When we think about building anything, the first thought is about the past builders, whichever industry, domain, or land you're coming from. From the Roman Colosseum, Great Wall of China, and Taj Mahal of India to building Wikipedia, Reddit, and Google of today, we look up to the past great builders and wonder what it'd take to even come close to what they've accomplished. Thinking about building a new World altogether sounds even more daunting. Specially, if you think about who, how, what, and so on the million other questions. In this article, we'll start by trying to figure out what and why and the how. Of course, it's not going to be completely covered in one article alone. But, it can be a start.
When we think about the end goal, it doesn't really look a lot different from our current world. With the only differences being in the WHY of our endeavor. What do we want to be different from this world? The negativity, corruption, stealing, terrorism, war are some of the things that comes to mind. We don't want them in our new world. but how do we get rid of them? That's in the innate nature of any living being. Left alone in an environment of utter desperation, anybody would succumb to an inch of negativity leading to any number of things from there. How do we remove all need for desperation? Is that even the real answer? Perhaps not. but let's start there. I love looking into the past to come on to face the future. Let's think of what the animal kingdom looks like. There are enough natural resources for everyone to feed on. Someone at some point caught off by feeding on another species and thus came to start the very early carnivores. But even so, there's enough for all the animals to form a healthy thriving ecosystem or the Circle of Life. We often put all the demise of this planet to early humans who started capturing lands and fighting with each other to polluting the very land. Of course, that's a different topic, but it does bring forth an important question. How do we prevent that in our new world? The answer to me seems either too simple or I'm way off mark. Let's see where we end up. We know in our heart what's right. That might not be what others think, but we do believe in something. More often we end up agreeing with others than disagreeing. The smallest number of times we've disagreed, it turns out to be a good tussle of learning something new.
An interesting experiment done was on the collective thinking of the masses. We usually do not want to put faith in others, specially in the crowd, and for good reasons. but a lot of times it's just because we can't trust them. We fear that it'd be almost impossible to make anybody make see the way into your mind, your thought process, your likes, and dislikes and have them take a call on what's done or to be done be right or wrong. Yes, I'm talking about a legal Jury here. Of course, you've all been either seeing or are acquainted with any number of Law related TV series or Movies thereby, if not the real ones, more so lately. An interesting experiment would be that the collective thinking of random strangers can somehow be almost always very right. There are obvious exceptions, but almost always they all point toward what's right. How does that happen? Very curious indeed. Of course, you need to present them with all the facts to make a sound judgment. Make them see your way into the void and let them come back into the same tunnel that you once emerged out of. If they do, you were right. If they don't, perhaps you've deviated. It's an interesting theory to test of what's already passed. But what if we extend this mysterious power of consensus towards what's about to happen. Let's ask who everybody the same question and see what they all come up with. On the outside, it might seem like a very random experiment. Too open. Too many answers. Too many possibilities. Too much chaos. But once the dust settles, we'll find there's at least 1 answer that more than 1 person has come up with. Very curious!!
A Big Brain
Collective thinking doesn't mean that we need to connect everyone's brains with wires and they operate like a big brain. It means that the decisions taken by one can or has to be reciprocated by others to a point of executing it. The decision-making process can be time or resource intensive based on what the impact of it's will be like. So, each consensus can be varied based upon the collective decision-making prowess of the society in its entirety. This algorithm need not be perfect from the very beginning, but it needs to be ever-evolving according to the need of society and what's on priority at the moment. Like evolving data, we need our decisions to evolve as well. A great example is music. 300 years earlier, give or take, pretty much everyone were just gasping over Bach and Mozart, amongst the other greats. 50 years earlier, it was the Bettles and Stones and Led Zep to capture all imagination. 20 years earlier, MJ, Nirvana and Chris Cornel and Pearl Jam. Today, it's someone else. The music as a taste has changed. If you're from any of the above generations, you'd relate to this. You might not understand of like at all the electronic music of today. Always finding some excuse to go back listening to some classic rock. Of course, if you're from Mozart era and still alive, I'd be more curious to meet you even with a scared outlook of having my blood or brain dried out. (Just kidding) But of course, you get the idea.
Any governing algorithm needs to be ever evolving.
And that I believe is the first step towards building our new world...
Stay tuned for more...