h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I'm sure you saw where this was leading a while ago - but you're the same as Hitler. No matter what you do, even if you try to do nothing, you're affecting others. Try to enjoy it."

I do. I wouldn't worry about political ideas if I didn't.




"Actually, there's a thought; is there a single person who hasn't collected more money than they absolutely need for survival who hasn't done it for power? And is there anyone who's collected power who hasn't been doing it for their own version of beneficial survival?"

Well, there is paranoia. Someone who grew up poor might well collect a lot of money they didn't need and save it out of fear of poverty--they're just afrad that they need to do it to survive.




"I've always wanted to see an example of anarchy in action."

It would be interesting to see what happened. Which does not mean I necesarily advocate trying to produce one in reality. There is a need for a better ethical system to follow when experimenting with societies--why do we let economists test out their theories on us?




"The problem is that in a study with any reasonably related creatures we also have a reasonably related culture. Chimps, too, have a culture, and more relevantly, they have a command structure, as you mentioned, so any baby chimp would be taught from birth that that is the correct behaviour; so I'm afraid it doesn't prove either of us right."

I guess you're right--but their culture is simpler and probably closer to a "state of nature" than any human culture is--at least any human culture not wiped out.




"(Typing angrily and fast because I'm failing to convince some pigheaded Atheists on another site that Atheism's a religion, too.)"

Depends how you define atheism. I think I know what you mean, though.

"Firstly: geographical areas. Whether we're talking one continent or one planet, we cannot divide it up into enough more or less equal states for a more succesful form to be able to expand well enough."

I agree, with current technology the Earth is not enough. Unless we were to consider decreasing the planet's population a bit. Actually, we seem to be doing that--developed nations often have negative population growth if you ignore immigration. If we manage to bring the whole world to a developed standard of living, our population could start falling on its own. Of course, I would suggest that if less resources were needed to support people, or if we could use the whole solar system, this wouldn't be a problem.




"Even if you propose to divide it up based on population or votes, it would create a vicious loop whereby the smaller systems get less and less desirable, and more importantly, it would have to constantly change borders, which wouldn't just be inconvenient, it'd be impossible."

I would suggest that systems wouldn't expand beyond a critical size unbless there was some advantage to doing so. At some size, they would split as a hive of bees does--some internal group would decide to leave and form a new one. Remember, I'm not talking aobut what we think of as countries--noone would permanently stay a lifetime citizen of one unless they really wanted to. Thus, we don't need to change borders--we give each group a set sized chunck of territory and reusable resources. When they fill it up, they split, or emmigrate. What you would need, tohugh, is a open fronteer. Of course, to some degree, you could take over the land given to groups that had died out.




"The second problem, related to geography, is allocation of land to systems. An equal spread of capitalizt nations would allow trading of area-specific resources, but what about the anarchies or communist nations which do not trade? An anarchy situated in northern England would have an abundance of sheep and no fruit, for example."

Technology. The anarchy in northern England might build a greenhouse. They might use hydroponicss. And, given robotic labor, they wouldn't have to spend all their time being gardners. This type of thing would be needed, anyway, if we were to spread the system into space.




"The third problem, and possibly the most inhuman trait of your system, is children. To remove children from their parents - not once, but repeatedly - and shifting them around the world just to give them a lesson in politics is draconian. Perhaps an easier - yet, I admit, less perfect measure, would be to insert a number of laws disallowing parents from biasing their children too much. Then, if the child has instincts opposed strongly enough to their system, they can move. Another idea would be, at a certain age, to give them a few months' tour of the systems, or at least a few examples, and let them choose which seems best."

We'll need to compromise on that. What about a school schedule idea? They spend summers with their parents, and each month at school in a different system. Sort of like a boarding school, but in different worlds. They get to live with their families, but they have to experiance other settings, too.




"Fourthly, a system which became powerful enough - a militant compulsory police state, for example - it could take over all the other systems. Even a state which is technologically advanced enough could do it."

Only with the motive--with an open fronteer, they might prefer to expand. And we're assuming that a compulsary police state would survive--I think they'd drive their people away. One of the basic ideas of this system is that you can leave whenever you want, so it would be hard to build up a tyrrany/police state.

Even if you could, the central government might be able to prevent such conquests. Sectors start out small--how about a rule that anyone who conquers another sector gets nuked? That might have an effect.




"Fifthly; propaganda. Although you may think that this should be discouraged, alternate choices have to be made regularly available, to stop people just getting used to whichever state they live in."

Obviously--there ought to be both mass-media and persoal communication between sectors--how else can people make informed descisions about where to live. The question I haven't answered, though, is, Can the sectors censor intersector communication?




"Some societies may not be able to afford tax, or the upkeep for robotics. May I suggest that this system would be contingent on the future turning up two things: 1) Cheap and fast space travel, communications and terraforming (although teleportation is already technically feasable, and quantum resonance instant transmissions over any distance are, too), and 2) Functioning nanomachinery."

For the most part, I agree. However, terraforming is unnecesary and perhaps unbeneficial to this system. Perhaps it would be better for each group of people to get their own space station, asteroid, or Kuiper belt/Oort cloud object to live on. With good recycling and sunlight, they ould be self-sufficient.

Also, on the robots, you're guilty of overly capitalist thinking. Capitalism is based on the assumption that people can't be self-sufficient. You need money to buy what you can't do yourself. But, in a roboticized economy, where each group gets their own set of robots, can't the robots upkeep the robots? Give them a person to run them and the robots can keep the system riunning and supply the resources the humans need. They wouldn't need to afford or trade anything if they had a good closed-system recycling and the right to mine some uninghabited world when they ran low.




"How would one start a new state, if enough people were behind you? What about territory? How would a person start a new state of just themselves, if they weren't satisfied with any other?"

Well, you'd need to get the central government a plot of land or space station or whatever. If the government uses the robot economy I propose, they ought to be able to do this free. They should have to do it for anyone who asks.

If you have a group of a reasonable size, you can just ask for one--if you just have yourself or a family, a seperate solution is needed. Perhaps you could be given a subplot, sort of. You wouldn't have a completely sufficient economy, but you'd have yourn own litte territory where you could be yourself and the right to the resources you needed to survive.






In summery, this is starting to seem to me like it might require a rather more advanced technology than we have, and space travel.

But then, just about every change in human society has been precipitated by technology.

Further comments/suggestions will be appreciated.

Okay, because this has so clearly evolved into two different subjects, I propose that any correspondence, hah, about your political system should be subject line'd "MISS", for Multiple Independent State System, at least until you come up with a catchy name for it.

The more population, the more freedom. Common sense. The more population, the more everything, really, especially variety.

"When they fill it up, they split, or emmigrate."
What if nobody wants to emigrate? There will invariably be differences between a child and a parent state. Also, people may find a state that suits them so perfectly that they won't want to leave.

Ooh, another problem would be the "state line" problem. Criminals would just be able to escape into the system next door and not be pursued, because of noninterference.

Open frontiers are impossible.

"Technology..."
Technology is not currently advanced enough to completely be able to substitute, at an economical rate for energy in to out, foreign resources.

"...and each month at school in a different system..."
Continuity is a must for education; work would be disjointed and teachers would be confused. Also, each state would have a slightly different take on things, and a different syllabus, and it would take more than a month to learn the ins and outs of each system, but without learning at least the major examples, each child would not have a perfect choice. There are more important things to life than politics, and keeping friends and relatives close is one of them.

"Only with the motive--"
A theocracy, say, with unstoppable killing machines that believe they must destroy infidels.
"I think they'd drive their people away..."
I think you underestimate the amount of natural fascists who *need* the sense of security and dominance that a rigid command structure brings.
"...gets nuked"
It would be unsurprising how quickly the main government would be turned against as "tyrannical" and "imperialistic". It is essential to remain basically neutral and noninterfering - members must come forwards with problems, rather than us calling them. Perhaps a very slight presence in each state - a fortress of Imperial Guard or something, ready if needed; a very strong threat, like a beneficial Sardaukar from "Dune", but not insurmountable, so that they don't feel threatened.
Two states may be found who simply cannot coexist, and both attack: do the simple citizens of that state - especially, for instance, compulsorarily rotated students, or "system tourists" or whatever - deserve to be nuked?


"Can the sectors censor intersector communication?"
A simple answer - three types of channels: state censored, international, and "free wave" for free public broadcasting.

"get their own space station..."
Small, closed system areas have been proven to cause psychological (at long enough periods of time, immense) problems to inhabitants. Insufficient space would also be insufficient to show the characteristics of each system; they would invariably only seem either capitalist, communist, or anarchistic, bar a few signs.

"or the upkeep for robotics..."
I meant in terms of energy. However, if we ever make the leap to nanomachines, this and nearly all the other problems will be wiped out - we can construct worlds from dark matter, etc.



I love the idea for this system - I've thought of it before but never really considered it seriously. However, could it be applied in any form to our current state of technology on Earth?

Okay, so I meant has anyone done those things because they aren't slightly screwed.

Same reason we let the nutritionists and politicians and doctors experiment on us.

There is, I suppose, a large difference in that simian culture does not hand down knowledge anywhere near the rate of our own. However, they still have a command structure which can be learnt from birth; and how would we have been able to teach a few chimps to talk if they had not been able to learn nearly as efficiently as we do?

"Same reason we let the nutritionists and politicians and doctors experiment on us."

The difference with nutricianists and doctors is that they only experiment on a few people and have those people's agreement.

On the other hand, you only need 51% of the vote to get a politician or eonomist who will effect the whole country.

"The more population, the more freedom. Common sense. The more population, the more everything, really, especially variety."

Yes, but then there is effective population--right now most of Earth's population is either too impoverished or too conventional to be interesting--the MISS would allow the effective population-the number of different individual sets of ideas--to increase even with a drop in population.

Still, you're basicly right. I hadn't thought of that.




""When they fill it up, they split, or emmigrate."
What if nobody wants to emigrate? There will invariably be differences between a child and a parent state. Also, people may find a state that suits them so perfectly that they won't want to leave."

Then they start their own identical state. As long as people are happy, the population is tolerable. When they find it intolerable, a group of them will leave and set up a state that is identical to the old one. Over time, though, they will diverge and this will add to the variety.




"Ooh, another problem would be the "state line" problem. Criminals would just be able to escape into the system next door and not be pursued, because of noninterference."

If they can find a state that will take them.

It wouldn't work with too drastic a drop in population; there wouldn't be enough people to support a system.

But people who care about a state to live in it long enough to want to replicate it, will want to replicate the geography, the sociology of it exactly, which they can't do.

A state, for example pure anarchy, which has no rules, would never judge anyone trying to gain entry.

Oh, on a related topic - this is more Mal's Question - recently I've become a bit anarcho-communist, and I keep having debates with my friends over whether or not a system based around only one rule - "do what you can get away with" - would work. I say it would, they say it wouldn't. Your view?

Thanks to homework, I haven't finished commenting on your previous statements.



"But people who care about a state to live in it long enough to want to replicate it, will want to replicate the geography, the sociology of it exactly, which they can't do."

Hmmm...The geography they could probably replicate if we use the space-colony senario. in any case, population expanding the state would mean some of them would need to move to new geography in an enlarged state. As for the sociology--I suspect that you may have a point, but once the state gets large enough, I doubt everyone will think the sociology is so perfect it can't be changed a bit. I certainly don't think it would be a fatal flaw. As for friends in the old state--they can communicate remotely and visit.



"A state, for example pure anarchy, which has no rules, would never judge anyone trying to gain entry."

Well, if the criminal leaves, what gives the old state the right to punish them. The only real justification for punishing criminals is to keep crimes from being repeated. However, that goal can be achieved just as well by exile as by imprisonment or execution. If a pure anarchy wants to accept a mass murderer, thats their problem. Executing the mass-murderer won't fix anything. I must admit that I got that philosophy from Heinlein's "Coventry", but I think it is valid, even if it does interfere with revenge fantasies.




"Oh, on a related topic - this is more Mal's Question - recently I've become a bit anarcho-communist, and I keep having debates with my friends over whether or not a system based around only one rule - "do what you can get away with" - would work. I say it would, they say it wouldn't. Your view?"

I think that that system would work in the sence that it would be stable. However, I don't think I'd want to live there. It would jsut turn into a sort of overblown Prohibition-era Chicago. The master criminals are in charge. Whoever is best at enforcing their will gets away with everyting. Everyone else survives by keeping their head down. I don't think the reasult would be pretty.

People may not be mass-murderers at heart, but they are greedy. There are plenty of people who would be willing to set up a sort of criminal government in that system and there are people who would profit by it.

Okay, I'll wait until you're up to speed.

"Open frontiers are impossible."

You only need them if you want to allow population growth. With it, though, you'll need them eventually in any system.



""Technology..."
Technology is not currently advanced enough to completely be able to substitute, at an economical rate for energy in to out, foreign resources."

No, this system may therefor require major technological developments to be functional.



""...and each month at school in a different system..."
Continuity is a must for education; work would be disjointed and teachers would be confused. Also, each state would have a slightly different take on things, and a different syllabus, and it would take more than a month to learn the ins and outs of each system, but without learning at least the major examples, each child would not have a perfect choice. There are more important things to life than politics, and keeping friends and relatives close is one of them."

Another good point, this part of the system clearly needs some work.

Open frontiers, yeah, I'm not denying that they're a good thing, only that they're impossible.
Now I come to think about it, they're also linguistically impossible. Frontiers must be a frontier TO something.

It's a leap of faith assuming that things like effective nanotech and colonisation will EVER come along. I take it that you're one of the people who think that knowledge, in particular technology, is infinite.

Tell me, then, if you get any ideas for the experience/school/family problem.

RE Punishments; I agree. However, you're saying that the only threat will be expulsion, and eventually a criminal will become disliked enough not to be accepted anywhere. Firstly, what would you have the criminal do then? Secondly, there will always be a home for the disaffected and disillusioned. I mean, *we're* disaffected and disillusioned; we're plotting an alternate system to capitalism.

I'm not sure the replication system will work. Perhaps if each system had a planet, and not a colony. For practical purposes, even assuming only ten such systems and a similar overall human population, 0.6 billion on a planet would fit easily.

"The master criminals are in charge."

Not at all. If you f**k over society, society will f**k over you. In a society of trade, if you commit a murder, you might get away with it, but your local community may very well decide not to provide you with essential amenities. And if those amenities turn out to be, e.g. your next breath, why, that is something they too would get away with.

"Open frontiers, yeah, I'm not denying that they're a good thing, only that they're impossible.
Now I come to think about it, they're also linguistically impossible. Frontiers must be a frontier TO something."

True. In the long run, it's almot certainly impossible to keep your fronteers open forever. Especially once you run into ETs.




"It's a leap of faith assuming that things like effective nanotech and colonisation will EVER come along. I take it that you're one of the people who think that knowledge, in particular technology, is infinite."

From what I've heard from experts in the field, I consider colonization of much of the solar system very possible with today's technological abilities (and certainly with those we will have in a decade). Its just a question of whether we will spend the money. That I'm not so sure about. As for nanotech, I'm less convinced of that. However, I think an effectively roboticized civilization (and I consider that doable) could establish the MISS even without nanotech "cornucopia machines".

I do not think that knowledge or technology is infinite. I do think that our current level of technology and our current form of civilization are together incapable of surviving the century. Also, I think that most major social changes are the result of technology and that the best (peerhaps the only) way to effect a major cultural change (especially a positive one) is to do so with the proper use of technological innovations. I don't think we can survive without changing our techonology or our civilization and I don't think we can change our civilization for the better without improving our technology first.




"Tell me, then, if you get any ideas for the experience/school/family problem."

I will. Perhaps electronic pen pals in other societies? Have guest teachers?



"RE Punishments; I agree. However, you're saying that the only threat will be expulsion, and eventually a criminal will become disliked enough not to be accepted anywhere. Firstly, what would you have the criminal do then? Secondly, there will always be a home for the disaffected and disillusioned. I mean, *we're* disaffected and disillusioned; we're plotting an alternate system to capitalism."

They can try to set up their own socity. If they can't find anyone else who would be willing to inhabit it, then there are really only two solutions. Voluntary psychological counciling or some type of home for people who don't want to live with others. They can have a bit of space (perhaps quite a bit) and the necesities of life and live on their own.

Anyone disaffected or disillusioned ought to be willing to try out a system they prefer, or else go into one of the homes for those who don't want to live around others that I've suggested.



"I'm not sure the replication system will work. Perhaps if each system had a planet, and not a colony. For practical purposes, even assuming only ten such systems and a similar overall human population, 0.6 billion on a planet would fit easily."

Not enough planets here.

Maybe a large asteroid or planetary region each for 100 groups of 500 million each. It would let us raise the population, have more systems, and I think we can find the room if we can get off Earth.



Technology is not infinite, but we can develope what we need to establish a rudamentary version of the MISS. If we can't develop that much in 50 years, I fear what the world will be in 100.

"Not at all. If you f**k over society, society will f**k over you. In a society of trade, if you commit a murder, you might get away with it, but your local community may very well decide not to provide you with essential amenities. And if those amenities turn out to be, e.g. your next breath, why, that is something they too would get away with."

The problem is that a smart group of criminals might easily get control over something essential. They could then end up in power.


I don't know, maybe I'm just paranoid about human nature.

Now, now, friend, the word is *if*...

Oh, yes. I mean, if we're on the subject of possibilities, it is very easily possible to redistribute current food supplies to cover those south of the Divide; but we don't. It's possible to end all energy problems using the abundance of energy in the sun, but we don't. It's possible to donate our computers to the third world, and our bodies to medical science, but we don't. Well, aren't we all just morally bankrupt. Earth, "the third world", hah.

"I think that most major social changes are the result of technology..."
Exactly why the main capitalists put tabs on most important-looking tech before it arrives. Lucky they failed with the Net.

Although it is an idealist idea for a society, neither of those ideas, nor most others for political education, would work. It would take up too much important time in early life compared to better things.

Surely a "home for those who don't want to live with others" is an oxymoron?

I'm adamant that planetary regions wouldn't work; regions would begin to look down upon the human hands that divided the regions and locked them to a preset growth stage. They'd have to have a preset geographical boundary, and freelimit planetary systems are the best for this.
As for not enough hospitable planets: is it not true that a strong environment will breed strong people? If this is pointed out to governments in the correct manner, perhaps as some future weapon (which it could never be), they'd be clamoring to colonise Mercury and Io.

Capitalism's greatest strength is its evolution. In one hundred years it may have become a socialism; one hundred years ago, after all, it was a laissez-faire monarchy.

(Something I forgot to mention in my last post - frontiers inevitably inspire change and rapid growth; look at the speed with which America grew.)

If the small criminals are in the minority, they will be overpowered. Besides, as I mentioned a little while ago, the genesistal idea would be that the concept of taking power over something to exploit people would be slowly driven out of their environment.

Of course, I am leaving out the most important and fundamental reason why that wouldn't happen: they wouldn't need to. They could get anything they wanted, when they wanted, simply by asking or doing something in return. Simple.

"Although it is an idealist idea for a society, neither of those ideas, nor most others for political education, would work. It would take up too much important time in early life compared to better things."

There may be a solution--I'll keep thinking about it.




"Surely a "home for those who don't want to live with others" is an oxymoron?"

Why? Give everyone enough living space to live on thier own, a few robots, a supply of food, a supply of books, and a PC will an internet connection. I bet a lot of people would just love that. They can be isolated from personal contact and just talk electronically to whoever will tolerate them and vice versa.


"As for not enough hospitable planets: is it not true that a strong environment will breed strong people? If this is pointed out to governments in the correct manner, perhaps as some future weapon (which it could never be), they'd be clamoring to colonise Mercury and Io."

The problem (or solution) is that Mercury and Io wouldn't cultivate strong people, they'd cultivate strong technology and people who knew how to use it like most American kids (as opposed to audults who drive everywhere) know how to use bicycles.

But the real problem is that if you want to limit it to one a planet you run out of real estate fast:

Mercury, Luna, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, Triton, Pluto, Quaoar -- 13 and some barely qualify as planets.

The Jovians and Venus are out of any real colonization plans for a centruy or two after we get a colony on Mars.

Once you admit Ceres, you might as well admit Pallas and Vestia--soon you'll be parcelling out 10km rocks. Once you go below a certain size--maybe about that of Europa or Triton, you lose much distinction between planet and asteroid.

The asteroid solution is better--more diversity, more space, more interesting.

"Give everyone..."
Eventually they'd develope a psychological disorder of some sort. However, we can't "rehabilitate" them because that would be forcing our views on theirs.

Make some distinction, perhaps. I'm not sure what basis this could be on; an initial vote-for-systems basis at the beginning of implementation would be insufficient, since voting would change with time. There is no fair way of allocating land, is there?

"Eventually they'd develope a psychological disorder of some sort. However, we can't "rehabilitate" them because that would be forcing our views on theirs."

Well, not unles they want it. But, I've never trusted psychiatrists. What's wroong with a psychological disorder if it doesn't bother you?


"There is no fair way of allocating land, is there?"

Not that will last long, at least.

The reason psychological disorders are bad is because they change your behaviour (I'm generalising, about the medium-effect ones), so the way you act is not the way you are. From a sci-fi perspective, you might as well say that having an alien parasite that controls your mind is not bad. You could also just as easily say that a terminal cancer doesn't have anything wrong with it; firstly because the only people affected are going to die, and because one its taken effect, it won't matter.
Take my word for it; I strongly suspect myself of having either extreme bipolar or paranoid-depressive tendencies (backed up by circumstantial evidence, friend's opinions, and online information), so even if I'm fine I've pretty thoroughly thought it through.