Reader's Reactions to Synergic Containment
Response by Arthur Noll
Subject: Synergic Containment
Thanks for reading and thinking about my work.
Obviously an adult can physically contain a child, or smaller and weaker adult. Several fit adults can contain a single fit adult. But those who are aware of the destruction by the majority of humanity, and see the great need to contain it, are a small minority. We are not going to physically contain the majority of people. I do think that this minority could mentally contain them, if we worked together on it. I think mental containment would lead to explosions and not education and reform, but I see nothing else to do. Either outcome would ultimately stop the long term destruction, and allow healing to begin.
This is a very interesting idea! Mental containment. I think you are right that a group of rational and moral individuals could be effective in responding to irrationality and morality, by surrounding the perpetrator with rational responses. I think that it could also generate peer pressure in a positive way. Today in our adversary-neutral culture, we most just ignore stupidity without challenge. This is clearly a mistake.
I don't know if you saw my recent exchange with Jack Dingler on energy resources. I quit arguing with him because he clearly was not going to be reasonable about the subject, even though he is one of the more powerful thinkers on the list, often quite rational. His last post insisted that there was no reason that people who lie, cheat and steal would not survive well, even though I had given reasons why. (Internal lies weaken the group internally, external lies create and sustain enemies that can weaken the group externally) He wrote as if I had said nothing. To mentally contain such thinking, I need help, I am too busy with other matters of sustaining my life in this crazy world to make such an effort of refuting such denial. Yet there was no one reading that exchange that offered any help. If people agree with me, they aren't trying very hard to contain such thinking. I suspect that many really agree with him, lying, cheating and stealing is the way to get big in this world, it is silently condoned in many ways. But containment is indeed what is needed. Wherever irrational thought like this springs up, it needs to be contained, arrested, because it is destructive to all if it is acted on, and thought precedes action.
Good point and well said! Thanks for the note,
Response by Hank Burroughs
Subject: Regarding Synergic Containment: A Mechanism for Protecting Humanity
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your note.
Hank: This is a very interesting proposal and obviously took considerable thought. I have not seen any other comments so will try to present mine. The idea of a safe Earth is very appealing. I did much of my Masters degree work on intentional communities and Skinnerarian Behavior modification That is the first thing that popped into my mind as I read Timothy ideas. This was followed by thoughts of the Communist Chinese "justice" system and their social controls like one child per family. This may be the only hope for Homo sapiens but I certainly hope not.
Maybe after several generations we could produce a group of people that would function as Timothy plans but I don't think I will be here to see it. Even B. F. Skinner realized it would take special education of the children to have them think in a social fashion with the group's needs first. We certainly see example of this in some actions today. The actions of the passengers on 9/11 who caused the plane they were on to crash before it could hurt people in a building on the ground is a good example. This is an extreme example but does show the desired attitude.
I agree that the challenge may be to improve humanity so that they can function comfortably in a synergic fashion. I see community classes for both children and adults so the principles of synergic relationship can be learned and practiced. I expect once individuals begin to practice synergy they will discover is an easy and comfortable life style. Think of how you feel when you are working well with good friends and family and lots of mutual respect.
Hank: I think that these same people would react very strongly against the key ideas of Timothy's proposal. The idea of giving so much power to an "elite" group is the opposite of what the United States is all about. I can think of no example to support the select group (Doctors, psychiatrists, teachers, etc.) as being able to make incorruptible decisions in all cases.
Synergists are not an "elite" group. They are just very nice people. They believe in working together. In helping others. They are opposed to adversity and neutrality. They want a win-win-win-win world. Where you win, I win, Community wins, and the planet wins.
Hank: In fact, I think there was a war fought around 1776 to prevent such a concentration of power. Our system of government has produced a better life for more people than any other in the history of the world. It is not perfect but I doubt if any system devised by Man will be perfect. The biggest problem stems from the sheer size of the economic-political system. Many things need to be controlled on a nationwide or even a world wide basis but most people object to a "one world" government.
Today we still pretend we live in the majority rule democracy founded in 1776, but this is only an illusion today. As Jay Hanson has explained we live in dollarocracy. One Dollar = One Vote.
I agree we are in need of a one world government. I would suggest a synocracy. Power is not concentrated in synocracy it is distributed. Decision does not in the hands of a few people it is equally in the hands of all members of the synergic organization. Take a look at Ortegrity to see how this might work.
Hank: I personally feel that the coming energy crunch will take care of many of the world's problems by reducing the total population thereby reducing the pressure on natural resources. It is the job of this list to devise a plan for a sustainable lifestyle to get some people through the "dieoff". If our plans are successful, maybe they can include the necessary behavior modifications needed to be able to use Timothy's ideas. It is kind of like Dean's remark that we will only have people in our community who are healthy because they have always lead an optimal lifestyle. This will be great for our as yet unborn ancestors if we and our current offspring can start changing the way we live. Even getting a smoke free restaurant seat is still not possible in some states. Laws outlawing the use of alcohol just succeeded in producing a "mob" controlled situation that exist even today with our drug problems.
I am even now moving to focus on my contribution here. I am soon to publish a new book explaining human intelligence. Being developed in parallel with this book, is a course for teaching individuals how to optimize their personal intelligence and stablize in what is called the synergic mode of thinking. The result of this achievement will be a shortcut to synergy.
One of my areas of interest and study is human intelligence science. The reason human intelligence is so powerful is because of the synergic relationship between two powerful minds—the space mind and the time mind. This "dual mind" intelligence is capable of generating four distinct levels of knowing—Information, Knowledge, Wisdom, and Oneness. I am currently completing a new book on Understanding Human Intelligence which will explain the Dual Mind and the four levels of knowing which it produces.
A simple metaphor for these four levels of knowing are:
Information is KnowWhere. Where do I go in space to survive. Where do I get water, food, shelter?
Knowledge is KnowWhen. When do I act in time to encourage or stop a sequence of events.
Wisdom is KnowHow. How do many different temporal sequences fit together to create spatial complexity.
And, Oneness is KnowWhy. Why do things happen the way they do? What is the consequence of complexity?
A human with information would know they should avoid a nuclear explosion. Where can I go to be safe.
A human with knowledge could learn to detonate a nuclear weapon. When to a push the button and in what sequence to trigger the bomb.
A person with wisdom could invent and design a nuclear weapon. How do the laws of physics work together and what temporal sequences must I create to allow nuclear fission or fusion to occur.
A person with oneness, would know that nuclear weapons should never be invented or manufactured. What are the consequences of using nuclear power as weapons? What happens when such weapons are common? What happens if they fall into the hands of those dominated anger and ignorance. Why would it be a bad idea to create nuclear weapons?
With our new understanding of human intelligence, it will soon be possible for many humans to learn to understand their minds and began accessing the higher levels of knowing. As they do they will gain increasing understanding of sequence and consequence.
Hank: I thank Timothy for his efforts thinking about the future but would really like to have that kind of effort put into coming up with usable techniques for building our sustainable ecovillages and regional centers. The wife and I visited the Civano community of Tucson yesterday. It is suppose to be a cutting edge example for a better Earth friendly way to live. Except for the narrow streets, tiny lots, and the 2 X 6 construction it is a flop. Hey, Oregon has required 2 X 6 construction for over 30 years for all new homes!! The houses are not designed for passive solar gain, all have modern air conditioning, and there seemed to be very few homes with solar hot water and only two with photovoltaic panels. There was one straw bale and one rastra house. The sales people said that the purchasers would not pay for the more Earth friendly and sustainable features. I don't suppose that the subsidized rates from the power and gas companies had anything to do with their decisions. Each new owner gets guaranteed low rates for at least 5 years. Many of the owners did not expect to be there much longer then that according to the sales people we talked with. There were 36 small townhouse type homes on their own lots which sold out in less then 10 months. The profit was so low that the builders went to bigger homes which are selling just as well. Something about supply and demand!
This is a very important focus. I will support this as much as I can.
There are many obstacles to making a sustainable ecovillage but I think Mike Reynolds of Earthship fame has the right idea. A person or very small group decide what they want, buy some land, and start working on their project step by step. He has done this with three communities in northern New Mexico and now has basic approval for people to build Earthships there. I do not propose the Earthship style as the solution to a sustainable ecovillage because it depends on waste products from society for the building materials. While this would work for a short time, eventually the supply of used tires and pop cans will run out. Therefore, what will the 7th generation use? The basic idea of a self-contained building with its own food, water, and waste recycling system are excellent. This could probably be expanded to the small village level. It would rule out living any place with less than about 10 inches of rainfall .
The ideas we saw at Arcosanti also had some merit. The concentration of the people into a small "footprint" so leaving more open space for food production and esthetic value sounded good. The village did not use air conditioning and was reported to be uncomfortably warm in the summer and a little chilly in the winter. We stayed over night in one of the earth-sheltered guess rooms. It was quite comfortable this time of year. I do not believe that building with all that concrete would be sustainable because of the energy needed to make cement and iron rebar . Again with a reduced population maybe we could build enough buildings to last for several hundred years. At least, Dr Solari is smart enough to build on very "poor" land, leaving the best land to grow crops.
If the group is interested, I could also report on our visits to people building with straw bales and earth plasters and the fun we had at Biosphere 2 learning about a very different vision of the future. Biosphere 2 did show how to raise food in a sustainable fashion but the 200 million dollars for their dome may be hard for the average group of 8 people to come by.
I am interested. I will soon begin the division of labor at SusCom. All of this work should be helpful.
Enough for now and thanks to all who read this far. Please let's have some comments from others on this list. Sure would like some feedback even if it is negative.
Thanks for reading and thinking about my work.
In response to Hank's note above, Arthur Noll writes:
I share some of your feelings, Hank. People would resist it. People do resist it. Though the logic of not wanting an elite to make decisions would be a faulty logic, as we have an elite at present who make laws and decisions. There is a considerable concentration of power in this "democratic" system. Dollars are votes in the present system, and dollars are highly concentrated to a minority of people. I think that people see changing that elite to a different group as unnecessarily risky, would not consider doing it until the present elite clearly has totally messed up the job. Abstract arguments that the system is faulty and headed for disaster mean little to most people, at least in my experience. They shrug and go on with their present situation.
I've had similar thoughts about using the castoff parts of this society to do things. I feel it needs to be clearly understood that doing this is not sustainable, but as a way to get by for the present, it is useful. I have sometimes thought of present humanity as a sort of natural disaster, like a massive volcano that has spewed up millions of tons of metals and plastics. I don't plan my life around such events going on forever, or teach children that it can be expected to go on, and minimize buying new stuff since it just feeds the destructive flow, but since this event has also destroyed many traditional sources of materials, I often use junk materials for building with. My motorized bicycle is on the road again, it is nearly completely made of junked parts. The engine was a weed eater engine being thrown away, that still runs fine. The roller drive is an old skateboard wheel. The various pieces of metal are mostly salvage. The bicycle itself was rescued from a trash heap. I haul a trailer with it that is made of recycled wood and bicycle wheels and metal from a trashed bed frame. We need to be adaptable to the circumstances we find ourselves in.
I would like to contain this "volcano", but physically it is impossible. I see the possibility of mental containment of the thinking that drives it, but only when enough people see the need to do so. Just as what I wrote at the beginning about changing elites. Many people see the destruction, but say it is worth it, that the destruction isn't so bad compared to what the technology can do. It will only be when enough see that what the technology can do is not sustainable, that they will see that it is not worth it. Sustainable systems destroyed, for rusty and broken machines, in the end. Including my bicycle and motor. I will use it, and other things, but I will not call them the future. The future will be living things, muscle and bone and quiet, not fire and steel and noise.
Response by Chris Lucas
Subject: Synergic Containment
Chris: There are many good things in this series from Timothy but getting to such a Utopia could be harder than it seems.
The point about the individual being allowed to hurt society (with junk mail etc.) is very true and shows a level of stupidity and lack of common sense that I find incredible. Such nonsense is making all our 'quality-of-lives' terrible - and it isn't all about safety !
The idea that harm loses freedom of action for the perpetrator is I think vital, there are no rights at all in a society without responsibilities and the legal idiocy being perpetrated today doesn't change that.
Defining 'harm' however is tricky. This cannot mean just physical harm, but needs to include psychological harm also (noise, mental cruelty and so one). But if we do this then we leave open all sorts of loopholes for presumed 'hurts' (he looked 'nastily' at me - I want 'compensation'), a good dose of common sense is needed here !
Tim: I agree that all of this must be applied with humility, humour, and common sense.
I like the Asimov-style 'laws' of the Plato-like 'Life Trust Guardians' but think we need to add two more:
0) A Life Trust Guardian may not injure the planet or, through inaction, allow the planet to come to harm.
3) A Life Trust Guardian may not injure property or other lifeforms or, through inaction, allow property or other lifeforms to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the Second Law.
The first protects the world from rogue societies (America ?), the second prevents destructive vandalism (by individuals or corporations).
I'd thus modify the 1st to read:
1) A Life Trust Guardian may not injure humanity, or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm, except where that would conflict with the Zeroth Law.
Tim: I agree this would be more complete. I had been thinking about similar changes to include protecting the Earth, Natural Resources, and Life (non-human), your suggestions are excellent.
Restitution is another issue where today's culture fails miserably. Here in U.K. (at least) crimes often result in fines - but the money doesn't compensate the victim, only lines the State pocket ! Most victims remain worst off after 'justice' is done than they were before, whilst the criminals are often better off (4 star ensuite 'hotel' accommodation...) than they were before - the incentive system is totally wrong !
One of the main problems with these Guardians however is that they are expected to be saints, rather unrealistic ! Humans are pretty poor at such behaviours, so who guards the Guardians ? For example, who decides what is 'harm' and what is not ? Is 'humanity' more threatened by Bin Laden or by America's drug addiction with money ?
Or by subversive literature - "out with the Guardians" (it could perhaps be argued that the 'police' cause more actual harm to society than those 'criminalized'). It seems to be assumed that the 'harm'/'not-harm' distinction is a fixed barrier and easily defined, but it is not. There are many dimensions to 'harm to humanity' and each is a fuzzy variable.
Tim: I have addressed the problem of how to protect ourselves from the police (Synergic Containment Officers) in today's posting.
Protecting Us from the Police
Some will argue that we need a private right to weapons to protect us from the police. This argument misses the point. In an earlier article of this SafeEARTH series, I introduced the concept of the Life Trust Guardians and their enforcement arm the Synergic Containment Officers.
Life Trust Guardians and Synergic Containment Officers are not the police, they are synergists. They will be well educated and trained. They will understand the powerful tools they use and the consequence of both the use and missuse of those tools. Remember, synergists believe that we should work together and act responsibly to make the world work for everyone. Synergy means working together—operating together as in Co-Operation— laboring together as in Co-Laboration—acting together as in Co-Action. The goal of synergic union is to accomplish a larger or more difficult task than can be accomplished by individuals working separately. Synergists are committed to a world where I win, you win, others win and the Earth wins. Win-Win-Win-Win.
Best of the Best
Synergic Containment Officers are Life Trust Guardians. The Life Trust will seek to attract the best of the best as candidates for Trust Guardianship. Once selected these Trust Guardians would have greater trusteeship privileges with concomitant authority and responsibilities for and to the Life Trust.
Trust Guardian Candidates should have repeatedly demonstrated both personal and public honesty, and should have a history demonstrating synergic morality and behavior. In the future, Universities will offer degrees in Trustegrity and Guardian Science to prepare those young humans to desire to serve Humanity as Community. A careful selection process will be developed to select the very best which could include Trust Guardian Academies.
It is apparent that the responsibilities of Trust Guardians will be great. They of course are not allowed to hurt anyone through their control of the Synergic Trusts. But in addition they are required to protect and conserve the Synergic Trusts. Further, they are required to help others and to insure that all humans have the basic needs of life —both survival and meaning. This is a binding obligation. Failure to meet these obligations results in the immediate loss of Synergic Trustee privileges. The Life Trust Guardians will be charged with protecting Humanity as Community, and Humanity as Individuals.
Chris: The containment strategy suggested 'nothing goes in' seems sensible, suspending privileges (what Win called "Incentives As A Preferred Instrument of Corporate and Public Policy") is a prime incentive (comply or starve!). We have today I think an almost totally inverted system of incentives that reward anti-social behaviour (e.g. corporate greed and bullying, being a 'billionaire' while others starve - would the Guardians target this I wonder ?). This needs to be addressed in a more systemic manner, not assuming all values and societies are disjoint ("One Planet and One People" as I have said previously).
The idea that there will be no lawyers will not be popular ! As perhaps the most lucrative 'cash-cow' milking profession and the support for political power for most of your legislators this should kill the whole idea stone dead for the foreseeable future I think ;-
Whilst a commitment to 'truth' sounds good, I must point out that there is no such thing. All 'truths' (other than tautologies) are probabilistic issues (in science as elsewhere). In any issue involving humans there is always doubt, always a 'get-out-clause' hence the 'reasonable doubt' clauses in legal arguments. What I 'believe' is the truth may be nothing like it at all, and that goes for anything everyone says or does - 'Self-delusion is Us' !
Tim: Finding the near truth is all we can hope for. But good men and women doing their best with humility, humour, common sense, love and compassion should do a much better than what passes for justice today.
Another related issue is that Guardians are said to only get involved when injury is 'deliberate'. But this is inadequate, does corporate neglect in not recalling faulty cars (since it would affect profits/sales) and resultant carnage count as deliberate ? 'They' can't be 'proved' to have 'deliberately' caused the crashes - or does this come under 'or by inaction' ? Again this is all probabilistic. I'd vote 'guilty' (to some extent) if a wise judgement could have predicted the effect. But the world is not totally 'safe', even if we do not intend harm, is anyone 'responsible' for say mining accidents or falling from scaffolds - it's a bit of a minefield (another good example !).
Tim: I am throwing out a model. We can work together to make it better.
The idea the Guardians share responsibility with released criminals (if they re-offend) should stop anyone ever being released - bureaucrats always protect their backs you know... Public standards cannot be higher for Guardians than for the rest of us, as they are only human too...
Tim: The Synergic Guardians are just as responsible for keeping someone in too long and releasing someone too early. I think this can be dealt with using the Circles of Safety.
Circles of Safety
Imagine a large rehabilitation containment community structured within concentric circles. The highest security would exist within the central circle. As you moved outward from the center the level of security would diminish and level of freedom for those contained would increase.
In a system with 7 containment zones, as seen in the following diagram, the central zone would be highest security-lowest freedom for containees.
Within the central zone would be humanity’s most dangerous individuals. Caring for these individuals would be humanities best Adversary Behavioral Medicine Specialists including Physicians, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Rehabilitationists, and Maximum Security Containment Officers.
As individuals improved with treatment, and demonstrated safer and more responsible behavior they could migrate outward to the next containment zone. Each zone would require further treatment and education, and continuing observation. Only when a contained individual has demonstrated successful adaptation within a zone for a prescribed period of time could they migrate outward to the next level.
Each zone outward would bring more freedom and with it more responsibility. Zone seven would be 100% secure with no freedom or responsibility. The outermost or Zone One would be very minimally secure the containees experiencing nearly full freedom and high responsibility. Those in outermost or Zone 1 are trusted to remain voluntarily within that zone until they completed their program
Any adversary event which resulted in loss of life would mandate central or Zone Seven containment. As example if minimum time in zone 7 was three years and two years in every other zone. The minimal time of containment for such an event would be 15 years. And what happens after 15 years? Only if the individual contained demonstrated success at every zone with no adversarily behavior for 15 years. Then and only then would they be eligible for release back into human society. And if they could not demonstrate that they were cured, they would never be released.
Incurable adversary behavior would result in Life Containment. Adversary behavior is an illness that endangers others. You only get a release if you are well and are no longer a threat to public safety.
Public Safety is paramount — the amount of time spent within containment is meaningless.
Chris: The Waco affair illustrated this. When people are 'put in charge' in crisis situations the public expect them to 'act'. When those put in charge are gun-toting state thugs i.e. adversarial types whose very language revolves around war vocabulary, i.e. siege) then they will 'act' the only way they know how. Why are we surprised at the outcome ? The 'boss' has his job/ego to protect, and 'no-result' isn't a socially acceptable solution in terms of U.S. society (a culture of 'instant' solutions and short attention span, at least in its portrayal over here ;-). The FBI acted completely 'in character'.
Tim: We are talking about a different class of people with a different value system.
As for the question of how Guardians are chosen... Well all I can say to that is that I would find it difficult to choose a single person to fulfil than role, and certainly none of our current methods of 'appointing' public officials would lead me to expect any less corruption or incompetance than is apparent in todays 'public servants' (whose behaviour is neither public nor serving !!).
Tim: Hear! Hear!
Response from Arthur Noll
Subject: Synergic Containment
Many good points, Chris.
As always, I feel it comes back to survival of the fittest, or shall we say in this case of humanity, survival of the best view of the truth? As you say, there are many versions of the truth out there. People are right now betting their lives on their version of truth.
They can't all be right, unless those that think that many realities exist simultaneously are right. Not something that I agree with. If we make our reality, or many realities exist, then the "reality" of past scientists should still be alive, and it is not, it is only in the history books. Who survives, has the real truth. Many people try to hedge their bets, and not fully commit to anything, wanting more information, more time to make up their minds. Yet hedging is a position in itself. It can totally fail just as other positions can. I find it curious that many who claim to hedge, really aren't collecting more information, aren't doing experiments to resolve the situation. They are really hiding behind the idea of hedging, since hedging is widely seen as intelligent behavior. They are unable to logically defend their present position, but liking it, holding to it with the pretense of gathering more information. Whatever information does come to them, however, is never enough. Such people are very apt to exclaim at how terribly complicated everything is. Yet they have no trouble deciding that they will keep their jobs, houses, other possessions. In this "terribly, terribly complex world", this is somehow not a complicated decision that might be wrong. You would expect someone who was truly troubled by the complexity of things to have tried many things, and have very little, as opposed to the constancy of view needed to accumulate and keep material wealth. "Ye shall know them by their works".
And "answer yes or no, anything else comes of evil". We can always answer yes or no, even if we don't know the answer to a question, we can definitely say we don't know. And in many situations, we can then go on to truly gather information that allows us to make a yes or no answer with confidence. People who constantly say, "I don't know", often really mean, " I don't want to know". They might not even be aware that they really don't want to know. People often lie to themselves, and believe the lie. Science has been the process of filtering out false views through experience. It works over time, large majorities of people have come to basic agreements on many things, yet often a generation had to die out before a position became unanimous. People whose viewpoints were cumbersome and gave uneven results, eventually died out without making converts to their position. The present situation should work out in similar fashion. Whole communities of thought will die out without reproduction, not simply because of inability to make converts, but because people just die and their children and students die as well. They made the wrong bet, had a faulty view of reality.
All of which is, of course, my version of the truth. If it is made up of lies I have made up to suit myself, and isn't based on reality, then it will fail me eventually, and no one should listen. If that were the case, however, someone ought to be able to point out the discrepancy in my thinking...
Response from Scott McCall
Subject: Synergic Disarmament
Thanks for reading and thinking about my ideas. You wrote:
I read your article on Synergic Disarmament. I found it quite interesting.
I've thought about it, and think that perhaps conflict and war will always be. Doesn't conflict drive evolution? without conflict and war, as bad as they can be, I believe humanity would stagnate. I think no matter how much we all try to make the world safe and prosperous for everyone, there will always be an element big enough to threaten any peace and stability we have achieved.
Our current world is dominated by adversary-neutral society. I am talking about the transition to a synergic society. As I have written elsewhere, What do synergists believe? :
We believe that we must learn to work together. This means we must become synergic humans. Synergy means working together—operating together as in Co-Operation— laboring together as in Co-Laboration—acting together as in Co-Action. The goal of synergic union is to accomplish a larger or more difficult task than can be accomplished by individuals working separately. We are committed to a world where I win, you win, others win and the Earth wins. Win-Win-Win-Win.
We believe there are three types of humans to be found in our present world. Which type you are depends on what you believe about how the world works.
Adversaries believe there is not enough for everyone and only the physically strong will survive. They believe humans are coercively dependent on others, and they best understand the language of force.
Neutralists believe there is enough for everyone, if only you work hard enough and take care of yourself. They believe humans are financial independent and should be self-sufficient unless they are too lazy or defective. They best understand the language of money.
And, finally a new type of human is still emerging. Synergists believe there is enough for everyone but only if we work together and act responsibly. They believe humans are interdependent and can only obtain sufficiency by working together as community. Synergists best understand the language of love.
But, to be successful in our present world, the synergist must understand all three languages and know when to use them. Synergists must sometimes use the language of force, and sometimes the language of money, it depends on whom they are talking to. However, when synergists are seeking allies—when synergists are seeking to build community—they must speak the language of love.
We believe that you should, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What is it that most of us want others to do unto us? Synergic scientists answer this question as follows: Help and support others as you would wish them to help and support you. Or, more simply, "Treat others the way they want to be treated."
Synergists are trying to heal the wounds inflected by those who don't understand how the world could work. This then is the essential challenge to the synergists. Can we work together and act responsibly in time to save our ourselves on this planet? ... Only by helping each other.
You next write:
Scott: The internet, for example grows stronger and stronger, more secure, and more ingrained in our lives. Hackers, who most consider malicious, are responsible for the level of security and protection we have currently with the internet. Day by day, as viruses spread and hackers test the limits, they actually ensure a secure and strong internet for all of us. Otherwise our infrastructure would be weak and untested against the inevitable mischief that is unleashed upon it.
If there were no hackers, some nutcase, say 10 years from now, could bring down the entire internet because there was never any hacking. Without the intelligence and persistence of hackers constantly searching for any weakness, our information infrastructure we rely upon more and more would be destined for destruction.
As you sow, so shall your reap! If we sow adversity, we will reap adversity. If we sow neutrality, we will reap neutrality. And, if we sow synergy, we will reap synergy.
The internet is more resistant to adversary attacks today, because it has successfully reacted and adjusted to the adversary attacks of the hackers. Do you really think we should thank the hackers for making the internet more secure from hacking. If so then should we thank the wife beaters for allowing us to build domestic shelters?
How about a world where people don't hurt each other. Why don't we try to build a world like that?
Scott: 9/11 will change america forever. And I can't say it wont be for the better in maybe 50-100 years. Every conflict has a winner. The winner may take casualties, but the experience strengthens those who survive the fight. I belive the civilized world will survive.
As much as I would like to see peace and never see war first hand, I belive that no nation or world consensus can stop war and conflict. There will always be that miniscule seed of opposition that is strong enough to test our strength.
I understand your feelings and beliefs, but the problem of adversity must be solved. Since human knowing can grow without limit, and human tools can become evermore powerful without limit. We reach a point, where leveraged adversity. Adversity leveraged with knowing and tools, becomes so powerful it threatens the survival of all life on the planet. That time is now!
I dont think it means that America or the civilized world are doomed. I think that 'al quaida n company' are the necessary evil we can never completely eliminate and will test our will endlessly.
I do belive that perhaps there is a point where we overcome conflict and guide our own evolution through conscious choice through genetic engineering, rather than through bloody conflict. Unfortunatley, the thought of humans controlling our evolutionary destiny is some seriously scary shit! It has already begun...
The future IS, and has always been, WEIRD and SCARY.
I agree, the world is a very dangerous place. We have huge problems and adversity will not help us solve them. We humans must grow up. The genetic manipulation you talk about makes my point. What happens when someone creates a truely dangerous virus, toxin, or plague?
Thanks for writing,
Follow up to Scott McCall's above letter
I have always believed in the potential within us all. I suppose that I too am a synergist. I think that a synergic future is where us humans are supposed to be headed. How do we deal with the never ending supply of ignornant and violent poeple? It seems so impossible to change perceptions of people, especially those who are noneducated, poor, and desperate.
We must slowly educate all who are open to learn. We must live as synergists. Help when ever we can. Try not to hurt or ignore.
I think perhaps the Internet is our sort of "embrionic synergic back-bone". It's the information nervous system of humanity, in its still early stage. It is destined to evolve into something that probbably none of us can imagine.
I am with you here. I think that as humanity begins to earnestly work together it will be internet that connects us and allows to co-ordinate our actions.
Maybe the only way we will truly become a synergic society is when humanity faces a universal threat like a nice sized asteroid, alien invasion, or a rapid, out-of-control climate change that forces everyone to work together.
I think we are already facing that universal threat. I think it is our collective ignorance. I wonder if we will wake up in time ?
Do you think in 500 years we'll be the BORG? lol
Well the BORG are an adversary race. So not like the BORG. Will we be as connected as they? Will we incorporate machine intelligence and tools within our bodys? I think we just might. Certainly a lot of good scientists think so.
Thanks for writing,
Scott McCall Final Comment
heeh I never thought about a "good borg".... of course!
thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!