A Celebration Society

Author: Jonathan

  • The Brangelina Fallacy

    The Brangelina Fallacy

    As I was watching The Late Show with my wife, the topic of the Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie divorce came up on the show. I realized that this is a traumatic event for many people. Then I wondered why.

    The only explanation that makes sense to me is that people longed for this to be a fairy tale romance; happily ever after, an exemplary life, a role-model relationship. Many people crave such examples. It’s why popular stars are looked to as leaders, and often held to a higher standard of behavior than the rest of us. (There are some exceptions.)

    People need role models. Kids look to their parents and elder relatives to teach by example. The values the elders embody become those the kids embody. Embody twisted values such as ethnic hatred, and the kids grow up sharing such. Teach evidence-based thinking, skepticism coupled with open-mindedness, and kids grow up with such.
    Many of us don’t cease seeking role models when we become adults. We look to popular figures in movies and music to serve as such. Or we look to political figures. Or sports stars. Or business tycoons.

    In most cases, these are merely people who happen to be superior in some dimension of life. They are not superior in other dimensions, though they often display more extreme tastes and behavior. They usually appear larger than life, and so people want to emulate them.

    It’s a poor society that elevates such people as its role models. We would do far better, and get far better long-term results, if we instead elevated people who have demonstrated an enduring commitment to service for humanity and the world. I am thinking of people like Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela (a rarity among politicians), Albert Einstein (who used his scientific standing to lobby for a better world), and Buckminster Fuller, to name a few.

    By celebrating the contributions of such people, as well as those who are as yet less known but who show similar potential, we will uplift and inspire other people—especially young people. That, in turn, will stimulate more such contributions.

    This is a key principle of a Celebration Society and the main reason why I want a meritocratic Royalty established as a fourth branch of government, alongside the Parliament, Judiciary, and Administration. With the lead Royal as designated Head of State, yet lacking any real power, we will gain the benefits of continuous inspiration without the harmful conflation of power and adulation, or wealth and adulation, that today plague so many societies.

    There remains the risk of conflating fame and adulation. I am, however, hopeful that by making the attainment of Royal status a challenging process devoid of personal gain, it will attract and cultivate people of truly exemplary character; people who attain the status of Royal not for the sake of fame but as a higher opportunity to be of service.

    Like all systems in a Celebration Society, it will be imperfect, and some Royals may think themselves superior due to the adulation. But I expect that, over time, the Royalty itself will devise checks and balances to assure that such egotism does not arise often and, when it does, that it is controlled.

  • architecture in a celebration society

    architecture in a celebration society

    Recently, a prominent architect informed me that he is an ally of ours. I expect that he will in future help to guide us as we organize teams of people to build the first Celebration Society, either in simulation (as I have proposed) or in physical form. I also expect that he will eventually blog in this space. I look forward to his participation and leadership, along with other thought leaders who have informed me that they are also allies.

    Meanwhile, here are some of my thoughts on architecture. The architecture of a Celebration Society extends far beyond common conceptions of the subject. It includes the integration of natural features of the environment, and possibly even the design of such features. It includes the design of not only buildings but also roads, canals, and the placement, functionality and appearance of infrastructure such as trains and conduits for moving information, resources, products, and waste. (I have envisioned the latter being large, automated underground tubes, containing necessary cables and possibly pneumatics.)

    All of my thinking about the design of a city-state such as Dogun is preliminary, for at least two reasons. First, I am not expert in any of the disciplines that will, together, enable us to create optimally functioning living conditions. Such experts will not direct the consensus of would-be residents, but will advise us to we can avoid as many mistakes as possible. Second, it will be the consensus of would-be residents that makes all decisions about a city-state. I have provided a scaffolding; one upon which many varying designs may be constructed. Mine will be one voice among many.

    I also need to emphasize that this thinking is limited to construction on uninhabited or sparsely inhabited lands. The question of how to retrofit existing societies as Celebration Societies is beyond my capabilities, and I am hopeful that experts such as our architect ally will have the insights and wisdom to develop viable solutions.

    Architecture should combine functionality with strong aesthetics. Aesthetics are often given short shrift, yet they can elevate the quality of life for everyone who comes in contact with them–and even evoke that most precious of experiences, awe. Architecture should also reflect the fact that the needs of society will be continuously evolving, as we are committed to continuous process improvement. Legacy systems, clearly appropriate to a given time, may be hopelessly antiquated and even defective in future. (For example, in Venice, the roads between buildings are too narrow for many of today’s needs. Likewise, the bridges over canals are too low as waters rise. Because of how Venetian structures were built, modernization will not come easily.)

    In designing our buildings and other structures (and hopefully, eventually, our Wonders), we need to keep in mind that technology is not only advancing but advancing exponentially. We already know some important things that can guide our structural creations. For example, just as 3D printing can quickly generate a building, road or other structure, so too will robots soon be able to disassemble such a structure into its components. The components can then be used for other construction or fed into a plasma converter, and reduced to their elemental constituents and some slag for construction.

    Likewise, by favoring renewable, fast-growing materials such as hemp and guadua bamboo, we can build many structures (or substantial portions of them) in a manner that is both lasting and amenable to rapid, non-toxic disassembly.

    By building in a manner that includes ample open space between structures, we can not only avoid the subjective experience of crowding but also leave room for different structures–both buildings and others–to take their place as systems evolve.

    In my view, we need to both acknowledge the emerging capabilities of technologies and also wisdom from the past. For example, the Golden Ratio is a number commonly expressed in the architectural creations of antiquity, and there is evidence that structures incorporating it have a soothing effect on people. I would advocate that it be reflected in designs whenever feasible.

    Conversely, there may be particular ratios and relationships of surfaces that have a jarring or otherwise dysfunctional effect on those who observe them. (I am unaware of relevant research, if any.) Such should be avoided if at all possible.

    One of the great challenges will be finding a balance between individual/family preferences and societal norms. I believe that structuring a Celebration Society as a great condominium association will go far towards resolving these issues, since that is part and parcel of Association Bylaws. (Except, in this case, the city-state as a whole would have a Charter. Villages within it might have individual Bylaws that extend but do not otherwise modify the Charter.)

    I expect that villages within a Celebration Society will have differing architectural themes. For example, one village might favor Hobbiton-style dwellings (such are now available on a modular basis). Another might favor Victorian, or Tudor, or, Elvish, or … Given that 3D printing can generate sturdy, stable structures that serve almost any imagined form, the only questions are architectural soundness and livability.

    I expect that each village will restrict the external appearance of all structures within that village to conform with its own architectural guidelines, expressed in its own Bylaws. Persons not desiring to live that way will find or found other villages more to their liking.

    As the city-state will be comprised of hundreds of such villages, there will be some common features shared by all. I imagine that an underground conveyance system, probably a network of huge, linked tubes, will transport freshly harvested food, products and–in the other direction–wastes, sorted into types of wastewater and fertilizer. It is also possible that this system will convey fresh water, electricity and cables for communications/internet. On the other hand, communications may be wireless and water and electricity may be generated locally, within the village. (Redundancy would seem prudent.)

    I do not favor a rigid order of perpendicular roads radiating outward from the city center, since aesthetics could be better with some variation. This could include curves in roads, parks, and beautiful alcoves scattered throughout, where people might rest or gather to enjoy flowers and wind chimes or street musicians, and listen to birds.

    Roads would serve primarily as walkways, bike paths, and places for slower electric vehicles; probably golf-cart like. Those needing faster transportation would use the trains, which would radiate outward from the city center like dual bicycle spokes. I would favor a set of beautiful, winding canals replete with eddy pools, concentric from the city center, to supplement the trains and add great beauty as well as humidification, ionization and soothing sounds. In this manner, one could reach any area of the city-state by transferring from one canal ride to one train ride, or vice versa. (There could alternately be a second network of trains, radiating outward from the city center as concentric circles. In this manner, with just a single change of train, one could reach any area of the city-state.) Public bikes, electric carts and mini-Segways or hoverboards would be available at points of debarkation, and would automatically return to their stations after use.

    I envision a set of publicly owned blimps that are used to silently hoist large construction pieces into location, and also to move home furnishings that are too large or heavy for transportation in the tube system.

    Obviously, there is far more to consider than the above. The architecture of the city-state alone will be a massive undertaking; both physically and conceptually. It will need to serve not only the intended residents but also as a model system, duplicable far and wide as needed in the decades ahead.

  • A collaborative creation (more thoughts)

    A collaborative creation (more thoughts)

    I’ve always viewed a Celebration Society as a collaborative process. After all, if people don’t collaborate in its creation, how will they feel any sense of ownership?

    When I wrote the book, it was basically the pulling together of a lot of different ideas from a lot of different people. I didn’t really create very much myself. I certainly don’t ask anyone to blindly agree with me, nor do I seek followers. I seek allies.

    So, I was surprised when a Twitter user accused me of creating a cult. When I asked him why he thought that, he replied with a lot of invective and nastiness. Rather than engaging with this behavior, I sat back and thought about what might have precipitated it. I realized that I hadn’t properly understood Twitter culture, and needed to make some adjustments to how I was tweeting. (I was mentioning the book in almost every Tweet.)

    So far, I’ve written most of the content at this website. I’m hoping that’s going to change. Yes, I started the process… But it’s become quite clear in the past few months that there are many other thoughtful and knowledgeable people who share this vision, or who want to.

    As I’ve often said, my knowledge of technology is very wide but shallow. I’ll rely on others with expertise in the many relevant disciplines to shore up my limited understanding. That’s how it should be.

    The collaborative model is increasingly being proven to be a highly effective alternative to pure competition. I’m not saying competition is bad, I’m saying that it should be balanced with cooperation. Each should be used when and as appropriate to produce the best results.

    A woman named Devora Belilove one told me the wisest thing I ever heard. It was, ” we all have the drawbacks of our virtues.” Another thing I have always loved is the statement “we’re all ignorant, just in different areas.”

    If one puts these two statements together, and takes them to heart, the inescapable conclusion is that if anything great is to be accomplished, we really need each other. We need great alliances.

    That’s what I’m hoping to co-create: a great alliance of people with interlocking strengths, and the maturity to each know our weaknesses and seek help from others who are strong where we are weak.

    Little of note happens in the world from the solitary person. As has been said, even Einstein, Edison and Tesla had teams supporting them. Individually, we’re weak. But together, we can be mighty.

    I’ve never cared much for the hierarchical model, though it has its place. In my view, its biggest risk is that the flaws of the person at the top are magnified, and can lead to downfall. (This has happened with both corporations and nations.)

    That’s why I’ve proposed that the Celebrationist government be one in which no one holds power for more than a decade, all power has multiple checks and balances upon it, there is high transparency, and the head of state is a person of great influence but little power (as was the case in the Venetian Republic.)

    Are you an ally of Celebrationism? If so, what do you have to contribute? Where do you excel, and where do your passions lie? Please share that on the forum, so that other Society members can begin to appreciate who you are and how we may all play together.

  • The great error of meritocracies

    The great error of meritocracies

    As my wife recently pointed out, there is a particular error to which meritocracies are prone. While they start out with clear principles favoring merit as the basis for advancement in society, inevitably some of those in exalted positions come to believe themselves inherently superior, rather than superior by virtue of past merit. This fall was described in detail in the book Twilight of the Elites.

    Even worse, egotism may cause such leaders to regard their own progeny (usually male) as superior to average people. This perverts meritocracy into hereditary rule.

    The Venetian Republic fell because its otherwise exemplary systems of government allowed hereditary Citizenship; different from birthright citizenship (common elsewhere), then barring from government those newcomers who could have warned of the threat posed by Napoleon.

    The systems of a Celebration Society have been designed to avert these problems. Most importantly, by acknowledging that our designs for systems are and will remain imperfect, we will monitor key variables and make such improvements as prove necessary or helpful. No Celebration Society will begin from the hubris of certainty.

    More specifically, we will engineer the systems of government to prevent the emergence of a ruling class. By making all positions in the Administration and the Parliament only a single term, with a maximum term length and a minimum interval between terms equal to the length of the last term served, the notion of “professional” politicians will disappear. (If people are professionally employed by the Administration, Judiciary or Parliament, they may have unlimited terms of service, though these like all other positions will be subject to recall by majority vote of Parliament our Citizen Initiative.)

    However, the lead positions–there being no President or Prime Minister–of Minister of the Administration Council, Supreme Court Justice, or Member of Parliament, will all be time-limited as per above.

    By cycling all lead positions in and out of government, with appropriate transparency and prevention of self-serving actions by officials, any separation of Citizens from government should be avoided. The principle of the Citizens as a body BEING the government becomes feasible.

    In the case of the Royalty, it is anticipated that there will be an internal hierarchy. However, this hierarchy (and indeed the Royalty itself) will cover no special benefits or privileges. It is likely an opportunity to serve more fully, and membership will be conferred to those who have already demonstrated such a commitment in their lives over many years.

    Further the Sarvay, acting as lead Royal, will have a particular tie breaking and ceremonial role; however, this will be time-limited to a single term, following which the Sarvay will become Sarvay Emeritus and counsel the new Sarvay.

    There is an additional factor that will make it harder for Celebrationist meritocracies to devolve into hereditary rule. Because leaders will receive no special monetary or other material rewards for their service, they will not have the advantage of special assets to confer upon their children. Likewise, in a society which provides the essentials of a good life to everyone–including rich educational opportunities and support–differences in upbringing will not exaggerate innate differences of ability. Therefore, whether children come from rich families or middle class families (there being no lower-class families), it will matter far less than whether those children grow up in a Celebration Society or elsewhere.

    Finally, by making Citizenship an office that any resident can attain, although only by successfully completing an objective and arduous process of preparation–a Rite of Passage–we will assure that the office of Citizen is valued and shall remain open to all on a meritocratic basis.

  • Why not make everyone a Citizen?

    Why not make everyone a Citizen?

    Some critics of a Celebration Society believe that everyone should be a Citizen. In my view, that diminishes the importance of the title and office.

    In modern democracies, citizenship is a birthright. As such, its powers and responsibilities often remain little known or taken for granted. While a society can force people to learn these–and, indeed, some do compel citizens to vote–in my view, coercion should be minimized in societal design. Citizenship as an earned office is much more promising.

    For example, in the USA, immigrants seeking citizenship must pass tests demonstrating their basic knowledge of documents such as the Constitution. Eagerly seeking the benefits of citizenship, they do so gladly. Such citizens vote much more regularly than birthright citizens; from pride, not coercion.

    There should be no penalty for non-Citizenship, though Citizens should be entitled to compensation for the duties of office in the form of a modest guaranteed income sufficient to meet their basic needs. (The government may provide something similar to residents, either based on need or universally. If so, I believe that Citizens should then receive something additional for their service.)

    The American founders were well aware of history, and as such understood that democracy has a soft underbelly. Mob rule and demagoguery frightened them. That is often cited as a reason why they restricted voting rights to male landowners, whom they viewed as more rational and capable than other people.

    Today, most of us no longer share that view. However, recent history shows that the risk of demagoguery remains strong in democracies across the world. How can such threats be permanently prevented, along with other threats to the body politic such as bribery of elected and appointed officials?

    The Venetian Republic had the right idea, though imperfectly implemented. Instead of democracy, they had a system in which Citizens alone could hold office in the government. Parliament voted on laws, but citizens were selected to serve in Parliament via a lottery. The term of office was singular, and followed by a term of non-service.

    By making Citizen a hard-won office, available to any resident following successful completion of an objective process designed to test knowledge and character, a Celebrationist government and society would meet Jefferson’s demand for an educated, vigilant populace. Parliament could then work as follows:

    • Any Citizen could be summoned at any time for a single, time-limited term of office as a member of Parliament, a member of the Administration or as a juror, with few exemptions.
    • After their term in office, each Citizen will leave government for a period of time at least as long as they had served. This will cause those in office to view government power and decisions differently than elected officials who make a career of such service.
    • Upon assuming an executive role in the government, a Citizen would have to place all business interests and assets related to that role into a blind trust for the duration of service.
    • Upon leaving service, a former Minister or other executive office holder would be prohibited from engaging in any activity that had been overseen by their governmental role for a fixed period of time. Likewise, anyone serving as a judge would have a similar prohibition.

    I do not see membership in Parliament, or service on a jury, as requiring a blind trust or any restriction of subsequent activities. However, I may be mistaken.

    By making parliamentary terms of office staggered and varying in length, and selecting members by lottery, the influence of money on politics would largely be eliminated. Political parties would become nearly impossible to organize or sustain.

    There would be certain additional changes:

    • By limiting laws to a maximum number of words and requiring a computerized test of comprehensibility, a legal system would arise in which people would rarely need lawyers to assert their rights in court or elsewhere.
    • By explicitly making the Charter the highest law of the land, never subject to amendment by law, there would be a codified set of values governing the whole society.
    • By reposing in the Citizens as a body the power to change any aspect of the government via Initiative, government of and by the People would be forever enshrined in the society.
    • By requiring either supermajority vote by the Citizens or complete agreement by all Branches of government to change the Charter, it would be less subject to mob rule. (An educated populace of Citizens would provide additional protection.)
    • The residents would create the initial Charter, thereafter trusting the Citizens to modify it on rare occasions when necessary. The residents might well specify in the Charter certain inalienable rights of residents, only modifiable with majority or supermajority consent of residents.
    • The residents would establish the original requirements to qualify for Citizenship. Thereafter, they would trust those Citizens to run the society. This would allow those not wishing to assume such responsibilities to enjoy many benefits of society without taking an active role in governance.

    As to Citizen being an office and thereby special, this is not to diminish resident or visitor (the other two classes of people in a Celebration Society). Each is equally valued as a person. Each has the same basic rights.

    By making Citizen an office, its powers are more likely to be treated with respect, and exercised.

    Many people are so set into a hierarchical, scarcity mindset that they see hierarchy where none exists. None exists here.

    Any resident can become a Citizen through a process of preparation, testing and service. If they fail, they can try again until they succeed. I expect that many residents will be wealthy or retired with a pension, so they won’t need the “job” of Citizen. If they prefer to simply let others voluntarily perform this service, that does not make them lesser.

    Any official actions by a Citizen serving a term in the government will be permanently recorded and available for inspection by any other Citizen. Intentional abuse of power would likely carry severe consequences—possibly including banishment from the Celebration Society.
    The pay given to Citizens will be received with pride and dignity, even when the Citizen only “works” several hours per week; generally including time off when desired.

    The net effect of all this and other measures to be added as necessary will be to assure that true Citizen government takes hold and remains in effect for so long as a Celebration Society exists.

  • The Techno-utopianism of Peter Diamandis

    The Techno-utopianism of Peter Diamandis

    I am an admirer of Peter Diamandis. He and Steven Kotler have been largely responsible for shifting the planetary conversation from endless doom and gloom within a context of scarcity to the possibility of sustainable abundance. For the book Abundance and his related work, I believe we all owe him a large debt.

    Peter is a techno-utopian. This has never been clearer than in his recent essay.

    The techno-utopian mindset credits humanity as a whole with more rationality than is justified.

    The recent advent of outsourcing, which I view as a kind of first shot across the bow for technological unemployment (for reasons discussed in another blog), has led to serious flirtations with authoritarian leaders in democracies across the world. Such leaders offer simplistic solutions to pressing problems. The “totalitarian temptation”, as a classic book of yesteryear is named, is ever-present. For so long as people live within a context of scarcity, they will remain fearful of having their limited resources stripped away and their lives crushed.

    This is not the only significant example of irrationality controlling the body politic. For example, while research has consistently supported the societal benefits—including cost savings–of programs such as Head Start, they remain underfunded.

    While thinkers both left and right” have determined that the consolidation of welfare programs could pay for a far superior program called a guaranteed minimum income, no such programs are being seriously considered anywhere in the world. (This may change; hopefully without need for the shock of a Greater Depression.) Most income tax systems are grotesque and Frankensteinian; universally disliked if not loathed. Yet efforts at fundamental reform have repeatedly failed.

    There are many such examples to be found in most societies and, as Lester Thurow noted in the Zero Sum Society, the combination of special interest groups and public lethargy has yielded almost continuous gridlock. (It has gotten much worse since his book was published decades ago.)

    We humans are “predictably irrational” creatures who make decisions based on limited information and within contexts of bias, fear and hope. We are not equipped by biology or education to deal with rapid change, and the kind of change now upon us is unprecedented. While it will surely seem counterintuitive, there is no reason to expect that the majority will welcome or accept the advent of “free” food, “free” housing and so forth; as projected by Peter.

    Yes, such developments are POSSIBLE—just as it is possible that employers will translate the cost savings from automation into higher wages, as expected by Andrew McAfee. But are such expectations realistic? I think not.

    Producers of these products, with their profit margins endangered, will advocate for protectionism, as farmers in the US have enjoyed for many decades. I can envision various marketing campaigns to tug at heartstrings. Such campaigns often win, not because they are in the best interests of those they purport to protect (the public), but rather because those who benefit from them are far more organized and focused than the public. This is, in part, why I expect guaranteed minimum income programs to falter.

    The past century has seen phenomenal change, nearly all of it due to technology. Much of this change has been wrenching; some of it existentially threatening to minority groups and some to humanity as a whole. The best technology doesn’t always win; look at the oft-cited case of Betamax. Neither do the best societal practices. Venality, violence, bribery and other societally corrosive practices are common in much of the world—including countries such as Afghanistan and Congo with colossal natural resources lying dormant.

    My big objection to techno-utopianism is this: just because something wonderful COULD happen due to exponentially accelerating technology doesn’t mean that it WILL happen. The creaking sounds in the foundation of Western society that we are now hearing could be the first alerts of cornucopian trees about to burst forth. They could also be the first rumbles of society-leveling earthquakes.

    Rather than count on the great wave of technological progress to rationally unfold without significant human opposition, I submit that a small group of like-minded, rational people who actually understand and believe in the power of technology to transform society should converge to create one model Celebration Society. With a single such society established, it will become far easier for others–especially those frightened by accelerating change–to envision themselves living in societies based on abundance.

    Most people aren’t very good at imagining possibilities. Ask any realtor about prospective buyers’ abilities to imagine improvements to properties. They’ll tell you that it’s usually necessary to do the imagining for the buyers.

    We might be able to do what’s needed via the simulation of a Celebration Society. I hope so—it will be years faster than building the actual model, and allow us to refine the model virtually before doing so more expensively in the real world.

  • Meat in a Celebration Society

    Meat in a Celebration Society

    Meat consumption is a problem is many ways. A substitute for industrial “farming” of animals is needed. This could take the form of vegetable “meats” (more on this below) or a 21st century alternative to industrialized animal “husbandry”.

    We will, in future, grow meat in vats in a factory-type environment without the involvement of any conscious animals. Such an alternative would reduce suffering, yield greater efficiency in conversion of resources into food (half the energy), eliminate need for antibiotics and hormones, and eliminate meat production as a source of greenhouse gases (25 times less), and reduced need for land (just 1%), are all significant.

    While some recoil in principle at this, some of those same people may soon be enjoying replacement organs in their own bodies that were similarly grown. (Already, scientists have replaced a person’s trachea, grown ears, and created miniature versions of other human organs.)

    I doubt that a person who’s experiencing liver failure or whose ear was lost in an accident will object to replacement organs being grown from their own stem cells. Vat grown meats will be 100% organic, optimally nutritious and cruelty free. They will be biologically indistinguishable from the same meats cut from the carcass of a once-living animal that lived (in most cases) a miserable life so that we might eat it.

    I eat meat. I’m not sitting in judgment of anyone who does or does not do so. (My wife is a vegetarian, and I have been one on several occasions for years at a time. I simply find it too hard to sustain; she is stronger-willed in this regard.)

    But if a Celebration Society is to adopt a philosophy of sustainability and minimizing the harm to innocent creatures, it will have to adopt new approaches to generating its meat—unless it is founded on vegetarianism, which would be at the founders’ option. Cruelty-free is a concept with some variations in interpretation, and raising animals on natural pasture with room to roam; later killing them in the quickest manner possible, satisfies this criterion for some. Not so for others.

    I simply point out that, as we move further into the 21st century, such meat will increasingly be available directly, without a living being involved. In addition, some companies have figured out how to make startlingly realistic meat substitutes from vegetables. Some examples:

    • Meatballs from Quorn. Serve them in a dish to friends, without explanation. I can almost guarantee you that your friends will ask what kind of meat this is, while enjoying the flavor, texture and aroma.
    • Likewise, Quorn (which uses mushroom protein as a primary ingredient) makes a fine chicken substitute.
    • Another company, Impossible Foods, makes the Impossible Burger. Reportedly, it looks, cooks and tastes like a good hamburger. It even oozes juice.

    If a Celebration Society doesn’t want to be heavy-handed in compelling movement away from “farmed” meat, there is another option. As discussed in the book, “nudges” (as proposed by Cass Sunstein) can substitute in many cases for regulation and law. In this case, my wife Jennifer has conceived a complementary currency (CC) called “Meat Money”.

    Essentially, each resident would be issued a fixed amount of this CC every week, electronically. The system would not allow sale of meat or meat-containing meals for national currency alone; one would have to match that money with Meat Money. In this way, the total consumption of meat would be limited to a level that the society deemed acceptable.

    However, it gets more interesting. There would be an electronic market in which Meat Money could be traded for other money. So, vegetarians or others who eat less meat would be rewarded by earning an extra regular income from their abstention. Everyone who wanted to do so could enjoy some meat, but those wanting larger amounts would have to pay what the market will bear for enough Meat Money.

    Vat meat could be exempt, and of course vegetable “meats” would not be included. This is but one possible solution, if a Celebration Society wants to limit meat consumption.

  • Service can Organize Society

    Service can Organize Society

    While some believe that money is necessary to motivate behavior, this is false. Significant organizations exist that operate on the basis of voluntary, mutually supportive service. That service is unpaid, and can be highly effective.

    One prominent example is Toastmasters. Toastmasters was founded in 1924 —almost a century ago. It has grown from nothing to over 15,000 chapters today. Approximately 1/3 million members participate in its programs worldwide.

    This substantial organization flourishes with over 100,000 volunteers and a tiny paid staff of slightly over 100 persons – about 1/10 of 1% of those who provide the services. Toastmasters is a not for profit organization. It serves as a living example of how efficiently a service-oriented organization can operate.

    Many join Toastmasters, as did my wife and I, to cultivate speaking abilities. Others do so to cultivate leadership skills, or both.

    The club we joined is one that equally values developing skills and having fun. This delightful surprise assured our continued participation, and we have developed deep relationships and friendships with some other members. Obviously, it was serendipity that such a club was near to our Denver home.

    Toastmasters has many levels of organization, from local clubs founded by people with a shared vision or purpose, through districts, regions, nations and international management and events.

    I enthusiastically recommend Toastmasters to anyone who needs to present or communicate to groups. The cost of membership is nominal. The development of skills is systematic, and the feedback is honest and always supportive. Those who fear public speaking will find their fears respected and gradually dissolved, as one small success builds on another small success – until one is amazed by how much one’s competencies blossom. It is terrific for both self-confidence and one’s ability to influence others. If you fear public speaking – as many of us do – there is no better venue to master this fear.

    My larger point is that, if an organization can flourish as has Toastmasters, there is no reason why any number of organizations cannot similarly flourish – or even an entire society!

    Toastmasters is far from alone in the voluntary services it attracts. Indeed, according to a recent study, 26% of US adults regularly engage in volunteer activities—and this happens in a culture that prizes work above leisure, often causing sleep deprivation! (http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/agingandwork/pdf/publications/ FS03_TrendsVolunteerism.pdf)

    With very few exceptions, work is the yoke around the necks of humans everywhere. It need not remain so. When we free people from their dependency on earning an income, the range of services that people develop to support each other may dazzle us all.

  • A Better Political System

    A Better Political System

    “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” ~Winston Churchill

    With all due respect to Churchill, that’s not quite correct. Democracy may be better than other present day systems, but a system once existed that led its people to world naval dominance, a culture that remains greatly admired today, and unbroken continuity of government and society over many hundreds of years.

    I’m talking about the Venetian Republic, which would have likely continued to this day except for underestimating Napoleon. It governed an area roughly the size of present-day Italy (including parts of Italy), and had some unique features; features that I advocate be incorporated into a Celebration Society (Note: the following is a simplified view of a complex system):

    Citizen as an office. Only Citizens could participate in the Venetian government, and the Parliament consisted of Citizens selected by lottery for single, staggered terms of office. (This simple measure is believed to greatly reduce the influence of money on politics, as well as effectively preventing the fractionation of the populace into political parties.)

    (Note: Citizen was long an office potentially available to all Venetian residents. Towards the end of its republic, Venice made Citizen a hereditary office. This was arguably a fatal mistake: newer and more worldly residents, newly made Citizens, might have better appreciated the threat of Napoleon and helped the nation prepare to resist him.)

    Leadership by unpaid, successful volunteers who renounced business dealings during office. The nation was run by a group of Ministers, appointed by and accountable to Parliament. Each minister held a portfolio, similar to how this works in present day parliamentary systems. However, they were appointed and could be fired by Parliament, not by a Prime Minister–for there was none. An even number of Ministers would always be maintained. Together, the Ministers would vote to decide matters extending beyond individual portfolios.

    The Doge Venice lacked a strong, central leader. Authoritarianism was therefore structurally impossible. The titular leader was the Doge, ordinarily the most revered man in the whole nation. He was an exemplar of virtue, and this was the source of his authority. The only power the Doge held was breaking tie votes of the assembled Ministers. He epitomized the concept of great influence and little power. I propose the same for a meritocratic royalty (NOT a monarchy in any respect).

    Other novel ideas. The Venetians had some other, brilliant, ideas. For example, anyone could file charges alleging that a crime had been committed. These charges were secret but not anonymous. The complainant needed to file the charges in writing, witnessed by a Citizen.

    If the court later found that the charges had been filed without reasonable cause and maliciously, it would apply the penalties against the person who filed the charges. This, presumably, kept such abuse of process to a minimum.

    My knowledge of the Venetian system is superficial, having arisen from a three hour conversation with a Venetian tour guide and supplemented by my own research. I strongly suspect that other novelties and superior ideas from the Venetian Republic await rediscovery, and possible deployment in a Celebration Society.

    Democracy can devolve into mob rule, as recognized by the US Founders, who specifically designed a constitutional republic with democratic elements for this reason. Democracy has a soft underbelly: the demagogue. Democracy gave Germany Hitler. It gave Italy Mussolini. Many would argue that it gave Russia a demagogue named Putin. It may well yield other demagogues in the years ahead.

    What, then of other systems now practiced? In my view, the most notable is China’s, which is called Communist. Actually, based on its mode of operation, it now has elements of oligarchy, fascism (in the generic sense, which need not include demonization of minorities), and traditional Chinese meritocracy. None of Karl Marx’s model appears to have survived Deng Hsiao Peng (famous for saying, “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice”) and his successors, culminating in Xi Jinping. It is essentially state capitalism, with limited private ownership allowed.

    Many Chinese seem to prefer their system to democracy. However, it’s impossible to know actual sentiment, since dissent and publication are so heavily controlled. While the US has recently taken a position of advocating democracy worldwide, it has in past overthrown democratically elected governments deemed antithetical to US interests (e.g. Mohammad Mosaddegh, former leader of Iran).

    Excepting the Nordic governments, certain former British colonies and Iceland, most nations practicing democracy seem to view it as a transactional model chosen for its utility, rather than as some inherently sacred set of values.

    Regardless of one’s view of democracy, it therefore seems entirely possible that the result of the present US election will cause much of the world to decide that democracy isn’t such a great idea. What, then, will they consider as alternatives to replace authoritarian systems?

    Celebrationism limits democracy to the Citizen Initiative and Parliamentary voting, while also limiting the vesting of power to prevent demagogues. Perhaps it will become the alternative people are seeking.

  • The Importance of Triple Redundancy in Crucial Systems

    The Importance of Triple Redundancy in Crucial Systems

    (I have touched upon this topic in another blog and in the book. I regard it as more important than I have previously been able to do justice, and indeed beyond what I am capable of doing now. This is a topic that we will have experts advising, so the initial residents/founders have as complete an understanding as possible in making design decisions.)

    Modern systems of all kinds are staggeringly complex. The production of a single product will often have thousands of separate steps, and include sub-components that themselves also had thousands of steps in their manufacture. (This may extend multiple levels deep to sub-sub-components.) Extrapolate this to automated systems that run the repetitive aspects of an abundance-based society, and we have a serious issue.

    The good news is that sensors have never been cheaper, and costs continue to plummet. Soon, it will be trivially inexpensive to monitor all critical variables within a system in real time. When such monitoring is by triple sensors, all identical and all expected to produce identical readings at all times, this is known as “triple redundancy”. When any of the sensors produces a reading different than its two other triplet members, it is instantly presumed to be defective, and flagged for prompt replacement. Until such replacement happens, the whole triplet and the systems it monitors are themselves subjected to special monitoring.

    This is how organizations such as NASA have minimized catastrophic failures in environments (i.e., space) where there is no room for such failure, because survival of the mission and even astronauts’ lives depends on avoiding it. Further, there is often neither time to figure out a solution on the fly nor access to resources that would be available had the problem happened on Earth.

    This is why we find movies such as Apollo 13 so captivating, and the actions/successes of the astronauts so heroic. We can easily imagine how horribly wrong things might have gone. And NASA is hardly perfect. I doubt that humanity will ever forget the Challenger disaster; a catastrophe that not only cost precious lives but set the whole space program back by years. It was apparently due to a single faulty O-ring.

    The first Celebration Societies will surely be terrestrial and not built in space. Therefore, any system failures (and there will be such) can be addressed with the massive resources of terrestrial technology, parts inventories, and expertise. Further, such failures are unlikely to be potentially catastrophic. Nevertheless, since the first such society will serve as a showcase for our ideas and their viability, it is essential that the society not experience existential risk of any kind.

    Most such risks can be averted by making all critical systems (those in which a failure would have significant consequences, not easily remedied) redundant, with triple-redundant sensors continuously monitoring important variables to assure that the variables remain within tolerable limits.
    Since much of the automated systems will be, essentially, software, we need not only reliable redundancy but also defense against malware. Obviously, defense against malware is not trivial, and indeed it is expected to shortly become an ongoing battle between AIs, since humans will not be fast enough to either defend or attack successfully when opposed by AIs.

    There are two possible defenses of which I am aware. The first is to quarantine the city-state’s mission-critical systems against any input of any sort beyond very limited, recorded and real-time monitored communications with Citizens. (I can see no need for those systems to have an internet connection though, of course, I may be wrong.) Second, an ally who remains anonymous at this time is deeply experienced and connected in the world of Silicon Valley software. He has informed me that a startup of which he is part has figured out a definitive solution to malware. I hope he proves right.

    We cannot avert all catastrophic risks. For example, a modest sized asteroid could obliterate a Celebration Society either by striking it or striking elsewhere and causing, for example, a tsunami. However, the odds against such an event are extremely high. Further such risks can essentially be eliminated by building a second Celebration Society as soon as possible. This is, not coincidentally, the same argument being made in favor of Martian colonies to assure humanity’s continuation in the event of a planetary catastrophe.

    As I’ve written elsewhere, Martian colonies should be a fine place to build Celebration Societies, just as soon as the planet has been terraformed. Meanwhile, we can automate and monitor the operation of that automation on a continuous basis. In fact, the monitoring can itself become automated—in effect, a second software system that monitors the actual operating system.

    This could potentially be taken a further level deep: a third “assurance” system could run tests of the monitoring system on a regular basis, in effect stress testing it to confirm its proper functioning. By making the monitoring system itself triple-redundant (three such systems, all running separately and continuously, all tested by the “assurance” system on a frequent basis for identical and correct results), it is hard for me to see what could go wrong.

    That said, human failures of imagination are well-known and well-documented. Mine is surely no exception. This is but one reason why I favor the entirety of the Celebration Society’s systems being under the ultimate control of the Citizens as a body.