A Celebration Society

Category: Government

Blog posts about Celebration Society government

  • Shock therapy, coming soon to your country

    Shock therapy, coming soon to your country

    Shock therapy is a concept proposed by some economists before the Soviet union collapsed. Essentially, it’s the idea that a command and control economy should be immediately dismantled, to be replaced by market mechanisms.

    Adam Smith cautioned against this, and it was a disaster in Russia. People who lack a culture of individual responsibility will not suddenly rise to personal and civic responsibility simply because there is a power vacuum. It takes time for culture to change. This is one of the reasons why I expect that retrofitting a Celebration Society to existing governments will be far more complex than simply starting fresh on uninhabited land.

    What no one seems to have considered is this: the coming tsunami of accelerating automation and technological unemployment will, for all intents and purposes, BE shock therapy for those affected. When the basic social contract breaks, so too does the society begin to break.

    The existing social contract has been that if one is willing and able to work, a job will be available sufficient to support a family. That has already been damaged, in large part by outsourcing. As AIs and the robots they control will be the ultimate form of outsourcing, the creaky social edifice will start to have major ruptures.

    In Russia, shock therapy led to the oligarchy/dictatorship of Putin. There is no reason to think that any other country will be different. Those who somehow thought American exceptionalism extended beyond Jackson Turner’s five factors will have a rude awakening. (They really should have had it this year.)

    I hope that we do not need to experience shock therapy on a widespread basis to awaken to the need for an Abundance Game. Oligarchs and autocrats generally don’t leave their countries in better shape than before. Often, the outcome is much worse.

    I expect that, in this case, with rapidly advancing technological capabilities and in particular AIs, we would see the emergence of an enduring oligarchy similar to Orwell’s 1984, but far more advanced and pervasive. Recently developed technology allows emotions to be monitored non-invasively at a distance.

    Soon, if nanotechnologists are correct, we will have microscopic nanite robots able to cascade through our bodies repairing damage and improving our capabilities. They could as well be used to assure total control of the individual; possibly even at the level of thought.

    The history of humanity should make clear that if such capabilities exist, ruthless parties will seek to control them and thereby control everyone else. I fear that such may become our default reality if we have great social instability in the 2020s and strongmen arise to restore order. Those strongmen may be much harder to displace than previous ones.

    Indeed, they might become immortal and never be displaced.
    Now is the time for us to develop and demonstrate a more humane, sustainable alternative. Will we do it?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Ominous Cascading Effects of Accelerating Automation

    Ominous Cascading Effects of Accelerating Automation

    When one paid worker appears or disappears in a community, it causes what economists call a “multiplier effect”. This has historically been estimated at 5 times the salary of the worker.

    Here’s how it works: if a person earning an income enters a community, that worker will then demand various goods and services. The providers of those will earn money from the new worker’s spending, and will themselves increase their spending. And so on. (Hence, “multiplier”.)

    Multiplier effects have not, to my knowledge, been applied to thinking about accelerating automation and technological unemployment. That is, clearly, a serious omission–by all of us who have been writing about the topic.

    Zack Canter’s “How Uber’s Autonomous Cars Will Destroy 10 Million Jobs and Reshape the Economy by 2025” made me recognize this omission. He did so not directly, but by pointing out the multiple industries whose workers will lose jobs when the profession of driving disappears:

    “The effects of the autonomous car movement will be staggering. PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts that the number of vehicles on the road will be reduced by 99%, estimating that the fleet will fall from 245 million to just 2.4 million vehicles.

    Ancillary industries such as the $198 billion automobile insurance market, $98 billion automotive finance market, $100 billion parking industry, and the $300 billion automotive aftermarket will collapse as demand for their services evaporates.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists that 884,000 people are employed in motor vehicles and parts manufacturing, and an additional 3.02 million in the dealer and maintenance network. Truck, bus, delivery, and taxi drivers account for nearly 6 million professional driving jobs. Virtually all of these 10 million jobs will be eliminated within 10-15 years, and this list is by no means exhaustive.”

    His 10 million figure greatly understates the problem. When those workers lose their jobs, there will be a reverse multiplier effect on up to 50 million other jobs as they spend less. And I don’t see US automakers cited by Mr. Kanter as being among those industries affected, an apparent oversight.

    Further, while Mr. Kanter quantifies the revenues of support industries that will be affected (insurance, aftermarket parts, etc.), he doesn’t quantify the JOBS that will be lost. Those losses will surely add millions to the 10 million he quantified, thereby increasing the multiplier effects of those losses.

    Also, his analysis does not include jobs in other nations, whose auto manufacturers will similarly contract and probably go bankrupt. Further, when various businesses and even whole industries go bankrupt, this will have serious consequences for the financial markets as, for example, the bonds issued by such companies become worth only pennies on the dollar.

    The entire economy is a finely tuned, tightly integrated system (actually, a system of systems). When there is a serious disruption to a significant element—such as jobs employing drivers—the cascading effects will be huge, and could be disastrous.

    If the loss of a single profession, driving, that employs perhaps 10 million Americans could potentially seriously affect the livelihoods of up to 50 million other Americans, that alone could trigger another Great Depression. And this Depression would be worldwide, since the exact same consequences will be rippling through most economies.

    Even worse, automated driving is only one of the professions that will soon be automated. Therefore, I cannot think of anything else that carries the urgency or seriousness of this issue. Technological unemployment, and alternative ways to meet the needs of those soon to be unemployed, needs to be front and center in public discussions.

  • What’s wrong with a Celebration Society?

    What’s wrong with a Celebration Society?

    In this world, however much we might wish it otherwise, there is no perfection to be found. Every beautiful thing has its limitations or deficiencies. Even mathematics has Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems.

    So, too, must a Celebration Society be imperfect. This is not to say that I regard it as falling short of being utopian, for I actually regard utopian societies as being inferior to a Celebration Society. I have explained in another blog entry why I regard utopian thought as misguided, and why a Celebration Society should never be viewed as utopian. That said, there are further problems that people have identified.

    While some critics say that the technology that comprises the Three Pillars of Abundance is insufficiently mature to be reliable, I do not agree with this assessment. Yes, some of the technologies in the book are decidedly speculative or poorly developed. Nevertheless, as stated in the book, we need only one technology for producing abundant matter; another for abundant energy; and a third for abundant organizing intelligence. Those three already exist, in sufficient maturity to be reliable–given aggressive development–in the next decade or two. No serious research questions about them remain. All of the other technologies that might comprise the three pillars should be viewed as backups.

    However, there are two other concerns that have been mentioned and that are not so easily refuted. The lesser of these is the argument that there will remain certain kinds of goods and services that remain scarce even in a context of overwhelming abundance, causing jealousy and other problems. I have written about this here:

    The greater concern is the discrepancy between the potential rollout of Celebration Societies and the likely arrival of technological unemployment. Researchers at Oxford, B of A, Brookings and Nomura have all projected 40%+ levels of job displacement in advanced countries within 10 – 20 years, with up to 85% losses in poorer countries.

    Even with exponential expansion thanks to “pay it forward” cultures, there is no way that we will have sufficient numbers of Celebration Societies up and running in time to deal with such catastrophic changes. My only response is that, if we have a single such society thriving somewhere on Earth by the mid-2020s, then existing governments will likely seek ways to retrofit themselves based on principles of sustainable abundance, out of desperation if nothing else.

    However, that result is by no means assured, and I would be the first to admit that I have no idea how to effect such retrofits given the gridlock that’s plain to see in America and elsewhere. (Indeed, this is precisely why I have proposed Dogun as a first such society, to be created on relatively uninhabited land: no retrofitting is required.)

    Other and better minds than my own will be needed to address such questions, and any further problems with a Celebration Society yet to be uncovered. All that I know is that when people are sufficiently motivated, and the means to fundamentally reshape existing societies exist and have been proven to be physically viable, then such change will be possible.

    Whether it will happen without catastrophic social disruption is another question entirely. But at least we have the chance of averting such catastrophes if we act now to prepare for humanity at least one bright beacon of evidence-based hope.

  • Continuous process improvement

    Continuous process improvement

    Those of us who are old enough will remember the 1950s, when “Japanese import” meant balsa wood trinkets. Several decades later, the first Japanese cars started appearing in the US. They were widely derided as cheap looking, rust-prone tin cans, at first.

    No longer. In recent years, Japanese cars have led the world in reliability and other important design features. I purchased a VCR player near the turn of the century. It had—permanently glued to its face—a simple message: “The Quality of Japanese Engineering”.

    Made in Japan had transitioned from a joke to a hallmark of excellence.

    Many observers credit Japan’s adoption of continuous process improvement for its amazing progress. Continuous process improvement is one of my favorite ideas. It sounds boring, but it has the most profound implications for society. The concept was pioneered by W. Edwards Deming, an American engineer, statistician, management consultant, and thinker. His ideas were largely ignored in his home country, but later wholeheartedly embraced in Japan.

    Once the power of his ideas was recognized, Deming was feted as a hero in Japan. He received numerous awards, and had “rock star” status. Today, Japan awards a highly coveted, “Deming Prize” for organizational excellence.

    According to the Deming Institute, Deming’s message has 14 key points:
    (https://www.deming.org/theman/theories/fourteenpoints)

    In my view, the essence of the concept boils down to this:

    1. Measure everything important, as part of the production process.
    2. Treat people with respect and dignity.
    3. Identify areas where performance or results aren’t up to desired levels.
    4. Welcome all proposed ideas for improvement.
    5. Try something new, and test its effectiveness.
    6. Adopt changes that provably result in improvements.
    7. Repeat.

    It sounds simple enough, but like many such ideas there is tremendous detail and subtlety in the implementation (far beyond my own understanding). The key takeaway is this: don’t strive for immediate perfection. Create something that’s a decent first start, then relentlessly make it better.

    This concept has now been adopted in startups around the world as part of the AGILE development process. There, developers are encouraged to identify, design and build the Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Once that’s accomplished, they are then encouraged to continually refine and improve.
    Toyota’s motto, “The relentless pursuit of perfection” aptly summarizes the philosophy. Note the word “pursuit”. It’s a pursuit; not an attainment. Like a mathematical limit, perfection may be seen in the distance (however fuzzily), but there is the awareness that perfection is only a dream.

    Those who believe that they can design perfect societies seem to always wind up with totalitarian systems, wherein the inherent limitations of the designer’s understanding show up in actual life as unending human misery. We will avoid this by, first recognizing that perfection is a dream, not an attainment, and second, that there are no perfect people or ideas for society. We will have an unending series of experiments, many of which will yield permanent improvements. Those will be celebrated!

    It’s ironic that Deming’s ideas had to travel thousands of miles abroad before, decades later, returning to their shores of origin. However, I am reminded of the adage that Ellis West, the head of Wilson, West & Associates (one of my earliest employers) was fond of saying: “An expert is someone hundreds of miles from home.”

    Applying this concept to a Celebration Society, I see several important understandings:

    1. We won’t achieve a perfect design, now or ever. We will strive for a “good enough” design, then constantly look for ways to make it better.
    2. Utopia belongs in novels. We can’t and won’t build utopia. But we can build something that’s far better than the present “first world” standard of living on Earth. And that’s good enough to usher in a wonderful world.