Tag: utopia

  • 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.

  • Perils of Utopian Science for Societal Design

    Perils of Utopian Science for Societal Design

    One of the earliest books that could be called utopian was Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward. It described a future scientific society, devoid of competition, in which everything was run scientifically. It was all to be rational and orderly.

    As a 16 year old, I was captivated by his vision. I later realized, with hindsight, that Mr. Bellamy probably never spent much time with actual scientists doing actual science.

    Science is messy. It is an unending quest for knowledge that the scientists know can never be called certain in the way that religious people[1] crave. They are trying to take snapshots of a complex reality, discerning from careful tests what are generally small truths. Yet they know that whatever truths they may uncover could later be superseded.

    (To understand HOW messy science can be, http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/the-quest-to-make-synthetic-cells-shows-how-little-we-know-about-life/475053/ and http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/failure-is-moving-science-forward/)

    In this lack of certainty, science differs from revealed knowledge. It also differs by virtue of being testable and repeatable. Scientists pursue their quest anyway because knowing—even if only partial and conditional—is far more satisfying to them than ignorance.

    Even “settled” science such as the Big Bang Theory could still be superseded by more complete or deeper understandings. As described in my book, a highly respected physicist recently developed a theory that appears to explain the origins and behavior of the cosmos as well as does the Big Bang, but with a cyclic universe. Likewise, scientists discovered evidence that life may possibly only arise in dry conditions and not within water, as had long been assumed necessary.

    Other such examples exist and will continue to be found.  All of science consists of developing testable, falsifiable hypotheses. The experimenters, if good scientists, do everything they can to reduce the experiment to a single variable.  But sometimes it’s the unexamined assumptions that may do them in.

    This isn’t hypothetical. Dr. Bruce Alexander developed his famous Rat Park experiments after examining such an unspoken assumption. He observed that nearly all of the addiction research studies used Norwegian white rats. The rats eagerly consumed all manner of drugs, and displayed addictive behavior.

    While others took this as evidence that the substances are themselves addictive, Alexander asked a different question. Given that these rats are sociable, intelligent, playful creatures, might their lab conditions—essentially, solitary confinement for life—constitute a kind of torture, from which the rats would desperately seek escape?

    He and his team built Rat Park as a kind of utopia for rats. They ran the experiment for many years, with one key finding: they could not induce the rats to consume drugs, even when mixed with favored sugar water. Their conclusion was that the previous experimenters had failed to examine a crucial assumption.

    Again, science is an evolving body of knowledge. That’s what makes it exciting to scientists, and to those of us who admire their work and revel in their discoveries. There is, however, a lot of popular confusion about science. For example, some hear scientists use the word “theory” and misunderstand:

    “… the two words, theory and law, have very different common meanings. But in science, their meanings are very similar. A theory is an explanation which is backed by “a considerable body of evidence,” while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a “mathematical statement.” … A scientific law is not “better” or “more accurate” than a scientific theory. (http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/why-isnt-evolution-considered-law)

     

    What has this to do with societal design? Mr. Bellamy, and more recent advocates of a scientific society such as Jacques Fresco (The Venus Project) share what I regard as a serious misunderstanding. They believe that, if only we were to scrupulously follow a scientific approach to societal design, everything would be fine.

    When Mr. Fresco speaks of a proper system of governance for his ideal society, he proposes to turn over all important decisions to machines. The machines will make decisions that allocate everything rationally, he believes.(Said his associate, Roxanne Meadows, in a February 2016 Atlantic interview, “We would use scientific scales of performance for measurement and allocation of resources so that human biases are left out of the equation.”)

    Once systems are in place, they’re hard to change and harder to replace. Even more seriously, the machines will need to have guiding values. If the values selected are interpreted by the AI in a way that’s inimical to human interests, the consequences may be severe. For example, if an AI with power to rule us decides to minimize pain, it may permanently immobilize all humans in order to protect us.

    This is why a Celebrationist system of governance will be by people, but people who coexist within a very different kind of system than we have now. Celebrationism will encourage cooperation, mutual respect, evidence-based decision making, mutual service, and the cherishing of differences. Further, as I envision it, none of the people in government will have strong individual powers. Likewise, the AI’s will be partners who advise us.

    I advocate a scientific, technological basis for society, but do so in order to create a neutral vessel within which all manner of beliefs and lifestyles, including faith-based practices and revealed knowledge, can flourish.

    Finally, while some such as Mr. Fresco believe that a single model of a scientific society can be perfected, I have no such expectations, and true sustainability requires significant diversity. As I see it, those of us who come together to simulate a Celebration Society will not seek to make a single perfect model, but instead compete in teams to see who can devise the first viable and practical societal design—knowing that it still includes flaws, which will come to light over time. Then we’ll test that design in the real world, with each implementation being locally appropriate, and refine it further.

    When others, inspired by our successes, want to build their own Celebration Societies, we’ll support them and allow them to share the “brand’ if they agree to certain principles. But beyond that, they may well take very different paths to expressing how their society(ies) serve those principles.

    We’ll all learn from each other, because we’re all imperfect beings. So, too, will superhuman AI’s be imperfect, should such emerge. We will ever more closely approach truth and perfection, never achieving either in this relative world. But the journey will be delightful and awe-inspiring.

     

     

     

    [1] I am using the word “religious” more broadly than most do

  • A Partial Celebrationist Experiment

    A Partial Celebrationist Experiment

    While I’d prefer that a Celebrationist experiment be tried because of pure enthusiasm, that’s rarely enough for groups of people to create great change. Great societal change seems to come on the heels of perceived necessity. Accelerating automation will soon provide this perception for people pretty much everywhere, and that’s the reason I expect a Celebrationist experiment to be tried in the near future.

    There are other circumstances that can cause this perception of necessity. Great instability in the physical environment is one of them. Consider Syria’s Kurds. Not to be confused with the Kurds located elsewhere, the Syrian Kurds have embarked upon a major social experiment with Celebrationist elements. They also happen to enjoy the proud distinction of having beaten back an attempted ISIS invasion in their city of Kobani, despite most of the world expecting another ISIS massacre.

    Since ISIS is a ruthless, well-armed invader with the courage of its convictions, this Kurdish city must have really had something worth fighting for. And they did.

    Says the Huffington Post: “The world watched in resignation. The lone superpower said it would not help. U.S. officials grimly predicted the city would fall. Yet the small band of Kurds held on for days, then weeks. The U.S.-led coalition against the self-described Islamic State began to help, first with a smattering of airstrikes then with daily assaults. And by January 2015, in a stunning turnabout that has been called a contemporary Stalingrad, the Kurds won.

    In succeeding, the Syrian Kurds defended not just a strategic outpost in the Middle East, but also a utopian idea of government they’re putting into practice — what they talk about as a space where decisions are made at the neighborhood level, where gender equity and ethnic inclusion are legally mandated, and where barter is becoming more important than currency.”

    Herein lies one of the wildest tales of social engineering I’ve heard. It starts with a man of Russian Jewish ancestry, who grew up believing in Marxism.

    The Syrian Kurds’ leader derived their philosophy from long engagement with Murray Bookchin, a self-described libertarian socialist. His vision was “… of a world where citizens’ assemblies supplant state bureaucracy and environmentalism is king.”

    “His passing sparked a celebration of his life in the Kurdish regions. And now, Syrian Kurds have — at the urging of Abdullah Ocalan, an imprisoned Kurdish icon — built a Bookchin-inspired society that is the antithesis of the Islamic State.

    The territory where the 1.5 million or so Syrian Kurds have launched this social experiment, carved out of the wreck of Bashar Assad’s police state, includes Kobani and two other small “cantons,” or regions. They call it all Rojava.”

    Bookchin grew up a communist, but … (later) set out to “rethink everything,” (He) began to dream of a future in which machines could replace most human effort and free individuals could develop themselves as they saw fit. But he believed that in the interim, social problems — the biggest among them the struggle between amoral corporate power and humanity’s best interests — would lay waste to the natural world. “The notion of progress, once regarded as faith in the evolution of greater human cooperation and care, is now identified with ever greater competition and reckless economic growth,”

    Bookchin said…. “I wrote about alternative technology, arguing that technology should be as humanly scaled as possible,” Bookchin recalled in the later interview. In Bookchin’s view, “utopia was no longer just an idle dream, but something that could happen,” according to his biographer and longtime companion, Janet Biehl.

    “Murray’s contribution to that was to figure what is going to be the institution,” she said. Bookchin proposed reshaping a capitalist world by setting up micro-level systems of local popular assemblies. Such a political structure would, he believed, marry the best of both the intellectual traditions he valued.

    While Rojava has its critics, it has successfully implemented a system in which local groups of citizens select representatives, apparently through consensus. Those representatives select higher-level representatives. All representatives are subject to recall. Ultimately, the whole society of 1.5 million people is represented by two co-presidents; always a man and a woman.

    We need the first Celebration Society to be successful. That means eliminating existential risk factors as much as possible. Rojava is unfortunately in a highly unstable part of the world, so I would not favor an early Celebrationist experiment happening there. However, once Celebrationism is widely recognized as a viable successor to capitalism, we might be able to co-create a Celebration Society in this most unlikely location.

    Rojava includes many brave men and women who are willing to go their own way, following principles they hold dear. That’s a great beginning to a eventual conversation with them about Celebrationism.

  • Review:  Misgivings Addressed and Answered

    Review: Misgivings Addressed and Answered

    The research and writing of this book has obviously been a massive undertaking. Not so obviously, it is incredibly up to date with current technological advances.

    I started to read it as just another attempt at idealizing a Utopian Society. I had all the usual misgivings about his glossing over of inconvenient truths, or leaving gaping holes in his logic or reasoning. However, the further I read, the more my misgivings were addressed and answered convincingly. I sometimes felt that his elaborations were overlong and had a tendency to slightly drift off topic, but he always managed to bring them back in time!

    I did feel that his criticism of the FDA, while thoroughly justified, didn’t really add to his thesis, and the book wouldn’t suffer if it were to be omitted. If I have one real niggle it is, from my personal perspective, that once again the environment is a minor bystander to human cleverness. The two outstanding aspects of the book were the Charter of a Celebration Society, and the revelations of his and Jennifer’s personal anecdotes which provided that human touch.

    I can’t tell you how much I admire you for producing this gem and wish you a profound reception and success in promoting these wonderful ideas.

     

    ~Steve Friedman, retired geology teacher