I like that approach, taking into account feelings / perceptions regarding perception of possibility. Progressive mechanisms providing a feeling of faith or confidence ( or incentive ? ) , which can facilitate the creation ( through input / participation / collaboration ? ) of distributed systems / emergent movements ? At a probably basic level, an already classic speech ( ? ) - How to start a movement ? : http://blog.ted.com/2010/04/01/how_to_start_a/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2FzpAFegXE // In relation to the initial post of this thread, and the possibility to perceive a critical stage regarding survival or doom, I m interested in the exploration of some kind of equation combining relations between emergent distributed approaches vs centralizing systems of control, energy and complexity, efficiency/resilience trade offs, ... I notice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity,_Problem_Solving,_and_Sustainable_So... I also notice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale which is based on energy consumption measurment, but also an alternative measurment related to access to information , which may not need to be directly related to the amount of energy consumed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Extensions_to_the_original_scal... excerpt : " In contrast to simply increasing the maximum power level covered by the scale, Carl Sagan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan> suggested adding another dimension: the information available to the civilization. He assigned the letter A to represent 106 unique bits of information (less than any recorded human culture) and each successive letter to represent an order of magnitude increase, so that a level Z civilization would have 1031 bits. In this classification, 1973 Earth is a 0.7 H civilization, with access to 1013 bits of information. Sagan believed that no civilization has yet reached level Z, conjecturing that so much unique information would exceed that of all the intelligent species in a galactic supercluster<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_supercluster> and observing that the universe is not old enough to effectively exchange information over larger distances. The information and energy axes are not strictly interdependent, so that even a level Z civilization would not need to be Kardashev Type III " On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Mark Janssen <[email protected]>wrote:
Sorry, I should back up a moment. Human consciousness doesn't react well when given seeming impossibile scenarios.
All these analyses of the future, of mankind, etc, are predicated on an assumption which I claim is incorrect: that there isn't a unifying force which could/will bring it all together, abating the concerns of endless human reproduction, increasing energy needs, etc.
There are certain esoteric truths being brought into the world which can change 5000+ years of man's journey into civilization around. One of these is that the battle of wills that has driven man's history ultimately ends in a two-player standoff. In that standoff, Will stops being the center of the world and Love and cooperation emerges. That's one point, and it likely belongs to the duality fought between Christian and Muslim.
The second point, which belongs to the Greco-Roman battle off in some other world-line, is that, on a finite planet, reason and strength ultimately come to an end. At that point co-operation is the only sane way forward. This also will change the concerns and production patterns from expansion to reunion.
It's an important message that hasn't seemingly propagated up to the heads of the world. Hope that clarifies the issue of what I think is trying to be accomplished here....
marcos Santa Fe, NM