For world peace: please install latest Homo Sapiens governance update.

Part 4

I have written a 4 part series on how current governance networks can be scaled to create a single network which increases cooperation and reduces conflict. They follow in order so if you haven’t read part 1, it would flow better to read that first.

Part 1 introduces trust networks and attempts to link the development of trust networks to human advancement as a species.

Part 2 looks at the various governance scaling technologies we have developed throughout human history and how each improves on our ability to achieve more scalable governance structures. Also looks at the limitations of our current governance solutions.

Part 3 looks at an example trustless ledger protocol solution to network governance.

Part 4 explores how such a solution may be implemented and what its limitations may be. Part 4 is the most exciting as it looks at what a seemingly inevitable future looks like for humans.

How an Earth 2.0 network may come about

Such a network would need to be established organically and through non-violent means. As humans naturally form trust networks, it is not a stretch of the imagination to see that such a network may be established should it be available.

A catalyst for the implementation of such a network may be the breakdown of an existing governance network, for example in a specific nation. With the collapse of a government individual freedom and autonomy is increased but at the expense of structure and coordinated and collaborative efforts. Humans may then choose to opt in as peers in a self-organising governance network such as Earth 2.0. Earth 2.0 may then act as the means of governance for that country. Humans who select to opt in would benefit from public goods that only benefit peers of the network, for example a security service which protects network peers. As the benefits of joining the network increase, it is only natural for additional peers to enter. With the passage of time, other nations may benefit from linking to the network and may eventually join.

Problems

Do the rich become more powerful?

One can argue that allowing people to vote using the amount of taxes they paid will result in a world where the rich (who would pay more taxes) are granted more power and may abuse this power to obtain more riches. The use of quadratic voting significantly reduces this effect and a diminishing return is achieved. Also, in Earth 1.0, large amounts of funds are spent by corporations on bribes and lobbying. Would it not make more sense for these funds to be directed toward public goods?

If the idea of quadratic voting and each person allocating their tax budget seems unfair to you. Simply replace it with another method for allocating a global budget and enjoy the proposal on its other features.

Voting may be adjusted in a myriad of ways in which the power of individuals or small groups can be reduced.

· Projects would need to be voted in, before they can be voted on.

· Some projects could require the positive voting of a threshold of people.

· Could require voting from a threshold of people from different locations.

Earth 2.0 will not scale globally, still missing a puzzle piece

The Earth 2.0 network still suffers from scalability issues where parameters would be harder to set as more and more peers need to agree on how to set parameters. The more peers that need to agree, the more peers will exist who disagree, this may result in network instability.

· Who decides what the tax tables look like?

· What is to be included/excluded from the constitution?

· How to decide on percentage allocations to global vs local issues?

· What is the maximum number of projects a peer may vote on?

· Is a percentage of the budget always allocated to maintaining law and order? If yes, what percentage?

It seems we have methods of reaching consensus on state of currency in a trustless manner (writing, currency 2.0 and blockchain) and can guarantee behaviour in a trustless manner (writing, currency 2.0, law and blockchain). However, we do not have a trustless manner for making decisions on network parameters, these still require voting, where voting on network parameters which effect all peers would be difficult to reach consensus on.

The obvious solution to the above is the inclusion of artificial intelligence into the governance system. Perhaps AI is the last technological invention needed to allow for scaling of networks to a global level.

How can Earth 2.0 be used today?

An interesting use case for the Earth 2.0 network may be its use as a backup national governance structure should some black swan event occur which renders a nations current system non-functional.

The Earth 2.0 or Nation 2.0 network could integrate the presently used legislation, constitution and network parameters. The national currency will become the Nation 2.0 native cryptocurrency. Employers can then pay employees in the currency allowing for automated tax collection by the network and the allocation of tax tokens to the employees.

Employees may then use their tax tokens to support projects which may rebuild the economy and the nation and provide services the employee requires.

Employees who choose not to convert to the network will need to receive payment in some other currency, will therefore not pay taxes, but will also not be a peer of the network and will therefore need to find their own way for emptying their rubbish bin every Tuesday in a nation with a collapsed government.

Image taken from www.naturalnews.com

Conclusion

The Earth 2.0 network provides a governance solution which is self-organizing and readily scalable. It decentralizes power by giving control of capital allocation to citizens and provides a smart contract-based economy which runs on cryptocurrency allowing for real time auditing of capital use and forced execution of governance agreements and protocols. At a global scale the network allows for more sustainable use of natural resources and appropriate allocation of capital to global issues whilst simultaneously removing the free-rider effect.

The network is limited in that it requires all peers to accept a common constitution and common set of network parameters. For this reason, it is proposed that the network may only function well at a national level. The integration of AI may allow for citizen independent governance of a constitution and network parameters, this would only require all citizens to agree on one thing; that AI be allowed to govern the constitution and network parameters while citizens vote on projects. In summary, if we cannot find a solution to world peace, the machines may need to take over if we want to achieve this goal.

The story probably has more holes in it than a sponge but is a starting point for thought and new ideas. Please share your constructive opinions below.

EDIT: Final thoughts

The solutions presented above may be far from perfect, but may also make for a better world than the one we live in. The world we have currently designed for uses violence to scale governance and centers society around mainly full blown capitalist ideals, networks are divided while human populations and abilities have scaled such they they have a significant impact on the world. The results so far are: mass human suffering by way of poverty, happiness which is not optimised for (rich people receive a low marginal return on additional wealth while the majority of people would receive a large increase in happiness on additional wealth) and an economy is not designed to tackle important global or long term issues.

Clearly serious problems have resulted from superimposing outdated governance solutions on an expanded, more advanced human population. This requires radical change.

image taken from ufoholic.com

References

Brilliant works whose ideas gave rise to the ideas presented in the article.

• I have been influenced by the vision of Daniel Larimer to create solutions for ‘securing life, liberty and property for all’. The book ‘Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind’ by Yuval Noah Harari highlighted the importance of mass co-operation networks in the advancement of humans. Many of Larimer’s posts can be found here: http://bytemaster.github.io/all/
• A 4 part series by Matthew Pirkowski entitled ‘Crypto Beyond Capitalism’ helped me to understand how governance optimised for either autonomy or greater structure. https://hackernoon.com/crypto-beyond-capitalism-the-rise-of-distributed-valerism-7e3c1285a308
• A paper by Vitalik Buterin, Zoë Hitzig and E. Glen Weyl entitled ‘Liberal Radicalism: Formal Rules for a Society Neutral Among Communities’ formed a large piece of the puzzle as it shows how quadratic voting can be used for the provision of public goods and the formation of non-authoritarian rules that support collective self-organization of an ecosystem.
• The Ontology whitepaper provided an excellent example of how blockchain technology can be used to aid in the governing of many aspects of life currently governed by traditional governance systems.