I like that approach, taking into account feelings / perceptions regarding perception of possibility.<div><br></div><div>Progressive mechanisms providing a feeling of faith or confidence ( or incentive ? ) ,</div><div>which can facilitate the creation ( through input / participation / collaboration ? ) of distributed systems / emergent movements ?</div>
<div><br></div><div>At a probably basic level,</div><div>an already classic speech ( ? ) - How to start a movement ? :</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://blog.ted.com/2010/04/01/how_to_start_a/">http://blog.ted.com/2010/04/01/how_to_start_a/</a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2FzpAFegXE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2FzpAFegXE</a></div><div><br></div><div>//</div><div><br></div><div>In relation to the initial post of this thread,</div><div>and the possibility to perceive a critical stage regarding survival or doom,</div>
<div>I m interested in the exploration of some kind of equation combining</div><div><br></div><div>relations between emergent distributed approaches vs centralizing systems of control,</div><div>energy and complexity,</div>
<div>efficiency/resilience trade offs, ...</div><div><br></div><div>I notice</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity,_Problem_Solving,_and_Sustainable_Societies">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity,_Problem_Solving,_and_Sustainable_Societies</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>I also notice</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale</a></div><div>which is based on energy consumption measurment,</div>
<div><br></div><div>but also an alternative measurment related to access to information , which may not need to be directly related to the amount of energy consumed - </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Extensions_to_the_original_scale">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Extensions_to_the_original_scale</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>excerpt :</div><div><br></div><div>" <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">In contrast to simply increasing the maximum power level covered by the scale, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan" title="Carl Sagan" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(6, 69, 173); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">Carl Sagan</a> suggested adding another dimension: the information available to the civilization. He assigned the letter A to represent 10<sup style="line-height: 1em; ">6</sup> 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 10<sup style="line-height: 1em; ">31</sup> bits. In this classification, 1973 Earth is a 0.7 H civilization, with access to 10<sup style="line-height: 1em; ">13</sup> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_supercluster" title="Galactic supercluster" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(6, 69, 173); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">galactic supercluster</a> 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 "</span></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Mark Janssen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dreamingforward@gmail.com">dreamingforward@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Sorry, I should back up a moment. Human consciousness doesn't react<br>
well when given seeming impossibile scenarios.<br>
<br>
All these analyses of the future, of mankind, etc, are predicated on<br>
an assumption which I claim is incorrect: that there isn't a unifying<br>
force which could/will bring it all together, abating the concerns of<br>
endless human reproduction, increasing energy needs, etc.<br>
<br>
There are certain esoteric truths being brought into the world which<br>
can change 5000+ years of man's journey into civilization around. One<br>
of these is that the battle of wills that has driven man's history<br>
ultimately ends in a two-player standoff. In that standoff, Will<br>
stops being the center of the world and Love and cooperation emerges.<br>
That's one point, and it likely belongs to the duality fought between<br>
Christian and Muslim.<br>
<br>
The second point, which belongs to the Greco-Roman battle off in some<br>
other world-line, is that, on a finite planet, reason and strength<br>
ultimately come to an end. At that point co-operation is the only<br>
sane way forward. This also will change the concerns and production<br>
patterns from expansion to reunion.<br>
<br>
It's an important message that hasn't seemingly propagated up to the<br>
heads of the world. Hope that clarifies the issue of what I think is<br>
trying to be accomplished here....<br>
<br>
marcos<br>
Santa Fe, NM<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>