Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?

For information about SEGITs, see Dr. Tandy’s articles below.

 

 

Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?

For information about SEGITs, read these two articles by Dr. Tandy:

 

·       16 Candles  For  Childhood’s  End: Outline  Of  Transmutation  To  Almost-Universal  Security  And  Prosperity (Charles Tandy)

 

·       Neither Doomsday Nor Dystopia: Are We “Up To” A “Pfit” Future? (Charles Tandy)

 

(Additional articles/papers by Dr. Tandy and others are available at < ria.edu/papers >.)

 

 

16  Candles  For  Childhood’s  End:

 

Outline  Of  Transmutation  To  Almost-Universal  Security  And  Prosperity

 

Charles Tandy, Ph.D.

 

 

      With this presentation I announce the end of humanity’s childhood and the beginning of (almost) universal security and prosperity. I use the metaphor of “candles” to say that (at least) 16 candles are lighting the way. The presentation is divided into three parts:

 

Part One=Candles 1-4: First I identify four general areas of advancing technology (labeled “GRIN”).

 

Part Two=Candles 5-10: Then, with the “GRIN” set of general technologies in mind, I identify six specific future capacities of unusual power and relevance (labeled “SMILE²”)

 

Part Three=Candles 11-16: Finally, I present a six-pronged proposal to nudge us toward survival and thrival. Given the previous 10 candles (“GrinSmile²”), the 6 additional candles (“Up To PFIT”) will tend to prevent extinction (doomsday and dystopia) and put us “Up To” a “PFIT” future of (almost) universal security and prosperity.

 

PART ONE

Candles 1-4

“GRIN”

 

      Herewith in PART ONE I identify four general areas of advancing technology (labeled “GRIN”).

 

G     Genetics (genetic-technology)

R     Robotics (robotic-technology)

I       Informatics (information-technology)

N     Nanotech (nano-technology)

 

      The “GRIN” acronym comes from Joel Garreau’s excellent and balanced overview entitled Radical Evolution. I myself had informally “been” using BIN: Bio-technology, Info-technology, Nano-technology. NBIC (Nano, Bio, Information, Cognitive) was the acronym of choice by the National Science Foundation’s Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge. Brad Allenby points out that NBIC may be dialectically related to an acronym associated with weapons of mass death-destruction (NBC: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). GRAIN (Genetics, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology) is popular with Douglas Mulhall. The acronym GNR (Genetics, Nanotechnology, Robotics) is associated with Ray Kurzweil and with Bill Joy; others prefer it to read NRG (Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics). The ETC Group likes BANG (Bits, Atoms, Neurons, Genes) to describe the convergence of Bits (information technology), Atoms (nanotechnology), Neurons (cognitive neurosciences), and Genes (biotechnology) – and the attempt to technologically control all knowledge, life, and matter.

 

      Herein I do not mean to distinguish the differences (if any) among the various acronyms. The NSF study by Roco and Bainbridge uses the term merged science. Indeed, the idea of a master set of 21^st century emerging-converging technologies comes readily to mind.        

 

PART TWO

Candles 5-10

“SMILE²”

 

      Herewith in PART TWO, with the “GRIN” set of general technologies in mind, I identify six specific future capacities of unusual power and relevance (labeled “SMILE²”).

 

S      SEG communities (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities: SEGs)
M    Migration to another time (time travel to a future time)
I       Intelligence increase (phase-change to superintelligence: the technological singularity)

L     Life extension-enhancement (better-than-well transmortality and ever-advancing enhancement)

E¹    Effectual reality (virtual reality)

E²    Exponential synergy (exponential knowledge integration and synergistic results)

 

      It has been said that if your prediction of far-future technological capacities does not sound like science fiction, then your prediction is wrong. Thus much of the content of the presentation below sounds like science fiction. Yet in fact it is not science fiction. My account of future abilities is not controversial but is based on what the (relevant) experts tell us. The astounding capacity of future technology can be glimpsed at by taking a non-controversial look at the future: I say non-controversial because the controversy in each case is over when, not if. For present purposes we can overcome this dispute by simply talking non-controversially about these kinds of capacities in the far future (thus bypassing timeline predictions of near or far). Simply put: In the event that we are able to prevent doomsday and dystopia, then our cosmos will become more and more technologically advanced over time.

 

S      SEG communities (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities: SEGs)

 

        The fact that Earthlings presently exist together in a single biosphere global village is a rather absurd position to be in if we seek to prevent doomsday and promote flourishing. If something catastrophic happens to Earth's biosphere, then something catastrophic happens to all Earthlings. It is not wise to put all of humanity's eggs (futures) into one basket (biosphere). “Epitaph: Foolish dinosaurs never escaped Earth.”

 

        Advanced GRIN technologies are not required for the development of SEGs (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities) or independent, self-replicating biospheres in outer space. Advanced GRIN technologies certainly will greatly enhance SEG capacities, however.

 

        Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities (SEGs) should not be confused with space stations. Some argue that if we had chosen to do so, we could have started building SEGs using the "merely super" technology of the 20^th century. Indeed, the famous 20^th century physicist Gerard K. O'Neill designed such SEGs for the purpose of late 20^th century construction. Such SEGs would provide a "green-friendly" environment for humans, animals, and plants superior to the problematic habitats we identify with Earth and other planets. In the 20^th century the famous physicist Carl Sagan stated: “Our technology is capable of extraordinary new ventures in space, one of which Gerard O’Neill has described to you… It is practical.”

 

        Eventually millions of persons in a single SEG community are possible. The SEGs would be self-sufficient and could reproduce other SEG habitats in extraterrestrial space at a geometric rate. Accordingly, there is “unlimited free land” in extraterrestrial space – with a higher quality of life than is possible on the surface of a planet.

     

        SEG communities can be built from extraterrestrial resources mined from asteroids or moons. Rotation of the large and spacious greenhouse habitat provides simulated gravity for the people and plants living on the inner surface. Adjustable mirrors provide energy from the sun and simulation of day and night. Sooner or later, the following would be feasible for SEGs:

 

·     “Unlimited energy” from the sun. (The sun never sets in space.)

·     Control of daily weather and sunlight.

·     SEGs would be self-sufficient.

·     Expansion of the (self-sufficient) SEGs at a geometric rate.

·     “Unlimited free land” via SEGs. (Needed raw materials from asteroids are abundant.)

 

        The following metaphorical insights have been widely quoted by SEG experts: "The Earth was our cradle, but we will not live in the cradle forever." "Space habitats [SEGs] are the children of Mother Earth." According to Carl Sagan, our long-term survival is a matter of spaceflight or extinction: “All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.” According to the “mass extinction” article in The Columbia Encyclopedia (6^th edition): “The extinctions, however, did not conform to the usual evolutionary rules regarding who survives; the only factor that appears to have improved a family of organisms’ chance of survival was widespread geographic colonization.”

M    Migration to another time (time travel to a future time)

 

      Let us distinguish between future-directed versus past-directed time travel. As we look at the matter based on what the late 20^th-century and early 21^st-century experts say, we find a strong consensus that future-directed time travel is possible. There is widespread agreement that sooner or later we will have the technical ability to build time machines that can take us into the far future. There is further widespread agreement that this ability is “overdetermined” in that there are (will be) at least two different technologies of future-directed time travel: suspended-animation and superfast-rocketry. Here, “suspended-animation” is the technique of suspending (preserving) a biological entity long-term and reviving it to “full” health or better (“enhanced” health). Many adult human persons today are alive and well due to their cryogenic suspended-animation in the 20^th century when they were mere embryos; the mass media sometimes refers to these adults as first generation “test tube babies”.

 

      Another feasible time travel technology is that of advanced space travel technology (superfast-rocketry). Here, “superfast-rocketry” refers to an apparent fact, already tested, based on the relativity physics of Albert Einstein. Astronauts aboard a rocket traveling near the speed of light could travel into space and return to Earth. For example, from their point of view, they spend six weeks on vacation in space travel – but upon return to Earth they find that six centuries (not six weeks) have elapsed. This is sometimes called the “twins paradox” (one an astronaut, the other a homebody) – however today’s scientists no longer consider it to be a paradox but a scientific fact.

 

      So most experts agree that biological technology related to suspended-animation, and space technology related to superfast-rocketry, will advance to give us the technical ability to travel to the far future. Will these two kinds of time machines compete in the open marketplace? Be that as it may, many experts believe that one or both of these techniques may advance rapidly enough to allow some persons alive today (and still alive when the first time machines have been perfected) to travel to the far future.

I       Intelligence increase (phase-change to superintelligence: the technological singularity)

 

      Although one may argue with his aggressive timeline (the first third of the 21^st century), Vernor Vinge’s basic general thesis about our upcoming historically-soon phase-change from human-intelligence to super-intelligence seems convincing.      

 

L     Life extension-enhancement (better-than-well transmortality and ever-advancing enhancement)

 

        Micro-technology and 20^th century nano-technology were pioneered by Japan and the USA; such technology explains in part America’s victory in their cold war “space race” with the Soviet Union. With micro-technology we made things smaller and lighter than ever before. Toward the end of the 20^th century we went beyond mere micro-technology to what some called nano-technology (a mini-object produced or its mini-parts might no longer be visible to the naked eye even with the aid of an optical microscope).

 

        Although we can think in terms of making things smaller and smaller or in terms of an evolution from micro-technology to nano-technology, molecular nanotechnology (MNT) in its advanced form will approach manufacturing or production of objects, circuits, parts, foods, computers, robots, software and devices using a radically different strategy. Until the 21^st century our strategy had been to make things smaller. But the strategy of 21^st century MNT is to make things larger (larger than molecules and atoms) by assembling molecules and atoms to any configuration permitted by the laws of nature. MNT is the way nature does things, building from the bottom up. MNT in nature gives as all sorts of plants and animals; we throw a seed in the ground and latter find a watermelon there; MNT produces a human infant in only nine months.

 

        Human-designed MNT will eventually produce nano-size computers, nano-size factories, and molecular-repair nano-robots. Technology to clean up toxic waste dumps, and the widespread development of inexpensive non-polluting (“carbon-neutral”) advanced technology, becomes feasible. Meat-eaters will not have to hurt or kill animals in order to eat meat; MNT will eventually be able to manufacture (actual) meat to the specification of meat-eaters. MNT in its advanced form will have profound biological and biogenetic implications – e.g. the capacity to defeat all disease, including age-related death and disability. (Even accidents may become less frequent – but it seems to be in the nature of some accidents that they are not predictable in advance.)

 

E¹    Effectual reality (virtual reality)

 

      Alternative effectual realities (enabled by advanced virtual-reality technology) will allow us to effectively live in unimaginable luxury and more. The effectual worlds (the virtual realities as we will effectively experience them) do not have to obey the laws of nature in the way we have always experienced them before. (In today’s movies, special effects already allow many “impossibilities.”) Speaking of “quality” of life, this opens up vast unknown experiential regions.   

 

E²    Exponential synergy (exponential knowledge integration and synergistic results)

 

      The sciences and technologies we associate with GrinSmile today are different from the sciences and technologies of the 20^th century. Today the old epistemic divisions and academic disciplines seem to be merging or converging or intermingling to produce an explosion of integrative knowledge and “magical” know-how. Although one may disagree with his precise predictions and more, Ray Kurzweil’s argument that technological advance is exponential (not merely additive) seems both convincing and important. The “non-additive” or “exponential” argument is often overlooked or not given its full due. This failure, in the event it does not result in humanity’s extinction, is especially unkind to our posterity – who may be tempted to ask if their ancestors were good and farsighted ancestors.       

 

PART THREE

Candles 11-16

“Up To PFIT”

 

      Herewith in PART THREE I present a six-pronged proposal to nudge us toward survival and thrival. Given the previous 10 candles (“GrinSmile²”), the 6 additional candles (“Up To PFIT”) will tend to prevent extinction (doomsday and dystopia) and put us “Up To” a “PFIT” future of (almost) universal security and prosperity.

 

UP   Union of Peoples well-organized (a terrestrial law of peoples)

TO  Treaty Organization acting for a better cosmos (an extraterrestrial law of persons)

P      Peace in extraterrestrial space

F      Freedom in extraterrestrial space

I       Intentional communities in extraterrestrial space

T      Transparent communities in extraterrestrial space

 

      The political structure of Earth, which is neither a Law of Peoples nor a Law of Persons, is unworkable. But at this unique point in history it is both desirable and feasible to establish a Terrestrial Law of Peoples along the lines of Kant; Rawls; and, Daalder and Lindsay. The political structure of Space, which is neither a Law of Peoples nor a Law of Persons, is unworkable. But at this unique point in history it is both desirable and feasible to establish an Extraterrestrial Law of Persons along the “PFIT” lines articulated herein. Each of the two “laws” (organizations) would substantially improve the world – but I believe implementing both proposals in concert would have a synergistic effect, especially with reference to improving the far future.

 

UP   Union of Peoples well-organized (a terrestrial law of peoples)

 

        Herewith I join Gary Hart in the invisible college or visible club to support the Daalder and Lindsay proposal for a Concert of Democracies. It is an idea whose time has come. Now is the time for its implementation. The Concert or Union may be expected to provide a number of benefits to world betterment, including: (1) Strengthening and expanding the positive relationship zone of peace and peaceful activities among democratic (or Rawlsian well-ordered) societies; and, (2) Weakening the negative temptations of democratic (or Rawlsian well-ordered) societies, such as (A) crusading imperialism; (B) imprudent appeasement; and, (C) moralistic isolationism.   

 

        Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, published in 1795, is a remarkable piece of social science foresight. In 1795, few republics existed or no liberal democracies existed (e.g. consider civil rights issues related to slavery and women). Kant argued for republicanism and for an expanding concert of peaceful republics. He believed this approach (and not the universal membership approach) would eventually lead (in the 21^st century?) to a global stable peace.

 

        With reference to the Daalder and Lindsay proposal, we may raise the following question: Do we want the new organization to be a concert of (1) liberal democratic states; (2) well-ordered states; (3) liberal democratic peoples; or, (4) well-ordered peoples? John Rawls opts for well-ordered peoples. He thinks we should think in terms of peoples rather than (Westphalian) states if we want to be open to the future instead of wedded to the past. Likewise he thinks we should be open and humble even in the face of his Theory of Justice (liberal democracy as the end of history). (I believe it was Soren Kierkegaard who once wrote that Hegel might be the greatest philosopher, except that Hegel forgot to say “this is one individual’s opinion.”)

 

        In section 8.1 of The Law of Peoples, John Rawls identifies five types of societies: (1) liberal peoples; (2) decent peoples; (3) outlaw states; (4) societies burdened by unfavorable conditions; and, (5) benevolent absolutisms. Liberal peoples and decent peoples, considered together, are referred to by Rawls as “well-ordered” peoples. In sections 4.1, 4.2, and 12.1 of his Law, Rawls attempts to specify the general or basic requirements for a well-ordered society. In principle, a non-democracy (e.g. a theocracy) might be able to qualify as a well-ordered society. Rawls points out, however, that at this precise moment in history, no non-democracies would in fact qualify for membership in the Concert or Union. And even in principle it is impossible for an illiberal democracy to qualify for membership.

 

        I add a personal note here. I have been living in Taiwan for a number of years – so I am biased toward the peoples (instead of states) approach. Taiwan (which is a liberal democratic people) could be a founding member of a concert of (well-ordered) peoples even though it is not a member of the UN. China (which is not well-ordered) could not be a founding member of a concert of well-ordered peoples even though it is one of the Big Five (permanent/veto) members of the UN.        

 

TO  Treaty Organization acting for a better cosmos (an extraterrestrial law of persons)

 

        Above, I endorsed the proposal for a “concert of democracies” or “Union of Peoples well-ordered” (UP). Now I present an additional proposal endorsing a “Treaty Organization acting for a better cosmos” (TO). I believe that both the UP and TO proposals are desirable and feasible for today’s world. These two Concerts, acting more or less in concert, may have historically unusual abilities to transmute our civilization of outmoded States into a transcivilization of authentic Communities.

 

        The UP idea pioneered by Kant and Rawls now seems obvious to me, thanks to Daalder and Lindsay. Another idea whose time has come (the TO) will now be presented below. Let us consider what we can and should do today (the TO proposal) if we are to guide our technology so as to take us from bad to better instead of from bad to worse.

 

        As we consider life and technology in a transcivilized future, let me ask you these questions: Is there any doubt but that in the long run many of our offspring will be permanently living and working somewhere in the cosmos other than on planet Earth? Is there any doubt but that in the very long run almost all of our offspring will be born and permanently living somewhere in the cosmos other than in our Solar System?

 

        We may not know the actual or secret (classified) policies of the USA and others with respect to extraterrestrial space. It is nevertheless true that over 100 nations (including all of the “major” ones) publicly claim to support the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Article II of the treaty says in its entirety: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”

 

        Historically one of the reasons Terrestrial civilizations engaged in wars against each other was to gain more territory, and the power and glory that came with empire. But the development of advanced SEGs (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities) will mean "unlimited free land” (freely available territory) and the realistic possibility of intentional (i.e. voluntary) communities for all persons. Instead of remaining in the community or culture of one's birth, one will be realistically free to experiment living in one kind of community or another. New kinds of cultures and communities will be enabled by the new extraterrestrial technology.

 

        Eventually there will be many Extraterrestrials, few Terrestrials. We can understand the practical or special interests that might prevent us from banning weapons and their manufacture from today's Earth. Indeed, someday there might be analogous practical or special interests in extraterrestrial space unless we engage in foresight today to proactively ban weapons and their manufacture from extraterrestrial space.

 

        On the one hand, our political interests today may constrain us in our present time and place. But, on the other hand, our political interests today may free us with respect to future times and places (e.g. our extraterrestrial future). What this means is that today we have a realistic prospect of proactively establishing the legal structure and enforcement powers needed for a world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space.

 

        If we wait until later, we may not be so free to "do the right thing" and establish stable peace in extraterrestrial space. Extraterrestrial space is immense; it is all of the cosmos except for a single small planet and its atmosphere. Eventually it might even become feasible to extend stable peace to planet Earth and thus the entire cosmos.

 

        I will spend most of the remainder of this article trying to "think through" what the structure of the Extraterrestrial Society should be like – a structure we would contemplate, modify, and implement in the present before we live and develop special interests out there. Such "thinking through" to produce an extraterrestrial space treaty (the TO proposal) might also help us better understand conflicts and their possible management on today's planet Earth. It is my belief that the suggested extraterrestrial space Treaty Organization (TO) will make a fine gift to our offspring and, by the way, help present Earthlings.

 

        If we want a good world at stable peace (whether that world be Terrestrial Civilization or Extraterrestrial Transcivilization), it would seem we must be willing to unblinkingly face up to the following questions: Is stable peace possible if each person or each people is passionately convinced their worldview is basically good and correct – and different worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect? If we could enforceably prevent each and every person from killing any person over a conflict (say, a conflict of worldviews), would we do so? If so, how would we resolve our conflicts?

 

        Although I have freely borrowed ideas from others, I believe the political theory or scheme of moral-political notions I present below is original with me. One advantage we have in facing up to the difficult questions raised in the previous paragraph is that we can use our imaginations to futuristically view ourselves as Extraterrestrials living in intentional communities (SEGs). We can further assume that a political structure there and then exists that we describe as a good world at stable peace.

 

        The Extraterrestrials of the future have their liberties and technologies. The Terrestrials of the present do not yet have these liberties and technologies of the future. Yet humans today have the ability and perhaps the practical political will – via the TO proposal – to help insure humanity’s existence and a good world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space (almost all of the cosmos) in which transcivilization will flourish. So we need to "work backward" to determine the provisions of the Treaty or Concert now under construction.

 

        First of all, I will assume that it is a fact that if today's Terrestrials are to produce such a Concert or Treaty (including effective enforcement provisions), it will require agreement from a number of States/Peoples. I also assume that eventually a Treaty like this would have to be binding in the sense that the Treaty would have no expiration date.  The first Treaty however might have an expiration date and might have few Parties (States/Peoples) to the agreement. As they consult with each other, with other countries, with philosophers, with scientists, with politicians, etc. they would gain important insights and experience helping them produce a second Treaty, this time with no expiration date but with many Parties to the agreement, this time also containing strong and effective enforcement provisions.

 

        How many persons or states/peoples would accept or endorse a Space Treaty that effectively and enforceably bans weapons and their manufacture from extraterrestrial space? In this context (a good and practical legacy to our offspring), I should think we should be diligent enough to rally enough supporters. For example, this (the second?) Treaty might be signed originally by, say, twenty States/Peoples (including all or most of the "major" ones). But the Treaty would be strongly effectively enforced by the Agency for a Better Cosmos (ABC) – not by States/Peoples – against ALL and EVERYONE, whether or not they sign the Treaty. Once in force, I would expect many others to sign on – since the Treaty applies to them even if they do not sign it. Eventually the Treaty really would have to be strongly effectively enforced by the ABC against all and everyone, because eventually persons and communities (SEGs) will permanently settle in extraterrestrial space. Too, such a Treaty offers hope and inspiration to those of us of the present.

 

        Okay, you may say, this is a reasonable enough start, but what other liberties, responsibilities, and political structures would be appropriate for the Extraterrestrial World? So far, what we presumably have is an Extraterrestrial World at stable peace. But what about conflicts and the plurality of deeply held religious and philosophic worldviews?

 

PFIT       (Peace and Freedom, and Intentional Transparent communities, in extraterrestrial space)

 

        What seems to me both practical and fair in this context is to think in terms of an Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities. There would be two sets of liberties and two sets of responsibilities (for "Extraterrestrial Society" and "Intentional Communities" respectively). Each person is free to found new (intentional) communities. Each Community would determine its own membership requirements. Each Community would have its own culture of liberties and responsibilities; a member would generally be free to leave the community. A mechanism or set of mechanisms would be established to insure that each member is fully and properly informed of their liberty to leave the (intentional) community. (I suppose some communities might still allow their members the possibility of experiencing physical pain – but they would also allow a member to voluntarily leave their community. Too, I suppose banning animal cruelty and serious animal pain would be desirable and feasible.) Note that some ("hermit") communities would consist of only one person.

 

        On old Terra, it was often difficult or impossible to leave one's community – sometimes expulsion effectively meant the individual's death. The context of the Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities is radically different. For example: The individual person would be transmortal, whereas on old Terra it was often the community or society (not the human individual) that was seen as transmortal.       

 

        So at the level of the Society (of Communities) we have: (1) Peace: Weapons, weapons-making, and violence (including animal cruelty and serious animal pain) are strongly effectively enforceably banned; and, (2) Freedom: Every individual person is fully aware of and fully informed of their general liberty to leave their community. This too is strongly effectively enforced. The Society and the communities necessarily work closely together to fully insure the liberties and responsibilities associated with both Peace and Freedom. Also note that since there is "unlimited free land,” this fact will additionally help prevent some old terra-style conflicts and resolve or manage others (this would include some old-style civil conflicts).

 

        At the level of Communities (in the Society) we have: (1) Intentionality (voluntariness): Within the good-faith transparent enforcement of Society's basic principles of peace and freedom, each Community has wide latitude for experimentation. Although there is a general liberty of members to leave the (intentional) Community, this does not necessarily relieve such persons from certain good-faith responsibilities to the Community; and, (2) Transparency: Each Community must strongly, effectively, and transparently help enforce the Society's basic principles of peace and freedom.

 

        I believe the political theory or moral-political approach I have invented above is unique and original. It differs from the "Law of Peoples" conception of John Rawls in that it primarily chooses a "Law of Persons" model instead. Yet it takes seriously the distinction Rawls makes between a "political conception" and "comprehensive doctrines." In my "Society of Communities" theory, Society corresponds to a political conception or model, and Communities represent comprehensive doctrines or worldviews.

 

        Like Charles R. Beitz, my theory takes seriously a cosmopolitan-political "Law of Persons" (not a social-political "Law of Peoples") approach. It differs from Beitz in methodology and in the questions asked. Beitz finds the question of distributive justice both highly important and practically difficult with respect to present Terrestrials. This is so; but this is a question I do not raise since in my extraterrestrial world of the future it seems not an issue or one rather resolvable in that easier context of expanded liberty – there requiring perhaps at most only a bit of good-will and ingenuity.

 

        "Is stable peace possible if each person or each people is passionately convinced their worldview is basically good and correct – and different worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect?" If you can sincerely and in good faith agree to my political approach above, the answer to this question appears to be YES, such stable peace is possible. If you can at most only agree to my approach as a temporary compromise, then the answer may be NO.

 

        "If we could enforceably prevent each and every person from killing any person over a conflict (say, a conflict of worldviews) would we do so? If so, how would we resolve our conflicts?" If you can sincerely and in good faith (instead of merely as a temporary compromise) agree to my approach above, then stable peace in extraterrestrial space seems both possible and desirable. This approach, so I believe, realistically outlines a structure of stable peace for World Society and local Communities in extraterrestrial space – pointing toward conflict management in the new framework and encouraging subsequent projects to invent needed specifics.

 

        The first (temporary) Extraterrestrial Space Treaty seems doable today. A permanent Extraterrestrial Space Treaty seems doable soon. A Universal Space Treaty that includes both Extraterrestrial Space and Terrestrial Space may take more time but appears to be a goal worth striving for – indeed, the striving itself may well improve matters. In the meantime, the previous treaties and upward strivings should make these "final strivings" toward a Good Society more nearly achievable for all.

 

      I have established a website for SEGIT communities: <www.segits.com>. SEGIT communities or SEGITs = Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat Intentional Transparent [self-replicating] communities. Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival? I close with quotations from two Nobel Laureates:

 

·       George Bernard Shaw: “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

                   

·       Jimmy Carter: "There is little doubt that a global treaty to ban space weapons will leave America safer than a unilateral decision to put the first (and certainly not the only) weapons in space."

   

REFERENCES

 

Beitz, Charles R. Political Theory and International Relations: With a New Afterword by the Author (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999).

 

Carter, Jimmy. Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis (New York: Simon & Shuster, 2005). (quotation, p. 143).

 

Daalder, Ivo; and James Lindsay. “Democracies of the World, Unite” in The American Interest (January-February 2007). “Democracies of the World, Unite” is available at <http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=220&MId=7>.

 

Drexler, K. Eric. Engines of Creation (New York: Anchor Press, 1987).

 

Evans,  J. D. G.  “Prisoner’s Dilemma,”  in   The Oxford Companion to Philosophy ,  Ted  Honderich,

Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 719.

 

Garreau, Joel. <www.garreau.com>.

 

Globus, A. Space Settlements. <www.nas.nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/>.
Also see: <http://space.alglobus.net/>

 

Heppenheimer, T. A. Colonies in Space (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1977).

 

Kurzweil, Ray. <www.KurzweilAI.net>.

 

O’Neill, G. K. The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space . New York: Morrow, 1977. [A year 2000 reprint (from Collectors Guide Publishing, Inc.) contains updated information and a CD-ROM].

 

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations: Third Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980). (Shaw quotation, p. 497).

 

Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples: with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001).

 

Rosin, C. [The Institute for Cooperation in Space (website):] <www.peaceinspace.com>.

 

Space Quotes to Ponder <www.spacequotes.com>.

 

Spaceflight or Extinction <www.spaext.com>.

 

Stein, G. Harry. The Third Industrial Revolution (New York: Ace Books, 1979).

 

Tandy, Charles. [The SEGIT communities website:] Dr. Tandy has established a website for SEGIT communities: <www.segits.com>. SEGIT communities or SEGITs = Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat Intentional Transparent [self-replicating] communities. (February 2008). Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?

Tandy, Charles. "A Time Travel Schema And Eight Types Of Time Travel," In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2006). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 4: Twenty Years After De Beauvoir, Thirty Years After Heidegger, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9780974347288). (Pages 369-388).

 

Tandy, Charles. "Types Of Time Machines And Practical Time Travel," Journal Of Futures Studies, Volume 11, Number 3 (February 2007). (ISSN 10276084). (Pages 79-90).

 

Vinge, Vernor. <http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html>.

 

REVISIONS

 

[Original: 25 December 2007]

[Revised: 31 December 2007]

[Revised: 15 February 2008]

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

The above article has been reproduced by permission; the copyright and intellectual property rights belong to Charles Tandy. Copyright © 2007–2008 by Charles Tandy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GoTo:  ria.edu/papers       Contact Dr. Tandy:  tandy@ria.edu       GoTo:  Top Of Page

 

 

 

Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?

For information about SEGITs, see Dr. Tandy’s articles above and below.

 

 

Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?

For information about SEGITs, read the two articles (above and below) by Dr. Tandy.

 

 

 

Neither Doomsday Nor Dystopia:

 

Are We “Up To” A “Pfit” Future?

 

Charles Tandy, Ph.D.

 

 

Introduction

 

      Due to advanced technology our extinction may be at hand – either in the literal sense of doomsday or in the functional sense of dystopia. But the danger is also an opportunity; we need to take advantage of the opportunity before it is too late. This paper explains how to turn the danger to our advantage.

 

      Part One of the paper focuses on the past evolution of our cosmos. Part Two focuses on the future evolution of our cosmos. Part Three focuses on our present choices, projects available for implementation if we want to prevent doomsday and dystopia. 

 

I.  The PAST Evolution Of Our Cosmos

 

      The following account of the past evolution of our cosmos is not controversial in that it is based on what the (relevant) experts tell us. The form of the presentation below, a concise six-step outline, is my own. Simply put: Our cosmos has become more and more complex over time, proceeding from Energy to Matter to Life to Consciousness to Reflection to Sapience – as follows:

 

1.  Energy

(Energy A-Consciousness: Basic energy has no semblance of consciousness.)

(Energy A-Consciousness is associated with Phase-States.)

We know that energy is possible because energy exists.

Energy has potential to take the form called matter (i.e., atoms).

 

2.  Matter (atoms)

(Atomic A-Consciousness: Basic atomic matter has no semblance of consciousness.)

(Atomic A-Consciousness is associated with Valences.)

We know that matter is possible because matter exists.

Matter has potential to take the form called life (i.e., biology/non-dead matter).

 

3.  Life

(Un-Consciousness: Apparent purposefulness but without awareness.)

(Un-Consciousness is associated with Genetics.)

We know that life is possible because life exists.

Life has potential to take the form called sentient life (i.e., feeling/consciousness).

4.  Consciousness (sentient life)

(Consciousness: Awareness or feeling.)

(Consciousness is associated with Hedonic-Behavior.)

We know that sentient life is possible because sentient life exists.

Sentient life has potential to take the form called reflective life (i.e., awareness of consciousness/feeling).

 

5. Reflection (reflective life)

(Re-Consciousness: Awareness of being conscious.)

(Re-Consciousness is associated with Reflective-Thinking.)

We know that reflective life is possible because reflective life exists.

Reflective life has potential to take the form called sapient life (i.e., moral reflection).

 

6. Sapience (sapient life)

(Hi-Consciousness: Higher reflection in the form of moral-agency.)

(Hi-Consciousness is associated with Moral-Dominion.)

We know that sapient life is possible because sapient life exists.

(Question: Does sapient life have potential to take the form called “X”/ “step-7”?)

 

II.  The FUTURE Evolution Of Our Cosmos

 

      The following account of the future evolution of our cosmos is not controversial in that it is based on what the (relevant) experts tell us. The form of the presentation below, including the “GrinSmile²” acronym, is my own. Simply put: In the event that we successfully use our hedonic-behavior, reflective-thinking, and moral-dominion to prevent doomsday and dystopia, then our cosmos will become more and more technologically advanced over time – as follows:

 

“GrinSmile²” Technological Advancements:

 

G     Genetics (genetic-technology)

R     Robotics (robotic-technology)

I       Informatics (information-technology)

N     Nanotech (nano-technology)

 

S      SEG communities (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities: SEGs)
M    Migration to another time (time travel to a future time)
I       Intelligence increase (phase-change to superintelligence: the technological singularity)

L     Life extension-enhancement (transmortality and ever-advancing better-than-wellness)

E¹    Effectual reality (virtual reality)

E²    Exponential synergy (exponential knowledge integration and synergistic results)

 

“GRIN” – Four General Areas Of Advancing Technology

 

      The “GRIN” acronym comes from Joel Garreau’s excellent and balanced overview entitled Radical Evolution. I myself had informally “been” using BIN: Bio-technology, Info-technology, Nano-technology. NBIC (Nano, Bio, Information, Cognitive) was the acronym of choice by the National Science Foundation’s Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge. Brad Allenby points out that NBIC may be dialectically related to an acronym associated with weapons of mass death-destruction (NBC: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). GRAIN (Genetics, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology) is popular with Douglas Mulhall. The acronym GNR (Genetics, Nanotechnology, Robotics) is associated with Ray Kurzweil and with Bill Joy; others prefer it to read NRG (Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics). The ETC Group likes BANG (Bits, Atoms, Neurons, Genes) to describe the convergence of Bits (information technology), Atoms (nanotechnology), Neurons (cognitive neurosciences), and Genes (biotechnology) – and the attempt to technologically control all knowledge, life, and matter.

 

      Herein I do not mean to distinguish the differences (if any) among the various acronyms. The NSF study by Roco and Bainbridge uses the term merged science. Indeed, the idea of a master set of 21^st century emerging-converging technologies comes readily to mind.       

 

“SMILE²” – Six Specific Future Capacities Of Unusual Power And Relevance

 

      It has been said that if your prediction of far-future technological capacities does not sound like science fiction, then your prediction is wrong. Thus much of the content of the “SMILE²” presentation below sounds like science fiction. Yet in fact it is not science fiction. My account of future abilities is not controversial but is based on what the (relevant) experts tell us. The astounding capacity of future technology can be glimpsed at by taking a non-controversial look at the future: I say non-controversial because the controversy in each case is over when, not if. For present purposes we can overcome this dispute by simply talking non-controversially about these kinds of capacities in the far future (thus bypassing timeline predictions of near or far).

 

S      SEG communities (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities: SEGs)

 

        The fact that Earthlings presently exist together in a single biosphere global village is a rather absurd position to be in if we seek to prevent doomsday and promote flourishing. If something catastrophic happens to Earth's biosphere, then all Earthlings are affected. It is not wise to put all of humanity's eggs (futures) into one basket (biosphere). “Epitaph: Foolish dinosaurs never escaped Earth.”

 

        Advanced GRIN technologies are not required for the development of SEGs (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities) or independent, self-replicating biospheres in outer space. Advanced GRIN technologies certainly will greatly enhance SEG capacities, however.

 

        Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities (SEGs) should not be confused with space stations. Some argue that if we had chosen to do so, we could have started building SEGs using the "merely super" technology of the 20^th century. Indeed, the famous 20^th century physicist Gerard K. O'Neill designed such SEGs for the purpose of late 20^th century construction. Such SEGs would provide a "green-friendly" environment for humans, animals, and plants superior to the problematic habitats we identify with Earth and other planets. In the 20^th century the famous physicist Carl Sagan stated: “Our technology is capable of extraordinary new ventures in space, one of which Gerard O’Neill has described to you… It is practical.”[¹]

 

        Eventually millions of persons in a single SEG community are possible. The SEGs would be self-sufficient and could reproduce other SEG habitats in extraterrestrial space at a geometric rate. Accordingly, there is “unlimited free land” in extraterrestrial space – with a higher quality of life than is possible on the surface of a planet.

     

        SEG communities can be built from extraterrestrial resources mined from asteroids or moons. Rotation of the large and spacious greenhouse habitat provides simulated gravity for the people and plants living on the inner surface. Adjustable mirrors provide energy from the sun and simulation of day and night. Sooner or later, the following would be feasible for SEGs:

 

·     “Unlimited energy” from the sun. (The sun never sets in space.)

·     Control of daily weather and sunlight.

·     SEGs would be self-sufficient.

·     Expansion of the (self-sufficient) SEGs at a geometric rate.

·     “Unlimited free land” via SEGs. (Needed raw materials from asteroids are abundant.)

 

        The following metaphorical insights have been widely quoted by SEG experts: "The Earth was our cradle, but we will not live in the cradle forever." "Space habitats [SEGs] are the children of Mother Earth." According to Carl Sagan, our long-term survival is a matter of spaceflight or extinction: “All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.” According to the “mass extinction” article in The Columbia Encyclopedia (6^th edition): “The extinctions, however, did not conform to the usual evolutionary rules regarding who survives; the only factor that appears to have improved a family of organisms’ chance of survival was widespread geographic colonization.”

M    Migration to another time (time travel to a future time)

 

      Let us distinguish between future-directed versus past-directed time travel. As we look at the matter based on what the late 20^th-century and early 21^st-century experts say, we find a strong consensus that future-directed time travel is possible. There is widespread agreement that sooner or later we will have the technical ability to build time machines that can take us into the far future. There is further widespread agreement that this ability is “overdetermined” in that there are (will be) at least two different technologies of future-directed time travel: suspended-animation and superfast-rocketry. Here, “suspended-animation” is the technique of suspending (preserving) a biological entity long-term and reviving it to “full” health or better (“enhanced” health). Many adult human persons today are alive and well due to their cryogenic suspended-animation in the 20^th century when they were mere embryos; the mass media sometimes refers to these adults as first generation “test tube babies”.

 

      Another feasible time travel technology is that of advanced space travel technology (superfast-rocketry). Here, “superfast-rocketry” refers to an apparent fact, already tested, based on the relativity physics of Albert Einstein. Astronauts aboard a rocket traveling near the speed of light could travel into space and return to Earth. For example, from their point of view, they spend six weeks on vacation in space travel – but upon return to Earth they find that six centuries (not six weeks) have elapsed. This is sometimes called the “twins paradox” (one an astronaut, the other a homebody) – however today’s scientists no longer consider it to be a paradox but a scientific fact.

 

      So most experts agree that biological technology related to suspended-animation, and space technology related to superfast-rocketry, will advance to give us the technical ability to travel to the far future. Will these two kinds of time machines compete in the open marketplace? Be that as it may, many experts believe that one or both of these techniques may advance rapidly enough to allow some persons alive today (and still alive when the first time machines have been perfected) to travel to the far future.

I       Intelligence increase (phase-change to superintelligence: the technological singularity)

 

      Although one may argue with his aggressive timeline (the first third of the 21^st century), Vernor Vinge’s basic general thesis about our upcoming historically-soon phase-change from human-intelligence to super-intelligence seems convincing.     

 

L     Life extension-enhancement (transmortality and ever-advancing better-than-wellness)

 

        Micro-technology and 20^th century nano-technology were pioneered by Japan and the USA; such technology explains in part America’s victory in their cold war “space race” with the Soviet Union. With micro-technology we made things smaller and lighter than ever before. Toward the end of the 20^th century we went beyond mere micro-technology to what some called nano-technology (a mini-object produced or its mini-parts might no longer be visible to the naked eye even with the aid of an optical microscope).

 

        Although we can think in terms of making things smaller and smaller or in terms of an evolution from micro-technology to nano-technology, molecular nanotechnology (MNT) in its advanced form will approach manufacturing or production of objects, circuits, parts, foods, computers, robots, software and devices using a radically different strategy. Until the 21^st century our strategy had been to make things smaller. But the strategy of 21^st century MNT is to make things larger (larger than molecules and atoms) by assembling molecules and atoms to any configuration permitted by the laws of nature. MNT is the way nature does things, building from the bottom up. MNT in nature gives as all sorts of plants and animals; we throw a seed in the ground and latter find a watermelon there; MNT produces a human infant in only nine months.

 

        Human-designed MNT will eventually produce nano-size computers, nano-size factories, and molecular-repair nano-robots. Technology to clean up toxic waste dumps, and the widespread development of inexpensive non-polluting (“carbon-neutral”) advanced technology, becomes feasible. Meat-eaters will not have to hurt or kill animals in order to eat meat; MNT will eventually be able to manufacture (actual) meat to the specification of meat-eaters. MNT in its advanced form will have profound biological and biogenetic implications; this includes the capacity to defeat all disease, including age-related death-debility (ARDS: Age Related Death-debility Syndrome). (Even accidents may become less frequent – but it seems to be in the nature of some accidents that they are not predictable in advance.)

 

E¹    Effectual reality (virtual reality)

 

      Alternative effectual realities (enabled by advanced virtual-reality technology) will allow us to effectively live in unimaginable luxury and more. The effectual worlds (the virtual realities as we will effectively experience them) do not have to obey the laws of nature in the way we have always experienced them before. (In today’s movies, special effects already allow many “impossibilities.”) Speaking of “quality” of life, this opens up vast unknown experiential regions.  

 

E²    Exponential synergy (exponential knowledge integration and synergistic results)

 

      The sciences and technologies we associate with GrinSmile today are different from the sciences and technologies of the 20^th century. Today the old epistemic divisions and academic disciplines seem to be merging or converging or intermingling to produce an explosion of integrative knowledge and “magical” know-how. Although one may disagree with his precise predictions and more, Ray Kurzweil’s argument that technological advance is exponential (not merely additive) seems both convincing and important. The “non-additive” or “exponential” argument is often overlooked or not given its full due. This failure, in the event it does not result in humanity’s extinction, is especially unkind to our posterity – who may be tempted to ask if their ancestors were good and farsighted ancestors.       

 

III.  Our PRESENT Choices

 

      Based on the non-controversial information in Parts One and Two above, we have present choices to make regarding our future. Indeed, choosing in the present to implement projects to prevent doomsday and dystopia doesn’t sound very controversial to me. Yet we are doing relatively little to prevent our extinction.

 

      If we can prevent extinction (doomsday and dystopia), then GrinSmile technologies will provide us with a fine future. We can use technology to prevent our extinction, thus resulting in technology taking us from bad to better instead of from bad to worse. We need both physical and social technologies/inventions to prevent our extinction. Herewith I present a six-pronged proposal of social inventions to prevent our extinction, using the acronym “Up To PFIT”:

 

Are we “Up To” a “Pfit” Future?

 

UP   Union of Peoples well-organized (a terrestrial law of peoples)

TO  Treaty Organization acting for a better cosmos (an extraterrestrial law of persons)

P      Peace in extraterrestrial space (we live at stable peace)

F      Freedom in extraterrestrial space (we live in freedom)

I       Intentional communities in extraterrestrial space (we live in intentional communities)

T      Transparent communities in extraterrestrial space (we live in transparent communities)

 

      The political structure of Earth, which is neither a Law of Peoples nor a Law of Persons, is unworkable. But at this unique point in history it is both desirable and feasible to establish a Terrestrial Law of Peoples along the lines of Kant; Rawls; and, Daalder and Lindsay. The political structure of Space, which is neither a Law of Peoples nor a Law of Persons, is unworkable. But at this unique point in history it is both desirable and feasible to establish an Extraterrestrial Law of Persons along the “PFIT” lines articulated herein. Each of the two “laws” (organizations) would substantially improve the world – but I believe implementing both proposals in concert would have a synergistic effect, especially with reference to improving the far future.

 

UP   Union of Peoples well-organized (a terrestrial law of peoples)

 

        Herewith I join Gary Hart in the invisible college or visible club to support the Daalder and Lindsay proposal for a Concert of Democracies.[²]  It is an idea whose time has come. Now is the time for its implementation. The Concert or Union may be expected to provide a number of benefits to world betterment, including: (1) Strengthening and expanding the positive relationship zone of peace and peaceful activities among democratic (or Rawlsian well-ordered) societies; and, (2) Weakening the negative temptations of democratic (or Rawlsian well-ordered) societies, such as (A) crusading imperialism; (B) imprudent appeasement; and, (C) moralistic isolationism.   

 

        Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, published in 1795, is a remarkable piece of social science foresight. In 1795, few republics existed or no liberal democracies existed (e.g. consider civil rights issues related to slavery and women). Kant argued for republicanism and for an expanding concert of peaceful republics. He believed this approach (and not the universal membership approach) would eventually lead (in the 21^st century?) to a global stable peace.

 

        With reference to the Daalder and Lindsay proposal, we may raise the following question: Do we want the new organization to be a concert of (1) liberal democratic states; (2) well-ordered states; (3) liberal democratic peoples; or, (4) well-ordered peoples? John Rawls opts for well-ordered peoples. He thinks we should think in terms of peoples rather than (Westphalian) states if we want to be open to the future instead of wedded to the past. Likewise he thinks we should be open and humble even in the face of his Theory of Justice (liberal democracy as the end of history). (I believe it was Soren Kierkegaard who once wrote that Hegel might be the greatest philosopher, except that Hegel forgot to say “this is one individual’s opinion.”)

 

        In section 8.1 of The Law of Peoples, John Rawls identifies five types of societies: (1) liberal peoples; (2) decent peoples; (3) outlaw states; (4) societies burdened by unfavorable conditions; and, (5) benevolent absolutisms. Liberal peoples and decent peoples, considered together, are referred to by Rawls as “well-ordered” peoples. In sections 4.1, 4.2, and 12.1 of his Law, Rawls attempts to specify the general or basic requirements for a well-ordered society. In principle, a non-democracy (e.g. a theocracy) might be able to qualify as a well-ordered society. Rawls points out, however, that at this precise moment in history, no non-democracies would in fact qualify for membership in the Concert or Union. And even in principle it is impossible for an illiberal democracy to qualify for membership.

 

        I add a personal note here. I have been living in Taiwan for a number of years – so I am biased toward the peoples (instead of states) approach. Taiwan (which is a liberal democratic people) could be a founding member of a concert of (well-ordered) peoples even though it is not a member of the UN. China (which is not well-ordered) could not be a founding member of a concert of well-ordered peoples even though it is one of the Big Five (permanent/veto) members of the UN.        

 

TO  Treaty Organization acting for a better cosmos (an extraterrestrial law of persons)

 

        Above, I endorsed the proposal for a “concert of democracies” or “Union of Peoples well-ordered” (UP). Now I present an additional proposal endorsing a “Treaty Organization acting for a better cosmos” (TO). I believe that both the UP and TO proposals are desirable and feasible for today’s world. These two Concerts, acting more or less in concert, may have historically unusual abilities to transmute our civilization of outmoded States into a transcivilization of authentic Communities.

 

        The UP idea pioneered by Kant and Rawls now seems obvious to me, thanks to Daalder and Lindsay. Another idea whose time has come (the TO) will now be presented below. Let us consider what we can and should do today (the TO proposal) if we are to guide our technology so as to take us from bad to better instead of from bad to worse.

 

        As we consider life and technology in a transcivilized future, let me ask you these questions: Is there any doubt but that in the long run many of our offspring will be permanently living and working somewhere in the cosmos other than on planet Earth? Is there any doubt but that in the very long run almost all of our offspring will be born and permanently living somewhere in the cosmos other than in our Solar System?

 

        We may not know the actual or secret (classified) policies of the USA and others with respect to extraterrestrial space. It is nevertheless true that over 100 nations (including all of the “major” ones) publicly claim to support the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Article II of the treaty says in its entirety: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”

 

        Historically one of the reasons Terrestrial civilizations engaged in wars against each other was to gain more territory, and the power and glory that came with empire. But the development of advanced SEGs (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat communities) will mean "unlimited free land” (freely available territory) and the realistic possibility of intentional (i.e. voluntary) communities for all persons. Instead of remaining in the community or culture of one's birth, one will be realistically free to experiment living in one kind of community or another. New kinds of cultures and communities will be enabled by the new extraterrestrial technology.

 

        Eventually there will be many Extraterrestrials, few Terrestrials. We can understand the practical or special interests that might prevent us from banning weapons and their manufacture from today's Earth. Indeed, someday there might be analogous practical or special interests in extraterrestrial space unless we engage in foresight today to proactively ban weapons and their manufacture from extraterrestrial space.

 

      On the one hand, our political interests today may constrain us in our present time and place. But, on the other hand, our political interests today may free us with respect to future times and places (e.g. our extraterrestrial future). What this means is that today we have a realistic prospect of proactively establishing the legal structure and enforcement powers needed for a world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space.

 

        If we wait until later, we may not be so free to "do the right thing" and establish stable peace in extraterrestrial space. Extraterrestrial space is immense; it is all of the cosmos except for a single small planet and its atmosphere. Eventually it might even become feasible to extend stable peace to planet Earth and thus the entire cosmos.

 

        I will spend most of the remainder of this article trying to "think through" what the basic structure of the Extraterrestrial Society should be like – a structure we would contemplate, modify, and implement in the present before we live and develop special interests out there. Such "thinking through" to produce an extraterrestrial space treaty (the TO proposal) might also help us better understand conflicts and their possible management on today's planet Earth. It is my belief that the suggested extraterrestrial space Treaty Organization (TO) will make a fine gift to our offspring and, by the way, help present Earthlings.

 

        If we want a good world at stable peace (whether that world be Terrestrial Civilization or Extraterrestrial Transcivilization), it would seem we must be willing to unblinkingly face up to the following questions: Is stable peace possible if each person or each people is passionately convinced their worldview is basically good and correct – and different worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect? If we could enforceably prevent each and every person from killing any person over a conflict (say, a conflict of worldviews), would we do so? If so, how would we resolve our conflicts?

 

        Although I have freely borrowed ideas from others, I believe the political theory or scheme of moral-political notions I present below is original with me. One advantage we have in facing up to the difficult questions raised in the previous paragraph is that we can use our imaginations to futuristically view ourselves as Extraterrestrials living in intentional communities (SEGs). We can further assume that a political structure there and then exists that we describe as a good world at stable peace.

 

        The Extraterrestrials of the future have their liberties and technologies. The Terrestrials of the present do not yet have these liberties and technologies of the future. Yet humans today have the ability and perhaps the practical political will – via the TO proposal – to help insure humanity’s existence and a good world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space (almost all of the cosmos) in which transcivilization will flourish. So we need to "work backward" to determine the provisions of the Treaty or Concert now under construction.

 

        First of all, I will assume that it is a fact that if today's Terrestrials are to produce such a Concert or Treaty (including effective enforcement provisions), it will require agreement from a number of States/Peoples. I also assume that eventually a Treaty like this would have to be binding in the sense that the Treaty would have no expiration date.  The first Treaty however might have an expiration date and might have few Parties (States/Peoples) to the agreement. As they consult with each other, with other countries, with philosophers, with scientists, with politicians, etc. they would gain important insights and experience helping them produce a second Treaty, this time with no expiration date but with many Parties to the agreement, this time also containing strong and effective enforcement provisions.

 

        How many persons or states/peoples would accept or endorse a Space Treaty that effectively and enforceably bans weapons and their manufacture from extraterrestrial space? In this context (a good and practical legacy to our offspring), I should think we should be diligent enough to rally enough supporters. For example, this (the second?) Treaty might be signed originally by, say, twenty States/Peoples (including all or most of the "major" ones). But the Treaty would be strongly effectively enforced by the Agency for a Better Cosmos (ABC) – not by States/Peoples – against ALL and EVERYONE, whether or not they sign the Treaty. Once in force, I would expect many others to sign on – since the Treaty applies to them even if they do not sign it. Eventually the Treaty really would have to be strongly effectively enforced by the ABC against all and everyone, because eventually persons and communities (SEGs) will permanently settle in extraterrestrial space. Too, such a Treaty offers hope and inspiration to those of us of the present.

 

        Okay, you may say, this is a reasonable enough start, but what other liberties, responsibilities, and political structures would be appropriate for the Extraterrestrial World? So far, what we presumably have is an Extraterrestrial World at stable peace. But what about conflicts and the plurality of deeply held religious and philosophic worldviews?

 

PFIT       (Peace and Freedom, and Intentional Transparent communities, in extraterrestrial space)

 

        What seems to me both practical and fair in this context is to think in terms of an Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities. There would be two sets of liberties and two sets of responsibilities (for "Extraterrestrial Society" and "Intentional Communities" respectively). Each person is free to found new (intentional) communities. Each Community would determine its own membership requirements. Each Community would have its own culture of liberties and responsibilities; a member would generally be free to leave the community. A mechanism or set of mechanisms would be established to insure that each member is fully and properly informed of their liberty to leave the (intentional) community. (I suppose some communities might still allow their members the possibility of experiencing physical pain – but they would also allow a member to voluntarily leave their community. Too, I suppose banning animal cruelty and serious animal pain would be desirable and feasible.) Note also that some ("hermit") communities would consist of only one person.

 

        On old Terra, it was often difficult or impossible to leave one's community – sometimes expulsion effectively meant the individual's death. The context of the Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities is radically different. For example: The individual person would be transmortal, whereas on old Terra it was often the community or society (not the human individual) that was seen as transmortal.       

 

        So at the level of the Society (of Communities) we have: (1) Peace: Weapons, weapons-making, and violence (including animal cruelty and serious animal pain) are strongly effectively enforceably banned; and, (2) Freedom: Every individual person is fully aware of and fully informed of their general liberty to leave their community. This too is strongly effectively enforced. The Society and the communities necessarily work closely together to fully insure the liberties and responsibilities associated with both Peace and Freedom. Also note that since there is "unlimited free land” (and “unlimited energy”), this fact will additionally help prevent some old terra-style conflicts and resolve or manage others (this would include some old-style civil conflicts).

 

        At the level of Communities (in the Society) we have: (1) Intentionality (voluntariness): Within the good-faith transparent enforcement of Society's basic principles of peace and freedom, each Community has wide latitude for experimentation. Although there is a general liberty of members to leave the (intentional) Community, this does not necessarily relieve such persons from certain good-faith responsibilities to the Community; and, (2) Transparency: Each Community must strongly, effectively, and transparently help enforce the Society's basic principles of peace and freedom.[³]

 

        I believe the political theory or moral-political approach I have invented above is unique and original. It differs from the "Law of Peoples" conception of John Rawls in that it primarily chooses a "Law of Persons" model instead. Yet it takes seriously the distinction Rawls makes between a "political conception" and "comprehensive doctrines." In my "Society of Communities" theory, Society corresponds to a political conception or model, and Communities represent comprehensive doctrines or worldviews.

 

        Like Charles R. Beitz, my theory takes seriously a cosmopolitan-political "Law of Persons" (as distinguished from a social-political "Law of Peoples") approach. It differs from Beitz in methodology and in the questions asked. Beitz finds the question of distributive justice both highly important and practically difficult with respect to present Terrestrials. This is so; but this is a question I do not raise since in my extraterrestrial world of the future it seems not an issue or one rather resolvable in that easier context of expanded liberty – there requiring perhaps at most only a bit of good-will and ingenuity.

 

        "Is stable peace possible if each person or each people is passionately convinced their worldview is basically good and correct – and different worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect?" If you can sincerely and in good faith agree to my political approach above, the answer to this question appears to be YES, such stable peace is possible. If you can at most only agree to my approach as a temporary compromise, then the answer may be NO.

 

        "If we could enforceably prevent each and every person from killing any person over a conflict (say, a conflict of worldviews) would we do so? If so, how would we resolve our conflicts?" If you can sincerely and in good faith (instead of merely as a temporary compromise) agree to my approach above, then stable peace in extraterrestrial space seems both possible and desirable. This approach, so I believe, realistically outlines a structure of stable peace for world Society and local Communities in extraterrestrial space – pointing toward conflict management in the new framework and encouraging subsequent projects to invent needed specifics.

 

        The first (temporary) Extraterrestrial Space Treaty seems doable today. A permanent Extraterrestrial Space Treaty seems doable soon. A Universal Space Treaty that includes both Extraterrestrial Space and Terrestrial Space may take more time but appears to be a goal worth striving for – indeed, the striving itself may well improve matters. In the meantime, the previous treaties and upward strivings should make these "final strivings" toward a Good Society more nearly achievable for all. Here are the words of two Nobel Laureates:

 

·       George Bernard Shaw: “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”

                   

·       Jimmy Carter: "There is little doubt that a global treaty to ban space weapons will leave America safer than a unilateral decision to put the first (and certainly not the only) weapons in space."

 

Closing Remarks: “Pfit” Inventors Are Urgently Needed!

  

      Almost all places in the cosmos are located somewhere OTHER THAN on planet Earth. Almost all of reality is located in THE FUTURE.  A decision to act (or a decision or non-decision not to act) in the present becomes an UNALTERABLE FACT when the present becomes the past. With reference to our known cosmos, it seems that (Energy) Phase-States; (Atomic) Valences; (Teleonomic) Genetics; and, Hedonic-Behavior have dominated the past – and that Hedonic-Behavior; Reflective-Thinking; and, Moral-Dominion may well dominate the future. Future super-persons (if they exist, if we do not become extinct) may engage in super Hedonic-Behavior; super Reflective-Thinking; and, super Moral-Dominion. But even such super-persons cannot change any UNALTERABLE FACT of the past. Such super-persons may be tempted to ask if their ancestors were good and farsighted ancestors who initiated stable peace in extraterrestrial space (or if their ancestors were bad and myopic ancestors who at a unique point in history failed to initiate stable peace in extraterrestrial space – to the detriment of the future and of multitudinous lives to come). To be sure, today’s persons are hugely influenced by the past from which they emerged, yet the past does not prevent them from more fully exercising their limited capacity for Reflective-Thinking and Moral-Dominion, both individually and collectively, IF THEY SO WILL IT.  

 

      If we can prevent doomsday and dystopia, then our GrinSmile capacities guarantee us a fine future. Many additional physical and social technologies/inventions are needed to supply important details for a PFIT future. For example, what physical inventions and related laws are required (or desirable) for our (extraterrestrial) communities to be transparent in the relevant sense? (Might such inventions be applied to enhance terrestrial communities as well?) Please educate me and others about what a PFIT future needs and why. What sort of technologies and inventions, near and far, might PFIT require (or find desirable) and why? Might YOU be able to invent these specifics? If you invent a PFIT physical technology or social organization (e.g. a PFIT political movement), please let me know. Have relevant products or specifics ALREADY been invented, about which you should inform me and other “PFIT persons”? In closing, let me remind you of an observation made by the inventor of the polio vaccine, Dr. Jonas Salk. According to Dr. Salk, the most important question we can ask of ourselves is: "Are we being good ancestors?"

 

References

 

Beitz, Charles R. Political Theory and International Relations: With a New Afterword by the Author (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999).

 

Carter, Jimmy. Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis (New York: Simon & Shuster, 2005). (quotation, p. 143).

 

Daalder, Ivo; and James Lindsay. “Democracies of the World, Unite” in The American Interest (January-February 2007). “Democracies of the World, Unite” is available at
<http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=220&MId=7>.

 

Drexler, K. Eric. Engines of Creation (New York: Anchor Press, 1987).

 

Evans,   J. D. G.    “Prisoner’s  Dilemma,”    in   The  Oxford  Companion  to  Philosophy,   Ted

Honderich, Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 719.

 

Garreau, Joel. <www.garreau.com>.

 

Globus, A. Space Settlements. <www.nas.nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/>.
Also see: <http://space.alglobus.net/>

 

Heppenheimer, T. A. Colonies in Space (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1977).

 

Kurzweil, Ray. <www.KurzweilAI.net>.

 

O’Neill,  G. K.    The High Frontier:  Human Colonies in Space.    New York:  Morrow,  1977.

[A year 2000 reprint contains updated information and a CD-ROM].

 

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations: Third Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980). (Shaw quotation, p. 497).

 

Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples: with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001).

 

Rosin, C. [The Institute for Cooperation in Space (website):] <www.peaceinspace.com>.

 

Salk, Jonas. [Most important question we can ask of ourselves: "Are we being good ancestors?"]

<http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0711.html>.

 

Space Quotes to Ponder <www.spacequotes.com>.

 

Spaceflight or Extinction <www.spaext.com>.

 

Stein, G. Harry. The Third Industrial Revolution (New York: Ace Books, 1979).

 

Tandy, Charles. [The SEGIT communities website:] Dr. Tandy has established a website for SEGIT communities: <www.segits.com>. SEGIT communities or SEGITs = Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat Intentional Transparent [self-replicating] communities. (February 2008). Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?

 

Tandy, Charles. "A Time Travel Schema And Eight Types Of Time Travel," In Tandy, Charles [Editor] (2006). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 4: Twenty Years After De Beauvoir, Thirty Years After Heidegger, A Book (Nonfiction) Published By Ria University Press: Palo Alto, California (USA). (ISBN 9780974347288). (Pages 369-388).

 

Tandy, Charles. "Types Of Time Machines And Practical Time Travel," Journal Of Futures Studies, Volume 11, Number 3 (February 2007). (ISSN 10276084). (Pages 79-90).

 

Vinge, Vernor. <http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html>.

 

Endnotes

 

1. This particular Carl Sagan quotation is found on the Space Studies Institute webpage at <http://www.ssi.org/?page_id=12>. Another issue is that of drastically reducing the cost of launching stuff from Earth into space. (I say “another issue” because advanced SEG communities would not be built from terrestrial resources; they would be built from extraterrestrial resources mined from asteroids or moons.) According to a world famous physicist now serving as President of the Space Studies Institute, Dr. Freeman J. Dyson [personal communication, 9 September 2004]:  "The public is well aware that with present-day launch-costs human activity in space must remain a spectator sport. ... It took fifty years to go from the Wright brothers' Flyer One of 1903 to the modern air-transport system with huge numbers of commercial aircraft flying routinely all over the world." I point out that today's world is a different and speeded-up world – and that when we explicitly decide to do something (whether build the atomic bomb or land a human on the moon), it tends to meet success comparatively sooner rather than later. Several different approaches to building a public highway system into space have been identified by Dyson as deserving support. According to Dyson: Two different systems, one for people and the other for cargo, may provide two separate kinds of public highways into space. Arguably such techniques may be developed sooner rather than later – but anyway (barring catastrophe) they certainly will be perfected. 

 

2. See The American Interest (January-February 2007). The article by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay (“Democracies of the World, Unite”) is available at
<http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=220&MId=7>.

 

3. See my SEGITs (Self-sufficient Extra-terrestrial Green-habitat Intentional Transparent [self-replicating] communities) website at <http://www.SEGITs.com>.

 

Revisions

 

[Original: 14 February 2008]

 [Revised: 15 February 2008]

 [Revised: 16 February 2008]

 

Acknowledgement

 

      The above article has been reproduced by permission of Charles Tandy; the copyright and intellectual property rights belong to Charles Tandy. Copyright © 2008 by Charles Tandy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?

For information about SEGITs, see Dr. Tandy’s articles above.

 

 

Are SEGITs a key to humanity’s survival and thrival?

For information about SEGITs, read the two articles above by Dr. Tandy.

 

 

 

GoTo:  ria.edu/papers       Contact Dr. Tandy:  tandy@ria.edu       GoTo:  Top Of Page