Home · Government

The Human Organism

How our world is presently changing.
Less than 50 people rule the world. It's a fact. Look it up if you like. Maybe the name 'Rothschild' will get you started. But I won't go into it here. They are remnants from a time when the world was easily controlled.
Consider that in 1970 there was less than 4 billion people on the planet Earth. 40 years later, there is almost 7 billion. Coupled with diversity, the world becomes nearly impossible to control.
You might have noticed that every attempt to control humans fails after a period of time. Every single government ever. Except of course those still standing today. They will eventually however, and here is why:
All particles in the universe flow freely. They have a particular orbit or path in their life, but within this plane, they are free to move as they wish. Translated into people, we can choose to do anything we can think of, we have the ability to flow freely. There are some that take advantage of their freedom by using it to restrict the freedoms of others. This results in various forms of government. The worst part is, people actually like being ruled.
For the societal machine to run efficiently, it must be lubricated, or literally, people can't have their wants impeded.
Tell me, what would happen if you legalized murder? Chaos? War? Anarchy? All three?
No. Not even close. The people that pissed everyone off would die. Though, if you did that, then people would start murdering people over property, slaughtering them and taking their lands. Of course, we could prevent this by making property easy to obtain. Easier than it is to kill someone anyway. But if we did this, then there wouldn't be enough for everyone is a common lie. There is plenty for everyone, but the people in power don't share so well.
So if murdering is legal and letting everyone have a share prevents murder, surely we should all grow lazy for not having to work for our share. If only there were a way to let the whole world know how much a person contributes versus how much they consume. I know, why don't we put it on Twitter? And you know, if we have all this data for product consumption and production, we have a pretty accurate way to measure our economy. Look at that, suddenly, we don't even need money anymore.
The best solutions are a result of everyone working together, trusting each other to do the right thing. So how can you trust someone you don't know? While we're logging all this data, I don't suppose we could log a person's deeds, do you? For instance, if you met a person and somehow instantly knew that they've killed 5 people, you would be afraid of them. Of course, if you read further, you would find out that they were murdered because each of them had murdered 10 others. If you read on, you'll find that the 10 people murdered by the five that were murdered by the man you've just met, you'll find out that those five were oppression assassins who dedicated their lives to ensuring freedom for everyone (except of course the oppressors... hypocrite). So now you should not be afraid of them, unless you are an oppression assassin, but you should probably give him a mean look for being anti-freedom.
All of this knowledge would be a complete and accurate live feed of human history. This would only work if you could hear and see everyone at all times... a fascist's wet dream. On the other hand, you might accept that if we knew we were being watched at all times and accountability was guaranteed, we might not want to do anything "bad". We need our privacy, though don't we? Not really, to be honest. If everyone is on public TV all the time, then you'd be lucky to have people that want to spend their time watching you masturbate or have sex with your wife. After all, there's always someone more twisted than you. The point I'm making is that embarassment can be solved by making it public. It is an insignificant price to pay for total accountability.
Having taken these steps, we can create a stable system where nobody has more freedoms, rights or responsibilities than any other. It would be rather straightforward to delegate all tasks to the public. You would need a way to categorize the skills of the individuals to ensure their capability of task completion, which at this point should be no problem.
So how does it all work? Mass communication, the ability to let everyone know everything. The data will naturally become organized in an optimal fashion over time. How? That's the best part.
A free market cannot work unless it is completely free. An ideal system must be run in ideal conditions. Capitalism is not a free market system because it lets some have more control than others through the amount of capital one obtains. It essence, it is unfair. Nor can the free market be plagued by rules and regulations for what should be obvious reasons. The only way to have a free market is one that is based on the actions of the individual.
Society becomes a machine where voting is done through action. It is equal because we can only do one thing at a time. That thing is our free choice. It is fair because no one interferes with any other. If they do, it is up to us, as it has always been, to prevent oppression.
It all happens with the free transmission of information. Information is the ultimate source of wealth and power. If we give everyone all the wealth and power that exists, we achieve unimaginable feats of greatness. We must admit that we are all here to do the same thing... live our lives. Nobody was here first because we're all here right now if we live in the moment. Then we must learn how we get in other people's way. Then we must learn the fundamental laws of nature. That everything can be manipulated for good or bad so we must always be vigilant.
The greatest threat to mankind has always been itself. It's time we started keeping a watch on it. We can remove the baby monitoring devices one we can all trust each other.

If you want, go ahead and dismiss my ideas as radical and nonsense, especially in our lifetime. But I'll tell you why this is inevitable. Like I said, everything works best when we work together. Social media is exploding, quickly making mainstream irrelevant. Open source software is as good if not much better than commercial software, not only for the pocketbook but its potential to do good. Corporations that implement an equal-ownership model make more profit than those with a CEO. Everything is better with teamwork. Eventually everything will be done with teamwork because it is better and more efficient.

We will soon be faced with the decision to become efficient or risk societal collapse and probably the deaths of all but relatively few. The inefficiency is further complicated by the fact that hierarchical design structures are inherently slow and not very adaptable due to the chain of command that must occur for tasks to be executed. In short, the human organism is a big dumb animal.

Since you're still listening, I have one last thing for you to ponder. If the societal machine is made of people and the machine is forced to get better or die, eventually, the best possible societal machine will result. If each person is the owner of one of Earth's most powerful programmable processors, and the Internet will result in all the processors being wired together, then Earth's resultant societal machine will be the most powerful supercomputer man has ever imagined. If the processors can communicate a large majority of our sensory perception to everyone else in real-time or near-real-time, the supercomputer would spawn a super-consciousness. This god-like entity would quickly become more and more intelligent, consuming knowledge and solving problems effortlessly.

Earth (or any planet for that matter): a rock floating in space that will grow a mini-god with just the right amount of sunlight.

Comments (0) 04.25.2011. 18:09

Government 2.0

In an open source society, anyone can do anything they like. They can learn how to do anything humans know how to do.

Say a person wants to turn off a power station. For the fun of it. So he gets the service manual, does a bit of studying and heads to the power station. He waits until no one is around and turns the station off.

What should this man's punishment be? In an open source society, where all information flows freely, everyone that was influenced by his actions would know that he did it. Or even that it was about to happen.

Regardless, in a society where no single person or group can legally exercise control over another individual, what can you do? Well, you can certainly tell the person about it. Shouting at someone or leaving them angry notes is legal. That's not really controlling someone. Call it, expressing your morals to them, why what they did is a bad thing. You may not however, cause the person harm.

After all, while your electric going out is inconvenient, it's not the end of the world. You may have lost several hours of work on the computer, but at least it gives you a chance to make it better the second time around. This man's action still don't give you a right to exercise control over this man.

Arresting a person, or physically detaining them is controlling them. They are no longer free to choose their actions. You see, humans are free to do anything by default. We can literally do anything we imagine so long as it is physically possible, which is literally anything. This includes both good and bad.

However, the universe is completely indifferent to good and bad. What happens, happens, it happens for a reason and it has consequences. The consequences of this man's action is that a lot of people are upset with him. The reason this happened is known only to the man himself, since we cannot read minds yet. I bet if you asked him, he would tell you.

Perhaps he was simply curious, but in that case, in his studies of disabling the station, he would have found that there is a proper, regular time for doing that, and he simply need to sign up on the wait-list to do so. Perhaps he was expressing anger at something. Be glad he didn't choose to harm anyone in the process. This act was a cry for attention, so you should talk to them and find out what they would like to say.

But let's get right to it, shall we? One man (a different one) is very angry. He has been insulted by another in the worst way. The angry man, out of rage, murders the other man. In current society, he is hunted down by police, given a trial, found guilty, and kept in a cage for a sizable percentage of this man's life. This action ensures that he has enough time to build up rage and hostility towards society, all but ensuring that he does it again if he every gets out alive.

In a Utopian society, the consequences of the murderer's actions are their own punishment. What could these consequences be? Well, someone kills the man out of revenge. A relative, or whomever. Perhaps most do not feel it necessary to to punish someone by death for killing the original murderer. We still have one murderer around, but at least he seems to have some sort of standards about who dies. Though his actions were illegal, as he exercised ultimate force and control over a person, the law itself does not permit punishment of him or the original murderer.

In present day, our "laws" are do no more, or very little to prevent crime from happening. You see, the only thing everyone wants is to live and increase their comfort level. That's all. The current winning strategy for individuals and groups to achieve this is at the cost of others.

You see, for as long as we can remember, "stuff", "resources", and other "junk" have been scarce. But now we have landfills full of it. We're not "out” of resources by any means. There's PLENTY for everyone. And if there's not, we have the technology to make more.

In Utopia, society is strong enough to grant everyone what they want, because that is the goal. Its rules are designed to achieve the highest average individual happiness. No longer should government cater only to those that are best at manipulating current systems of control to their advantage.

The real crooks make the rules so they can prevent others from breaking them, then break them themselves. This is the most effective survival tactic in civilized human history, it is a monopoly on crime.

However, it does not make everyone happy. In fact, it creates a very small number of happy people at the cost of the happiness of many times more. Laws are not designed to prevent crime. They are there to make punishment and evil behavior by the state socially acceptable. By saying they are doing it "for the greater good" and to "protect the people", all while gathering more and more power, the populous quietly accepts and ignores this State-sponsored hypocrisy.

The entire problem stems from creating a "government" or State that is an entity separate from the public. The government is a special segment of the population that are indeed allow to break the rules they are enforcing to enforce the rules.

Imagine, you go up to a person you deem doing something "wrong". You wrestle them to the ground, handcuff them, and lock them in an inescapable room in your home. The current state would charge you with kidnapping, assault, and depending on how well you took care of your prisoner, maybe even torture. Talk about hypocritical.

So this group of entitled individuals gets the idea that they can use the rules to their advantage, and maybe even help some of their friends out, especially if it gets more money for the State, their campaign funds or votes. Once the State is separate from the people, it automatically begins acting in its own interest due to the fact that people in power are absolutely incapable of resisting corruption. It is a disease of our mind. And because of this, if we are really serious about designing a stable governing system, we will have to understand that no human can be trusted with power anymore than another human.

Of course, we need to create the open society first. We need to capture the information we need. No longer would we need a trial if we have direct, impartial evidence of the event in question. There would be much work required, building a vast monitoring system. However, the reason this monitoring system is the opposite of "Big Brother"-esque monitoring is that its feeds are available to everyone. All information flows freely in utopia.

Structurally speaking, our current society is unstable by design. its economies are built on a fundamentally manipulable currency system and its government rests on a very small number of decision-makers called "representatives". We create these representatives because we can't be bothered to have a say in what goes on in our towns. It's our fault just as much as theirs.

Our federal governmental, capable of tossing around TRILLIONS of dollars worth of influence, is run by less than one thousand people. Less than one thousand people decide if we go to war, how our currency works, how our economies function and who lives, who dies and who they allow to struggle for survival.

Our society is much too large to be resting on the minds of a thousand men. Even if it's ten thousand or a hundred thousand people making decisions for the rest of us, it's far too few. I am a single person, and I refuse to be marginalized.

Every single opinion from every person matters. If anything, we are defined by how we think the world should be. And every human has a right to voice that opinion. However, it may not always be right to act on the opinion. Some people's opinions, even the ones of our Representatives, have unintended consequences resulting in a disadvantage for many people, for the benefit of the few.

Structurally speaking, the most stable government is one whose responsibilities are evenly distributed throughout the population. In these modern times, the Internet easily allows all of us to make the same decisions that our Representatives make in relatively little time each day.

Now, since people's opinions are subject to error, we have to make sure they are the right decisions. So a person, any person, proposes an "action" this Action is designed to benefit the whole of society. Any other person may object to the Action based on the grounds:

  1. This action violates the rule that no human can exercise control over any other human.
  2. This Action should not be pursued due to largely harmful consequences that outweigh the benefits. (requires verifiable evidence).
  3. There is not enough scientific data available to determine the effects of this action. (gather more)

In this sort of stable society, everyone's opinion would be accounted for and we can make our decisions based on verifiable facts, the same facts used in the courtroom.

We have the ability, and therefore the obligation, to create a system in which everyone is free to do the same things as everyone else.

The transition between our current system and this stable system could be easy or difficult. It is hard to say. It would take considerable thought. Or maybe we could just do it practically overnight. It's not like people wouldn't adjust over time. But the real thing we're trying to avoid is chaos. When taking the wheels off a car, you have to put it on a jack first, right?

So anyway, the current goal is to create a system that prevents crime by making crime no longer necessary. The system treats all individuals the same. All individuals are government representatives. The system requires the free flow of information to be viable.

Comments (0) 01.09.2011. 10:50

Stable Society

It is the responsibility of the citizens to keep their government in check. However, citizens cannot protest what they don't know about. Governments keep much of their actions a secret, claiming security reasons. What you don't know can hurt you.

Throughout human history, we have seen great nations fall to greed and corruption. Time and again, we try to prop entire countries up onto the shoulders of a few individuals, the ones we call leaders and representatives. It is only human nature that these leaders eventually use their power to their own advantage and to their friends' advantage rather than for the citizens they answer to.

Capitalism has superseded all governing systems. The government operates on money, so whoever has the most money controls the government. Citizens have very little money compared to corporations. It is really quite simple. Money is the physical manifestation of human greed. Before there was money, a village would work together to take care of each other because they all cared about one another. They were rich in social capital.

Science is a time-tested method of definitively proving the laws of reality. One might even say that the scientific method will always lead you to the truth. Science has been largely ignored throughout human history. Its findings were always inconvenient. As it turns out, without science, we would still be cavemen, without any of our precious technology.

The power of knowledge is demonstrated every time a government covers something up, every time a politician is caught cheating on his wife. More concretely, the power of knowledge is demonstrated in engineers and others that use technology to their advantage. These are the people in society that turn information into knowledge and finally into products that do amazing things for you and I on a daily basis. People with detailed knowledge of the inner-workings of systems that run the world also have an immense amount of power.

Communication is an essential part of any human relationship. When a relationship lacks communication, it typically crumbles. As it turns out, communication is simply the transmission of information. If we strive to increase the flow of information, our relationship as a country will dramatically improve. If knowledge is power, then information is wealth. As information is easily duplicated these days, why not make everyone rich with information?

A stable society would be built on a foundation of truth. A stable society is heavily invested in social capital, not monetary capital. A wealthy society is rich with useful information. A healthy society communicates this treasure trove of data with everyone. A stable society can reach higher than any unstable society could ever imagine.

Humans are not perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need a system at all. People would just go about their business doing the right thing without being asked or threatened into coercion. Our current system is prone to fail at the weaknesses of the humans running it. A stable societal framework would find a way to make our weaknesses irrelevant or much easier to overcome.

Comments (0) 11.18.2010. 10:22

Towards an Ideal Democracy

Why can't we have an ideal Democracy? When governments were first created, I'm sure the best leaders honestly wanted to know what their constituents thought of certain issues. The problem was talking to all of them. There are town hall meetings, of course, but you can't fit everyone in the village/town/city/country into the same building to work things out. Even if you could, it would surely devolve into a shouting match.

So the real reason we can't implement an ideal democracy is an utter lack of communication. However, that's what we've created the internet for.

If the internet was going to save us, how would it be done? It seems to me that Facebook, with its 500 million users, is more than capable of handling the opinions of 350 million Americans.

The evils of our world are government and money. Using the Internet to replace both is something that is not only possible, but is something we are obligated to do. So how do we do it?

One website would keep track of our personal consumption and production. This is the essential idea behind the use of currency, but money has many fundamental flaws that cannot be reconciled on a global scale. This method would provide extremely accurate and useful economic data, as opposed to our stock markets whose stability rests on the whims of men.

Another website would be something of a voting or decision-making website. However, most people are not logical thinkers and incapable of beneficial decision making. The proof of this is simply seeing where the 'moral majority' has led us so far. I believe this problem was patched in former governments with 'representatives' that understood more than the common person how governments and societies operated. If this voting website could take into account logic and rationale in decision making, it would be for the best.

However, both our current system and the system I propose here are subject to the same fatal flaw. As with any system, it can be hacked, exploited and manipulated by those that favor their self-interest over that of everyone else. To solve this problem so far as it can be solved, we turn to the Open Source ideology.

The Open Source community has taken the Internet by storm and completely revolutionized it. Suddenly, valuable products can be had for free. Not only are these products free, but they are also, in a lot of cases, better than proprietary, closed-source software. The point of this is to allow everyone the ability to understand what exactly these websites are doing behind the scenes. This creates trust and stability. The more eyes there are looking at something, the more likely we are to identify problems.

To have an Ideal Democracy, we must maximize our communication.

I believe the right answers are impossible to ignore forever, for the truth can always be rediscovered. Communication is the key the everything.

Comments (0) 11.03.2010. 09:27

How to Save Ourselves

I am qualified to tell you this because I have spent most of my life listening while others talk their heads off. I pay attention to the world around me instead of polluting it with useless information about myself. I am also qualified because my brain has been conditioned to handle floods of information while retrieving the most essential parts. This is a result of having seen the transition from the pre-Internet world. Some call it ADHD, I call it adaptation. In short, I understand how this world works on a large scale. I also understand how it is broken. More importantly I understand what must be done.

Our global society is too large to continue fighting amongst ourselves. It is quite obvious to me that our governing system has three out of four flat tires. What system is that? Capitalism. "But we have a representative democracy!"... Unfortunately, Capitalism supersedes the authority of government. In our capitalist system, we vote with our money; rather, the person that controls the most money has the most say in what happens. The more wealth a person commands, the more influence they have. Humans, especially politicians, are not above currency's influence. This new "voting" system has come to replace the fine government that our ancestors had to fight to establish. Replaced with greed and corruption...

We need is a system we can trust. As such, the core value of this new society will be truth. The best way I know for finding truth is the scientific method. We need a system where everyone's voice is heard instead of having a few people speak for many. What has prevented an ideally democratic system was a lack of sufficient communication technologies. Facebook has 500 million users these days. Each user has a voice. Why can't we do that with our government? And why does an ideal democracy sound so much like socialism? Is it that Socialism may actually be a good thing? Well, good for those that don't crave power, anyway.

One system I've grown to trust over the years is the open source ideology. As long as we're building a system on truth, we may as well use open-source for maximum effectiveness.

Such a system would provide each individual with their basic needs while affording each the same opportunities to earn their wants. This could be done by keeping track of "societal contribution" on the internet. This system could replace currency altogether, freeing ourselves from the grip of greedy bankers! To continue participating in the world market, a modified barter system could be used. For things we would typically import, we could trade enough raw materials to make two of the items we want while receiving one of the items.

Knowledge and information are power in this system. The more detail we can know about ourselves and our actions, the better decisions we can make. The extreme end is an all-knowing society where privacy is completely sacrificed for total freedom. Being free is about trust. We make rules to keep people in check while we can't see what they're doing. If we know what everyone is doing at all times, we can trust them. So you don't need to harass them over their actions unless they are exercising power over an unwilling individual or group. You may say it's too "Big Brother" but I think people only do bad things if they know no one is watching.

Knowledge and information are tied very closed to education. If information is abundant, as it is on the internet, we only need to learn two things: 1) how to teach ourselves new things and 2) how different aspects of society operate. We have to get rid of 18 years of misconceptions when we become adults, having to relearn how the world actually works instead of what everyone told you growing up. This makes for a very simple education system that can allow children to become productive members of society at a very young age.

I have come to the conclusion that secrets and other ways of hiding information (patents, state secrets, DRM, etc) only occur to save someone from being roasted on a spit, so to speak. What I mean is secrets only exist for selfish reasons. I've never heard a secret do anyone any good. If a particular bit of truth is going to hurt your feelings, you needed to hear it.

The next thing we need is have the ability to do is make decisions that effect many people. It reasons that everyone affected by a decision should have an equal say. No more of this "majority rules" crap. The majority exists to oppress the minority and this can no longer be tolerated. Again, with the advent of the internet, we have the ability to allow everyone to have an equal voice. Decisions will be made using the scientific method because it proves time and time again that it can find truth.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the current possessors of power will happily relinquish their thrones. We would rather not have to fight them, but unless they grant us freedom, there can be no other result but revolution. My ideas are the way of the future, I would like if you would help me get there.

Comments (0) 09.28.2010. 09:29

The Human-Hour Econo-Government

People live, then they die. But while they're alive, they do stuff. What do they do? Eat and drink for one.

They also breathe, but for all intents and purposes, air for breathing is an infinite resource... for now... until we kill all the plants.

So animals, excluding humans, go hunting and gathering for their food and they devote nearly their entire lives looking out for their next meal.

Humans, at least in developed countries, only have to worry about where their next meal is coming from if it is the middle of the night and no place is open. Or you could probably go to the pantry and scrounge something up.

Other than air, food and water, people need material possessions as well. They need cars and clothes and myriad other items to get them by in the modern world.

Humans came up with the concept of trading, or bartering. By logical extension, humans also came up with money. Money made trading easier.

The logical extension of money was markets and trade. Eventually, currency ran the world. This wasn't bad at all for a very long time. Money was very convenient, after all.

There is a big problem with money, though. It is a middleman between stuff you need for life and the effort of acquiring it. To acquire money, you work a job. You are trading your time and effort for food and stuff.

Money being a middleman isn't a problem in itself though. Money has a sort of gravitational property to it. Entities that have a lot of money to begin with find it incredibly easy get more of it. Those without a lot of money to start have a hard time ever getting the ball rolling.

This isn't why money is bad though. People are bad. No longer is currency merely a tool used to aide in trading; it is the trading. Money has gone from a tool in a game to being the game itself.

Businesses, as they grow, no longer worry about product quality and customer happiness. CEOs have to worry about whether or not the business makes money to stay afloat.

No longer can people do what they love, for they have to go work a job they hate so they can earn money to live.

The game of money has turned into a tool of oppression. It controls our lives and our minds.

What about this? Since money is used as a symbol for your time and effort, why not give your time and effort away for free? Ask others to do the same.

If we don't do things for money, we do them because they make the world a better place. If we don't make our products to maximize profit, we make our products to please the customer.

What if you went to work every day knowing that doing so was helping to make the world a better place for you and your family rather than just enriching the life of the person that owns your company?

Eventually, voting wouldn't be necessary. People just go and do what they want, working for the company they want because they think that will make the world a better place.

The problem is, if people don't specialize, or rather, don't work in the same field their entire lives, they won't ever be really good at one thing.

This isn't a problem, it's a solution. Since people are working their job for free, there's nothing compelling them to stay at the same job any longer than it holds their interest.

Thus, several things happen. First, it would probably increase turnover rates at companies, while increasing the number and quality of "permanent" employees.

Second, general skills would strengthen. Instead of producing individuals with a singular skill-set, we could have an large number of interchangeable employees.

Third, no longer would people hate their jobs. If you don't like doing it, or you don't agree with what the company does, quit. They need you more than you need them.

Instantly, everybody's vote counts for exactly one each. There are no more individuals that have more voting power (read: money) than another. Value would be measured in humans per hour.

People develop a large array of skill-sets, or at least cursory knowledge of many topics. Knowledge which may be only an inch deep in some spots, but the puddle of their mind is a mile wide.

Wouldn't we run out of "experts" though? I doubt it. With a data repository for the human race such as the Internet, "expert knowledge" could be contained and added to digitally. If something new is discovered, the repository is updated and future explorers of said topic can pick up where the others left off. Also, people will become experts in what they love; that's all an expert is anyway.

In a human-hour economy, the individuals would drive it, creating a true democracy. This way, the government IS the economy. Now we can get rid of politicians as middlemen, too!

If you see on the TV that Company X is polluting or doing something you don't necessarily agree with, and you happen to be an employee, you can show your opinion by not working there. Conversely if you see a company that you think has potential to benefit you and or others, then go work for them!

No longer do people need to learn facts and data, they simply need how to learn in general. Learn to learn and you can know everything. The decrease in training time for new employees would, at least in part, make up for the higher turnover rates.

Lastly, I believe this would also solve unemployment permanently. In fact, if this became law, I don't see why we wouldn't go ahead and make unemployment illegal at the same time.

So realistically, how can this happen? Just ask your employer to stop paying you, but keep working there, at least for awhile. If you don't already have a job, go ask to work somewhere for free.

If every unemployed person in the United States went and worked somewhere for free right now, I bet it could be the kick-start our economy needs to get rolling again.

When it comes down to it, people are unemployed because the price of their human-hours was too high, and now they refuse to work for the price the market seems to think their human-hours are worth. It is despicable.

If you want the economy to keep sucking, then keep feeling sorry for yourself and stay unemployed while the rest of us do the right thing and work for free.

Comments (0) 02.25.2010. 06:11

Utopian Thought Police

Sometimes I wish I was the bringer of a utopian society. Utopia to most people means a perfect world. The concept of perfection is an impossibility, a limit you can only approach but never reach. Giving utopia a more realistic definition, I would say that it is the accepted merging of a government and its society. "Accepted" is the key word there.

I think the internet social revolution is showing us what a mass of people can do with a few minutes of their time. Why don't we crowdsource our government? How would you accomplish such a thing? The internet is a step in the right direction, but we're still missing a few things. "Government" is just that: a system of rules that governs its citizens.

Our current government spends needless amounts of money playing a global scale game of Command and Conquer. We don't exactly know what our money is being spent on. The problem is lack of information and the fact that we hand our decision making power to some person that we may or may not agree with on certain issues. The politicians are not special. They're are people like you and I, yet they seek power over you and you willingly give it to them.

I propose the following. With the advent of the internet, we would be able to create a system with which we are able to hold our politicians accountable, or even better, become the politicians ourselves. How do we trust our politicians? How do we trust ourselves with power? Accountability.

I know many of you value your privacy, but for utopia, you must sacrifice it. To be held accountable for your actions, everyone else must know what you are doing at all times. Let's take it one step further and let everyone know what you're thinking at all time as well. Hear me out on this though, the thought police don't have to be evil big brother.

There needs to be a compromise. I would gladly sacrifice my privacy if I knew nobody was going to give me a hard time over the things I keep private. I do my best to be a good citizen. I try to keep out of people's way and try not to do things that would upset anyone, though you will always have uptight people that get upset over nothing, but I digress. I may or may not do illegal things that don't hassle anyone else.

If everyone "open sourced" their minds to the public, people would be held accountable for their actions, but there's something more important: trust. If you could read everyone's thoughts, you would know their intentions (primal: whether or not they plan to eat you), and determine if they mean you harm. I believe we only do "bad" (always a subjective term, along with "good") things because we know we can get away with it. How can we govern ourselves if we are unable to govern ourselves?

As mankind merges with the internet, we will evolve into a utopian society. The reason is simple. Evolution tends toward efficiency. A civilization that works together rather than against itself is much more efficient than one that is fighting amongst itself constantly. One way of working together and becoming an efficient society is by sacrificing your silly privacy so we can trust each other. The more efficient the human network becomes, the longer it will survive.

Comments (0) 12.09.2009. 13:25