. The Maxims also offer guidance in designing an effective system of taxation for a new society from scratch, using modern technology.
Smith considered “the Masters” to be an ever-present danger to the body politic, needing strong public institutions to check their avarice. Most crucially, he did not invent his system–only later called capitalism–for the sake of the rich and powerful. He invented it in the fond hopes that its widespread adoption would lead us to a world of ,”universal opulence”; a world in which the common person could enjoy freedom and prosperity.
Knowing that this was Smith’s ultimate goal, and that he was and is the ultimate touchstone in economics, I breathed a sigh of relief as I attempted to extrapolate from his thinking to a world of sustainable technological abundance.
I reference fundamental arguments of Smith’s in A Celebration Society, albeit doing so in a more critical light than I deemed appropriate in my rewrite of his book. (Again, most of what he argued remains relevant today.) In particular, I came to the understanding that his conception of wealth as arising from a confluence of labor, land, and capital–while highly reasonable in the context of his times–is today outdated, and that a far more robust paradigm beckons.
It was many hours in the making, but we now have a two-hour interview conducted by Prof. Imac Zambrana, of the University of Oslo, on her Chameleons Podcast series.
After closely reading the book, she posed a series of deeply evocative questions. It’s free to listen, and can substitute (for most purposes) for reading the book.
“To those who can hear me, I say – do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed – the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish…
Soldiers! don’t give yourselves to brutes – men who despise you – enslave you – who regiment your lives – tell you what to do – what to think and what to feel! Who drill you – diet you – treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men – machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate – the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!
In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: “the Kingdom of God is within man” – not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power – the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.
Then – in the name of democracy – let us use that power – let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world – a decent world that will give men a chance to work – that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will!
Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world – to do away with national barriers – to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!”
Following are some of the reasons why sovereignty is a prerequisite for starting a new society. In no particular order:
System of governance. The four-branch system of government we propose, while similar to that which existed in the Venetian Republic for hundreds of years, resembles no currently prevalent system. It eliminates the need for elections, while reposing all power in the Citizens as a body and preventing the rise of demagogues.
Visitors. The quality of life in this society is intended to become a showcase for a new kind of society, replicable elsewhere; a beacon for the world. Essential to that quality of life is a population level well-supported by the systems of systems. To assure this, the number of visitors must be strictly regulated, similarly to how theme parks and other destination venues do so.
Ambassadors. In today’s nations, ambassadors and their families enjoy immunity from the laws of the nations they visit. While this is intended to assure that such persons are not held hostage or otherwise used as pawns, it can lead to some serious abuses.
Therefore, we will offer to nations wishing to have formal relations a choice. They may assign ambassadors, with such persons and the nation assigning them consenting to either (a) such persons remaining in luxurious quarters established for them outside the city walls, or (b) waiving diplomatic immunity whenever they are within the walls of the city-state. Our ambassadors to such nations will accept similar treatment. (Aside: this may preclude formal relations with nations whose commitment to the rule of law is questionable, but we anticipate that most celebration societies will have limited interest in engagement with such nations.)
Taxation. We envision an entirely new system of taxation, based upon a flat transaction or sales tax, unobtrusive and conveniently paid immediately, with all money being electronic in order to avert tax evasion and support lower rates.
Immigration. Once a society has its full planned complement of Residents and Citizens, we foresee population change only through births, death, and the relocation of people to newly forming societies. Given that the heart of the society is an explicit Charter; a set of Principles which every person in the society is expected to uphold, immigration will be rare and qualified.
Refugees. While simple human decency requires temporary provision of food, water, shelter, and medical care for bona fide refugees, they must be maintained outside the city walls. This is incompatible with how most nations operate, but necessary to preserve the Charter and the culture.
For decades to come, following the establishment of the first society, there will be far more people desiring to live in celebration societies than room for them. Such persons will be supported in creating their own societies per our pay-it-forward principle.
Monetary systems. In addition to all money being electronic, each society may, alongside national fiat currency, institute complementary currencies in order to nudge behaviors in desired directions, without need for coercion.
Once any celebration society is fully functioning, I expect that it will make its systems of systems available to others for duplication elsewhere, with few limitations (e.g. security considerations). Others may or may not adopt this offering wholesale.
I expect that, in many cases, the offering will be viewed as more a “cafeteria plan” than a prescription. That is fine. However, in order to share in the Celebration Society brand and join the eventual League of such societies, each adopting society will need to embrace as its own the core Charter, which it may not restrict except at the level of a League decision.
Our ally and good friend Ina Von Turow recently expressed her displeasure at the thought of living under continuous surveillance of designated Public areas.
She asked: why not instead allow each individual to have a personal, tiny flying drone as a constant companion, with the drone only turned on when it, or its owner, detected a need? I thought that was a good idea.
If we structure this as a system in which the following conditions are met, I believe it can be a superior system to that proposed in my book:
The drone is constantly monitoring the environment, but only begins recording and broadcasting its footage if either it detects danger or it is instructed to do so by its owner.
The activated drone will not only broadcast footage for cloud storage, but it also may call for a Constable if required.
To assure quick response to threats, the drone should be activated by a passphrase selected by the owner; something the owner would never otherwise say. For example, if the owner selects the phrase “red blueberries” and says it, within a second the drone will activate.
The drones must be self-recharging.
To maximize safety, there should probably be redundancy of drones; i.e. two or even three per person.
Children and others legally deemed to not be competent adults should have continuous drone surveillance without their consent, as they may need help if they harm themselves.
We thank Ina for her valuable improvement to a Celebration Society. This is, and shall ever remain, an evolving, collaborative co-creation!
Do you have any further suggestions or improvements?
I was talking the other day with a couple of close allies. We were exploring our different “whys” for doing what we’re doing.
My wife said that, in her view, my great why is building a system of systems to make the world a better place. I thought about that, and said, “No, that’s my dearest how.”
My why is this: Having experienced the most visceral and searing form of scarcity on a repeated basis in childhood—the scarcity of air—I am deeply and passionately resolved that no one should ever again experience scarcity in that searing way.
Charles Darwin foresaw a future in which humanity would rise above dog-eat-dog competition to become a cooperative species. He discussed this in his lesser-known book, The Descent of Man.
Scarcity should be like salt. A controlled pinch makes things interesting.
Limited scarcity, within known boundaries of time and place, can be useful. For example, whilst playing a game the game has intentionally structured limits, consensually agreed to by the players. Those consciously agreed limits create a context for fun.
The scarcity of a particular form of knowledge, or of a particular resource, can inspire great achievement, and contributions to humanity worth celebrating. For example, if gold is in short supply, this may motivate asteroid mining such that gold becomes common and cheap by the 22nd century. (It is more likely to be a byproduct than a main focus, but that is another discussion.)
Asteroid mining, as a goal, may inspire grand enabling accomplishments, such as building reusable rockets, and soon the space elevator.
