Latest | Categories | Top | Blog | Wiki | About & TOS | Imprint | Vision | Help | Fractal Generator | Futurist Directory | H+Pedia

How to make a futuristic society

Sorry for the late answer, I was out on my vacation with zero internet connection.

We have been discussing this on the topic “A Wiki with fact checking?”, were i present the idea of “ideas based on ideas” and the “fallacies and truthful sources”. I admit is not perfect but is a start.

I respect that this goes into the realm of psychology, but the processes of emotion are imprints from a master mold, and the mold is the physical part that were shaped by biological processes. Even so, I might be wrong in the kind of answer you mean, and I should answer the atavistic part. And the answer “might be” yes. I sort of recall a research that says fear can be kind of inherited and I do recall a research that shows how the brain could alter its genetics.

Lets do this.

This emulation could use what we have at hand, and there is a lot of attempt by current communities like the RBE. Many of us collaborated in the “RBE Game” which was a project to bring the RBE ideas to the general public. We found that a game like Freeciv could be expanded into an actual simulation via upgrades.

An “emulation”, yes, but as soon as real resources are being feed upon the system, you get real economy on track. Think on the virtual currencies from the many online games, and their results.

i wouldn´t put it that way. we have the ability to feel in general ( and maybe research could show that this ability is universal ) but the way we feel is shaped through experiences. so to me psychology is the most promising approach to understand our world.

our knowledge based on assertions and memes starting somewhere, sometime…often far away in the past… in the heads of other people. many of them are claimed to be proven and believed by many people without being reconsidered. we don´t have the time and the ressources to prove everything we learn by our own. experiences and studies are constructed according to the perception, intelligence and the desired outcome of the study/ research of the researchers/sponsor. and they are also interpreted individually
…and not an insignificant amout of studies is paid by lobbies for a special desired outcome. …so…there is not really much, we could trust.

many people tried to find methods and ways gaining something like “truthful
sources” and “objectivity”…

with the idea “ideas based on ideas” there is chance you build on

I agree, a “fractal society” may be the only way to accomodate everyones’ prefrences.

1 Like

We should have the right to travel. I think people will form into groups based on their prefrences.


Welcome to the Social Future Forum, technologiclee :smile:

Yes, the right, and also the actual ability, to travel to the location which fits your overall preferences best is an important ideal. However, states often regulate migration movements to a large degree – often out of necessity, or economic, political, or cultural considerations.

For example, how to deal with refugees? When a nation lets too many refugees in, the local infrastructures will become overburdened and the refugees will have to live in refugee camps under horrible living conditions. There should be some supernational compensation system that somehow rewards nation for accepting refugees (or even other non wealthy immigrants), so that there would be some kind of market for letting them in. So, the refugee streams would be split up much more evenly among different nations, hopefully.

Until the underlying biological processes are discovered, psychology is the only approach to be somewhat trusted. But we can neither prove or disprove the possibility than other sciences could displace psychology as the main field to understand feelings on the short term.

Each time we increase our understanding, we increase our doubts. Many scientists experience this, and is only natural.

And all that depends on personal beliefs. We should ask what we can do about this, no just how to get rid of it. I am sure many people are working on how to eliminate beliefs they don’t share, so I’ve focused on how to make the system tolerant of other people’s beliefs.
Of course, there are degrees for dealing with this.

Indeed, but it will not make it less of a concept to explore until I either prove or debunk it.

If we envision the future, intentional communities are a result of people taking opportunities as soon as they saw it possible. In the past, migrations has been done. It is a natural force.
What can change now, is the broad gamma of community types that can migrate, and if by any chance the economical reasons get lowered, it would be a bloom of migration.
Unless, some psychological constraints occur, which pretty much will happen for interference by people who don’t want migration, for any reason.

Hm, I guess even the current implementation of “private property” fits into the idea of this “fractal society”, and it’s there for the same reasons you point out. I think this is a good general idea. The closer of more intimate the systems are to you alone, the more personal freedom. So things relating to your body alone you have virtually absolute freedom. Things relating to your house where maybe your family lives, or is connected to other houses, you have a bit less freedom, in order to be in harmony to those nearest neighbors’ freedom. And so on, until you get to regional and world-wide systems that try to balance the input of everyone’s choices, so that you have the least freedom in terms of influencing the largest systems, as they are constrained by everyone’s choices. This is also the way to avoid dictators.

Many of these ideas are already implemented in modern law, but even if as a philosophy these ideas are quite widely accepted, they are still rather poorly applied in many cases. So I think we have here a very important technical problem if we are looking for something constructive to do.

One example of where it fails today: Everyone wants a house. What giving a house to everyone would imply to people (whether that is a bit higher tax, or many other better schemes, like basic income schemes) would acceptable for everyone. So if one of these schemes is shown to be valid (which I think some people have, although I don’t know a lot about it), it should be implemented! This shows that the highest level systems (at least nation-wide) aren’t doing what they should.

Sorry for
the slow reply. I’m insanely bust at the moment with work etc.

<<Thanks for sharing
your plans and visions, isenhand!>>

Your welcome :smile:

<< may I just ask the
reason for that? Was there any disappointment about the progress of the EOS?>>

EOS has gone about as expected. We got the main ideas down and have started looking at
implementation. I’ve been doing this sort of stuff since the mid-1990s but we formed EOS (then NET) in 2004. I became director a while after that and now I feel I have made my contribution and it is time to let someone else have try at it.


Yes, my first plan was to
create a virtual state in 1999 but shelved that idea for a while. I’m now looking at it again as a way to motivate people to funding and building from the grass roots upwards a futuristic society.

<<sounds more like a virtual nation game, rather than a “real” virtual

Yes, that’s the idea. Play a game and bring in fantasy, imagination and roll playing with the idea of
translating that over into building something in the real world.


At the moment I have quite a bit to do but things are starting to calm down again. My plan is to start
writing things up from next month and aim for a launch date later this year or early next year.

<<Do you have any
good strategy for dealing with that problem?>>

Don’t know if it is good! The whole thing is really an experiment but I think real life meeting is an
important part of the game. Failing that I think we will need regular communications one way or the other. So, either meetings as local as possible or on line meetings like in second life.

Yes, we have some kind of “fractal society” today, but it’s massively distorted by forces encouraging conformity:

  • Globalization pushed by capitalism and corporations that can act on a global scale while nations have less reach
  • Cultural imperialism
  • Mass media
  • Ever more bureaucratic state control
  • A decline in the number of languages spoken, in part due to English being increasingly used as universal language

There is a low diversity of political systems. Almost everywhere you go you will find:

  • Nation states
  • Some form of capitalism
  • A more or less dysfunctional form of democracy
  • McDonalds :wink:
  • People wearing clothes manufactured in sweat shops
  • Soccer

As Michio Kaku puts it: We are moving towards a global Kardiashev type 1 civilization. It’s conformity everywhere rather than fractal structure, even though our political framework would theoretically allow for structuring society more diversely.

One can approve of this trend or bemoan it, but it’s happening.

Giving everyone her own house does not mean much if she is subject to an incomprehensible number of laws, regulations, market forces, cultural influences, indoctrination, propaganda, and so on.

What we need are tools that cut through the complexity and that can help to liberate people. There are a few of them:

  • Money (ironically)
  • Universal basic income
  • Reputation economy
  • Attention economy
  • Freedom and liberty
  • Science
  • Democratic anarchism
  • Self-sufficiency through universal 3d printing
  • Creating habitats in space, or in international waters, or antarctica
  • The great new ideas that will come up in this forum :wink:
1 Like

[quote=“isenhand, post:28, topic:48”]
At the moment I have quite a bit to do but things are starting to calm down again. My plan is to startwriting things up from next month and aim for a launch date later this year or early next year.[/quote]

That’s great. I’m looking forward to reading about your plans. :slight_smile:

Real life meetings are unfortunately a bit expensive where people don’t happen to live close to each other. Unless all of us happen to somehow become wealthy in both time and money, I’d say we need to focus on using the best virtual communication tools.

But unfortunately I am not convinced that Second Life is especially effective at facilitating close collaboration. It does help to create a sense of community, but that is not nearly enough. I’ve made my best experiences with online forums. They provide a solid basis for communication and learning more about the deeper ideas of others. For building rapport, private chats, especially video chats might be the ideal virtual tool. Google Hangouts are rather nice :smile:

Yes those forces pushing conformity cause problems. I guess they are the results of one part of the fractal, whether it’s a person, company, or nation, gaining more power than it should. I also agree with your proposals to help liberate people.

Also, I think we won’t head towards conformity thanks to technologies, like the Internet. The Internet has already allowed a Cambrian explosion of diversity which is rather remarkable!

Finally, what you said about a low diversity of political systems is very true! I agree a lot with the idea of experimental politics/institutions. The latest group of people I heard want to support this seem pretty determined: !

Of course, apart from these experimental communities, and less experimental but still local cultures, national and global systems should still be in place to coordinate systems that need to work on those scales like UBI, and other things.

Also, sorry for my ignorance, but can I know what EOS is, I can’t find it on Google : P.
But I am also looking forward to see your virtual world (and real world meetings) idea! I think VR has a lot of potential in education, and exploring ideas!

Sure, we have an explosion of diversity on the internet, but it’s not mirrored yet in brick space. And that’s what would be needed to have a really fractal society.

Political experimentation is a wonderful approach and it help a lot. It’s good that there’s at least one community dedicated to that, but the page is disappointing. It’s just a polished text with pictures with only a html form as interaction tool. And they world’s foremost utopian club. Laughable! There should at least be a forum or a wiki or anything really. But hey, that’s what this forum is good for, I guess :smiley:

Oh, and here’s a link to the EOS:

Well, it’s supposed to be just a welcome page. The most interesting thing is the people involved in there, they are all people from really big projects that have already made a lot progress into this direction: like open-source ecology, seasteading institute, wikimedia, startup-cities institute, etc. I think it’s a great example of collaboration from a wide range of groups, and yeah they could (and should) use a forum like this to discuss about their ideas, because they have many!

Have alook here :

We also have a facebook group here:

<< a bit expensive >>

Yes, I know.

<< I’ve made my best experiences with online forums. >>

Other groups I have been involved with have had success with forums, IRC and Second Life. Differtn things seam to work with differt people. Suggests that we shoudl use many types of communications. Something to look into.

…with magic spell strong enough to break the “what happens on internet, stays on internet” curse? :slight_smile: I mean, even changing forum from FB to SFF seems to be very serious venture, and moving from virtual to “real”… it would be something. On the other hand a friend of mine recently went out of the apartment looking at his phone, saying something about “conquering the place” - apparently the game he plays requires physical presence in certain spots with special weapons (virtual of course), so… maybe gamifying the idea is the correct way about it? Get users to play before they are motivated enough to bring about change to the world? Or make the change itself the game? After all if people can spend long hours playing Minesweeper, if all that time was used for something… better? :slight_smile:


Yes, it would be a very worthwhile project to think about how to improve the world with gamification in general and augmented reality games in particular.

Or perhaps do the reverse: Create a huge game in which you get better items, extras, and resources for solving problems in the real world. That way, improving the world around you becomes a subtask of getting better in the game world. I think, this could actually become quite the killer idea if it put into practise correctly!

Edit: In some way, the freemium and in-game purchase design of many recent games could be seen as problematic version of the idea above: People earn money, which is thought of as originating from solving problems in the real world, which they can then use to buy stuff in the game worlds. The problem with that is that the money is wasted on the game rather than supporting more worthy ventures.

This issue could be avoided if people earned reputation points though world improving tasks which would then be available in the game world, potentially without being used up.

Well… Game is life, life is game. It’s really matter of correct and sane typecasting :slight_smile: you don’t need “game items” when you have real Items that can be used in game-like manner. And then you don’t need huge game world, because… Well, you the the real thing, which is much bigger and much more complex than anything you could create. And virtual state can be a game so close to reality that it can become reality. And it’s not even the most important thing… :slight_smile: i’m going to write more when I stop wasting my time with hospitals, which I hope will be soon.

1 Like

Are you saying we just need to merge the brick world with augmented reality and use game mechanics that turn brick world objects into game objects? That would be quite interesting. It would be probably crazily addictive and make people wander around the world very much and try to do all kinds of things with all kinds of objects. :astonished: