Model Earth Re-Introduced

[hearthstone]

Model Earth

<www.modelearth.org/modelearth.html>

Re-Introduced:

I would like to explain better what "Mode Earth" would be about, so that any discussions about it would be more specific.

“Model Earth” is NOT a prognostic tool.

"Model Earth" would not even require any computers, were it to be employed on a level of a small enough community where everyone would know everyone--any "round-table"-type conflict resolution process would be sufficient enough.

HOWEVER-

for the problems that the world is now facing, no "round-table" would be large enough, if not assisted by high-tech tools. It could be argued that the use of high-tech could be altogether precluded if people formed voluntary, small enough communities that would aim to be ecologically and socially fully sustainable form the start, but to hope so would be, perhaps, premature.

In a nutshell, "Model Earth" would try to resolve any discrepancies among the many plans/wishes for future the participants would submit (the main question would be: "What would your ideal life look like in an ideal world where there would be no wars, no homelessness, hunger, etc."), before those differences would get a chance to resolve in real life.-As it is happening now, all those differences have normally a little chance to resolve before they do so in real life, and that is why we have so many wars, social ills, and environmental problems.

There would be a difference between the way of planning the future as it is done now, when the future is designed by only the factions that are in power, and the way it would be done in "Model Earth", where even the ideas about the future of the world of the normally dis-enfranchised ones would contribute to the final product. As it is now, ,many problems in the world stem from the fact that such dis-enfranchised peoples' wishes are of a little account, but just because of that, those wishes for future of the insignificant ones might influence the future significantly by the virtue of being the ignored (although not "unknown") variable.

One important thing would be to create an ideal model FIRST (as precisely as possible--it would be easier to deal with any discrepancies in the model, rather than in real life), and ONLY after that this is done, start figuring out how to get there. This is an important thing, because it would be easier to arrive somewhere, once it is known where it is that we want to get at. There are many well meant activities that are meant to improve the world conducted today that are conducted without actually knowing what the final product should be, which might create a confusion, because most of the people taking a part in those activities might have different ideas about the outcome of those activities.

An example of the many possible uses of "Model Earth" would be a situation where two groups of people would be contesting the rights to the same territory. As it often happens now-a-days, such a dispute would, more likely than not, end up in a war. Should "Model Earth" be used, all the members of the two sides would put their ideas about a peaceful co-existence with the opposing side into the "Model Earth", where each of all of those ideas would be matched against the database that would contain all the important facts/data about the region in dispute. This database would comprise all the knowledge about the availability of resources in the region, the history of use of those resources, the history of peoples who ever might have had any relation to the region, and all other pertinent data. The best possible solutions to the differences, based both: on the actual wishes of the members of the two groups, and on the factual data, would be presented to the parties in question, and any of those possible solutions would be fully backed by the actual wishes of the participants, and also by the available data. In such a way all the members of the two groups would be able to learn about all the important facts involved in the question--something that today is often missing, when most important decisions are made by leaders, and most people are not able to participate in the decision making process.

Above all, it would be great to get people who would like to start to co-operate on the model, even though it might take a while to get something usable.

Anyone interested in helping in any part of the project, if only volunteering the use of their computers on in moments when their computer would not be busy, please write to hearth@modelearth.org

More details to "Model Earth" are in my "Statement of Purpose" at http://www.modelearth.org/statpurp.html

[squian]

The word model is fairly overloaded. The notion of a "model" as an ideal does not really have much value for predictive value and is more a mechanism for understanding. The notion of a "model" as the "as is" picture of what exists may allow for both. But the problem in both cases is that a "model" is an abstraction. That means some details must be left out to help the human brain comprehend the whole thing. As such, I am skeptical that such a model could be used for the despute resolution in the way suggested:

An example of the many possible uses of "Model Earth" would be a situation where two groups of people would be contesting the rights to the same territory. As it often happens now-a-days, such a dispute would, more likely than not, end up in a war. Should "Model Earth" be used, all the members of the two sides would put their ideas about a peaceful co-existence with the opposing side into the "Model Earth", where each of all of those ideas would be matched against the database that would contain all the important facts/data about the region in dispute. This database would comprise all the knowledge about the availability of resources in the region, the history of use of those resources, the history of peoples who ever might have had any relation to the region, and all other pertinent data. The best possible solutions to the differences, based both: on the actual wishes of the members of the two groups, and on the factual data, would be presented to the parties in question, and any of those possible solutions would be fully backed by the actual wishes of the participants, and also by the available data. In such a way all the members of the two groups would be able to learn about all the important facts involved in the question--something that today is often missing, when most important decisions are made by leaders, and most people are not able to participate in the decision making process.

Notably, the "pertinent data" and "important facts" are precisely what cause countries to go to war. People view the data and facts differently. What is important or pertinent is more subjective than objective. And that says nothing about the dispute over data and facts themselves.

I guess what I don't see is the acknowledgement that a model needs to help filter out the details and provide useful information. And the acknowledgement that such a filter is, by definition, subjective.

[hearthstone]

I'll try to be more clear in trying to describe what "Model Earth" is supposed to be about.

Let me NOT use the term "Model Earth" (just for this nonce), because the word "model" might indeed be "fairly overloaded", and let me use "Sandbox Earth" ("sandbox" might be better qualified than "model" in what "model" is supposed to do in "Model Earth", perhaps) instead of "Model Earth", and I'll try to describe what "Sandbox Earth" is supposed to accomplish.

1) "Sandbox Earth" would in no way try to predict/presage/prognosticate anything ever. Instead,

2) "Sandbox Earth" would merely facilitate the reconciliation of the billions of different ideas about what the future ought to be of the billions of people who might be wanting a better future. This would be accomplished by comparing the diverse desires of the participants with a data base that would make possible to establish the realizability of the which particular desire. For instance, the likelihood of any of the plans for the future to be realized according to the availability of resources, to compatibility with social laws, etc. Procedures, technologies for doing this already exist and are being used. To mind comes, as an example, the organization "Redefining Progress" who came with the concept of "ecological footprint". Their aim is to (from among other things, I imagine) present to people how the resources that we have to our disposition are distributed per various units (be those individual people, countries, etc.).This process could be used in "Sandbox Earth" in evaluating of an individual's ideas about this individual's share of the resources.

3) "Sandbox Earth" would serve as a kind of a virtual "real life" in which the subjectivity of the reasons of the differing parties that "cause countries to go to war" "normally" could be reconciled before those reasons could cause real violent conflicts in real "real life".

One major difficulty for people in avoiding violent conflicts is that they (the majority of them) don't have a clear idea of what kind of future they really want. Rather, they know better what they do NOT want, and because they do not know what they want in a fine enough detail, the "powers-that-be" (i.e.--the current paradigm that is based on profiting from others without much regard for consequences) takes over, and nothing really improves.

4) This is where "Sandbox Earth" steps in, and forces people to imagine their future in as little a detail as possible so that their ideas, that normally, more likely than not, are too vague to be called "objective", could be compared against each other, and against the data base.

5) "Sandbox Earth" product (if it could be called so, because it would never be finite) would be continuously updated and refined by the participants' feedback and by the ever-improving data base (improving, because human knowledge improves continuously) would present a "tangible" and "visible" goal--a realistic vision to strive for. The importance of this cannot be overstated, because this is exactly what is missing today. Everyone is striving (presumably) for a better future, but because there is no goal defined clearly, no one (excepted those who do it at other's expense) can really achieve a goal that doesn't really exist, or is not well enough visible.

The strength of "Sandbox Earth" would not lie in any executive powers ("Sandbox Earth" would not posses any), but in the ability of anyone to check whether any progress towards a livable, acceptable future is being made. Thus even by using today's existing ineffective political machinery could be a real progress possible to make, just because the politicians' performance could be rated by matching their aims with the picture presented by "Sandbox Earth".

And if anyone would not like the picture modeled by "Sandbox Earth", why, they could always propose an improvement, and if their contribution would be realistic enough to withstand the test for viability (on the basis that we "objectively" know about the Earth and its inhabitants) then their vresion would win; no doubt to be challenged by someone better qualified, so it goes!

I am not sure whether I am making myself clear enough; basically what I mean is that it is more likely to achieve a particular goal when that goal is well defined, and in case of world's future, because we have only one world, many goals that often contradict each other, goals that are not co-ordinated with each other, are impossible to achieve, if those are not co-ordinated and tested for viability to manifest in a co-ordinated.

I am not sure whether I am making myself clear enough; basically what I mean is that it is more likely to achieve a particular goal when that goal is well defined, and in the case of world's future, because we have only one world, only one future will eventually materialize. Many goals that often contradict each other, goals that are not co-ordinated with each other, are impossible to achieve if those goals are not co-ordinated with each other, and tested for viability. The "Sandbox Earth" would not "filter" anything, it would only strive to unify all the the plans for future that there might be in the model, before those plans have a chance to reconcile in a destructive fashion in real life which case it is today, when any differences that there might be get sorted out violently, more often than not, not having the benefit of being able to sort themselves out in a "sandbox" first.

If all of the above is not too clear, then, please, try to peruse my latest posting at Evirolink Forum - http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=637 (Model Earth Re-Introduced), I used a bit different approach there in trying to describe "Model Earth", an approach that might be better than any of the above.


I am conducting a survey:
1) Do you desire Peace on Earth?
2) Knowing that every war started in a time of peace, what the "Peace on Earth" should look like, so that it also doesn't end in war?

Please email any sincere answers to the above to
modelearth@myway.com with "survey" in the subject.

Thank you sincerely - Mr. Jan Hearthstone.

[squian]

hearthstone, there are probably some things I don't understand about this idea. However, from what I do understand, I must disagree with what seem to be implicit assumptions in the "Sandbox Earth".

1. Test for Viability - It sounds like sound engineering practice. Even in business, there are sanity checks or due diligence to make sure goals are worth pursuing. That said, there are many goals, especially in politics, that are not directly testable. For example, did Sarbanes-Oxley increase investor confidence?

2. Data equals Information - You describe a "database" to compare sets of goals but I'm not sure you can get people to agree on the interpretation of data. The reason people disagree is not just in disput of facts but also in the dispute of the interpretation. Getting from data to information takes interpretation.

Plus, I reiterate my concern that models are abstractions. Call it a sandbox but you still need to remove details so people can understand it. When you have hidden the complexity sufficiently that it aids undertanding you are taking the risk that you have hidden an important detail.

My skepticism remains.

[hearthstone]

OK, I'll try again:
The idea is to prevent the discrepancies that there are among peoples' ideas about the future from acting themselves out in real life.

The diffference between how this is done today, and how it would be done in "da kine" would be that: Today only leaders get to make the future (through diplomacy, in the UN, what-not), which process excludes the majority of people from significantly influence their future.

In "da kine" (now be it a computer, a telepathy dingy, or what-not, doesn't really matter, what matters is the principle) all the potential participants of the future would "iron out" any differences among them, before those could act out in "real life", rather in "da kine". This reasoning comes from a conviction that people would rather go home than to a war. The majority of them, that is.

Ofcourse this sounds very highly irregular, and a lot of people would dissmiss "da kine" out-of-hand, but it is based on a sound principle, and now only it would take people who would at least started thinking how it could be done, rather than how it could not be done.
Because--times are hard, and will be harder with the progress of time (Dispute this one. On what basis?), and NOTHING that could substantially improve the prospects for the future is being done. Hydrogen cars will NOT make it.
H.S.

[squian]

OK, I'm trying to stretch. I'll put aside my earlier concerns for the moment so that you and I can imagine "da kine" together.

So you and I have a disagreement (just like this one). As reasonable people, we want to avoid war. So in this thought experiment we are the kinds of authorities who could cause a war. But again, we want to avoid war so we step into "da kine". Since all the people potentially impacted by our decision will participate, I suppose everyone in the world steps in. Inside "da kine" everything in the world seems just as it is in reality. The only difference is that it's not real. It's like being in the Matrix. So here we can act out anything without doing anything real and the rest of the population reacts just as they would if they were out in the real world.

Is that a little closer to what you are talking about?

[hearthstone]

Not like the "Matrix" at all! "Da kine" would merely present (in the form knowledgable persons' reports that would be calculated by using abaci, data form a data bank presented on a screen and manipulated by a program) the availability of resources (for instance), or the suitability of a territory for habitation (so many acres per capita according to a by all parties agreed upon data base, so much water available, etc. ) ...
Check out, if you would, the "Redefining Progress"--http://www.rprogress.org/--are using the process already in a very thorough fashion; all that would be needed would be to "plug it" in the "da kine".

If it were a piece of territory (with all the resources that there would be present) that we would have a dispute over, the "da kine" would merely facilitate calculations (in its most basic function) that would show which demands would be more realistic according to number of people that would be using the territory with all its resources etc. It might, perhaps, become obvious that a reduction of population on both (or how many) sides will be needed, or might suggest changes in life-styles.

What would be different, though, from most any processes used today would be the participation of all entities who would be affected by the any decisions made, so that factions not represented today would not cause future disorders.

As I said, no gadget would be needed at all, if any such disputes would be happening in socially sustainable situations (have you read the postings in the other--EnviroLink Forum: http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=637 ?). The idea of a "Matrix" comes perhaps from mentioning computers, but what other tool could one use with todays situations that involve billions of people? Number crunching would have to be done, what else could one use than computers?

Most people today live in an unreal world where they are encouraged not to inquire where the things that they use come from; In order to be a competent user of "da kine", one would have to start educating oneself in the issues involved--computer assisted education could seem to be the most expedient means. One of the causes of today's social, ecological crisis is that people are un-educated in issues that are vital, that pertain to there being able to continue living.

All this all probably boils down to in the end is that people should start taking interest and responsibility in their future in all its aspects; and that perhaps we have to find ways better than those used so far, because the ways of doing things that we have been using so far are adding problems to the existing problems by trying to solve those. So far the ultimate solution, usually always, has been a war. There has to be a better way. Why doesn't our science help? What are those guys busy with? Check out the "Union of Concerned Scientists"--They are dealing with petty issues, instead of going for the jugular, as they could and should! :-)

An indication of what I am trying to express could, perhaps, be found in taking part in a survey that I am conducting, by answering the question #2: www.modelearth.org/survey.html .

Any better? H. S.

[hearthstone]

In fact:
If anyone is interested, perhaps a good start would be to answer the question #2 of the "Survey" www.modelearth.org/survey.html , and try to reconcile the (no doubt) different answers, which would be an indication of what "Model Earth" would be attempting to do.
Thanks,
Hearthstone.

[Ian Beardsley]

Hi Jan, as you know I am a big fan of model earth and I have boiled it down to the bottom line I think. It is this: In order to model earth, we need to have either one world, one people, that is, go into osmosis, i.e. everyone changes, so that we are all the same, but something different than we all are now, or, strike a chord, where all cultures, though each remain different, can be different in harmony with oneanother. That is the struggle we face today, as we cannot agree on which way to go. But I truly believe you are right, when you suggest, as my father worded to me some years ago, "you can't draw a line and say you live like that in poverty, and I like this (exploitive). Now in order to solve that, I think the solution is obvious: third world countries need to educate themselves in sciences and humanities. Our wealth comes from our technology, free thought and separation of church and state. The core of the problem as far as third world countries not embracing science, is that they are scared of it, and see no door to it, and, as a result, go further into religious fanaticism, which only takes them further into the darkness, in a world where light means better living for everyone. These are the problem, I think model earth should primarily adress in today's world.
--Ian

[Presence of the Passenger]

First post on the forum. Reaching out for good conversation.
That aside:

I'm offering criticism so that you might iron out this Model Earth. I do not believe it can work, from what I've read.


To quote you Hearthstone,

"In "da kine" (now be it a computer, a telepathy dingy, or what-not, doesn't really matter, what matters is the principle) all the potential participants of the future would "iron out" any differences among them, before those could act out in "real life", rather in "da kine". This reasoning comes from a conviction that people would rather go home than to a war. The majority of them, that is."



The trouble is, future participants won't get a say, until they are in this "da kine". Not to mention, what's to come of the children? Let's say our earth does become a condition of model earth; things being influenced and argued and connected until the best-fit solution comes about. Well, you have these children right? And they're all influenced by what they come into. Trouble is, child development doesn't follow a mold like that; it's based on chemical reactions.

Now, suppose a large portion of a new generation hits their late teens, and all of them see trouble with the current system (as time shows to always be the case).....how do you suppose this system will give them what they want? What they want isn't a solution to a problem within the system, fixed by the system. They want a different SYSTEM altogether. I believe they'd see the model earth setup as the problem, and would want more control in their lives. What you're talking about is complacency; and that just isn't realistic. A child is born into an already determined definiton of earth thru the model, just as they are today. They immediatly get a say in things, but at a certain level. We can't honestly expect children to make critical decisions. There will always be a break down in communication between groups where one has the power and the other does not. Be it economic, social, or other classes. Age also, breaks down into classes; and teenagers want revolution more than any age group I know.

[Ian Beardsley]

Hi Jan, as you know I am a big fan of model earth and I have boiled it down to the bottom line I think. It is this: In order to model earth, we need to have either one world, one people, that is, go into osmosis, i.e. everyone changes, so that we are all the same, but something different than we all are now, or, strike a chord, where all cultures, though each remain different, can be different in harmony with oneanother. That is the struggle we face today, as we cannot agree on which way to go. But I truly believe you are right, when you suggest, as my father worded to me some years ago, "you can't draw a line and say you live like that in poverty, and I like this (exploitive). Now in order to solve that, I think the solution is obvious: third world countries need to educate themselves in sciences and humanities. Our wealth comes from our technology, free thought and separation of church and state. The core of the problem as far as third world countries not embracing science, is that they are scared of it, and see no door to it, and, as a result, go further into religious fanaticism, which only takes them further into the darkness, in a world where light means better living for everyone. These are the problem, I think model earth should primarily adress in today's world.
--Ian
Not in order to model earth do we need to do that, but I meant to say that is where I think model earth should start.
http://www.project-genesis.org

[hearthstone]

No "osmosis" would be necessary, we wouldn't have to become alike. What would matter would be that any differencies in all the various ideas about future would be sorted out in a model, rather than on a real battle-field in real life with real casualties.
That the "developed" countries should serve as any kind of standard for the "under-developed" countries in any way, could be disputed.
How exactly the process in a model would function is not as important as that something substial, effective should be undertaken soon in order to prevent a future that doesn't look too good to many.
A model for modeling of an ideal future could be used for educating of children and anyone who would need such an education (read: most people today), I think. How this exactly would be done is opened to all kind of designs--it has never been done so far in the whole history of humans. But to continue to do things in ways that have been tried so far is unrealistic. The product of using those ways is not getting any better. Rather the opposite.
The difference between the UN and a "Model Earth" would be such that in a model the future would be shaped by anyone on a grass-root level--no one would be left out, as often happens today, when many people do not take part in deciding of their own future, and have to live lifes that were designed by entities that are not sympathetic to them at all times.
A by-product of using a model for planning of future would be that the participants would get educated on issues that would matter in the future. An educated electorate could make the politicians see the future in their, educated way more likely than an electorate that doesn't really gets the benefit of an education that makes the participants of such an education to see the future realistically (i.e. informedly).
No one, so far, answered the question #2 of the survey - http://www.modelearth.org/survey.html - doesn't the question make sense?
Thanks, Hearthstone.

[Ian Beardsley]

No "osmosis" would be necessary, we wouldn't have to become alike. What would matter would be that any differencies in all the various ideas about future would be sorted out in a model, rather than on a real battle-field in real life with real casualties.
Thanks, Hearthstone.

So in other words, model earth would be used to achieve a sort of harmony between all people, such as exists today in Spain where christian, muslim and jew, or, caucasion, arab and jew all are happy and "share in the wealth on an ecologically sustainable basis" to hopefully paraphrase you correctly, or Gaia's collective conciousness of Asimov. But it would seem there are two opposite ways to do this, not to surprise, that could be considered at culmination in India and China, sort of. Since they are so deeply rooted in opposing philosophies, it would seem we cannot expect either to change, even in a compromising sense, and this may be where model earth can find a harmony.
--Ian

[hearthstone]

Well--even ideologies could "duke it out" in the model first, instead of doing it as it is done now-a-days, that is: mostly by indoctrinating their adherents without any, or a very minimal debate with other ideologies on the world forum what-so-ever.
I think doctrines, ideologies, theologies, and any such should be questioned extensively, thouroughly, and publicly as to establish how suitable they might be for a practical making of a "Peace on Earth".
H.S.

[Ian Beardsley]

Well--even ideologies could "duke it out" in the model first, instead of doing it as it is done now-a-days, that is: mostly by indoctrinating their adherents without any, or a very minimal debate with other ideologies on the world forum what-so-ever.
I think doctrines, ideologies, theologies, and any such should be questioned extensively, thouroughly, and publicly as to establish how suitable they might be for a practical making of a "Peace on Earth".
H.S.
I would say that in Spain all cultures live in harmony by way of flamenco. All flamenco is of one thing, yet has a different meaning to each culture, but none depart the secret of their style to the other. The performers work out any problem, and when the solution is summarized in the grand finally of words and guitar work, everyone lets out a grand ole' because harmony by it continues.
--Ian

[hearthstone]

Resonates with what a basic meditation is also about: bringing/linking together even incompatible elements into something coherent.
H.S.