Frequently Asked Questions
You have questions, we have answers
--
- What real world problems will Project NEOS solve?
- What political affiliation do you have?
- Which ideology do you prefer?
- What do you mean by a gender equal society?
- What do you mean by prosocial behaviour?
- What are your compelling differentiators?
- Why are you the best people to manage Project NEOS?
- How will this work, logistically?
- When is the team ready to start full time work on Project NEOS?
- Will my investment be used wisely?
- Who are your competitors?
Q. What real world problems will Project NEOS solve?
A. We have taken the globally recognised framework of global challenges, the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and explained how each of the goals will be eradicated under a new operating system:
Q. What political affiliation do you have?
A. We are emphatically nonpartisan, not because we are politically unaware, but because we envision an entirely different system of governance. We regard the liberal vs. conservative distinction as a false dichotomy which does not allow a transcendent consensus of values.
We instead envision a society in which the entire system of governance emanates from a set of values, codified into a Charter. That process will be established via discussion and debate, leading to a grand consensus. We envision a global Charter which, importantly, can also cater to local, regional and cultural differences. While similar to how the United States arose, we will address multiple deficiencies:
- Only a select group of representatives participated in the process that led to the consensus. Modern technology will allow more complete participation.
- The Constitution that resulted lacked vital protections for the citizenry, such as definitions of crucial terminology (e.g. “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness”), and boundaries on complexity of regulation and law.
- There is no method to modify the Constitution via direct citizen initiative.
- The Constitution itself is, in practice, subject to override by laws which should themselves properly emanate from the Constitution. (See: “USA PATRIOT Act”)
- The Constitution is otherwise ignored when inconvenient. (e.g. wars in all-but-name, never declared nor approved by the Congress).
The US Constitution was, in actuality, a kind of compromise that papered over irreconcilable differences, notably regarding slavery. If we find such compromises necessary to attain consensus, we will instead create multiple, separate societies.
By defining a new operating system, we can avert many of the hurdles and dangers that arise from attempting to impose a new political system on existing societies. Those who live in such societies will choose to live there.
We expect that, eventually, dysfunctional existing societies will seek to retrofit to follow our more effective model. We hope that such retrofits will arise from excitement about providing a superior system to their citizens. However, we instead expect them to arise as a result of massive technological unemployment and inability to cope.
Q. Which ideology do you prefer: Socialism, Multiculturalism, Libertarianism, Globalism, Feminism, Fascism, Ecologism, Decentralism, Conservatism, Capitalism, Anarchism, etc?
A. All existing ‘isms’ view society and the world through lenses which color and limit perspective. While we find merit in some of them, in every case they seek to solve problems from within the present paradigm. We seek to solve this paradigm itself, by replacing it with a technologically sustainable, first local and then planetary, entirely new operating system, outside of the boundaries of existing or past ‘isms’.
Q. Nations seem overwhelmed by problems of rising demagogues, moneyed control of government, and gridlocked political parties. Is there a solution to this?
A. Yes, the Venetian Republic was an example of how a successful society solved these problems within the structure of its government. Jonathan Kolber has described how this works in A Celebration Society. A new operating system will take the best lessons from all world-leading systems, and enhance them using emerging technologies not available previously.
Q. What do you mean by a gender equal society?
A. Gender equal societies embrace the honorable values traditionally upheld in masculine-oriented societies, such as courage, independence, valor, assertiveness, ethical competition, and strength.
They equally embrace values traditionally seen as feminine, such as peacefulness, nurturing, cooperation, and care for those most in need. In our envisioned new operating system, dominance over others will not be supported as a goal of the society. The needs and contributions of women will be valued equally with those of men.
The rise of women means the rising of the human race. Societies in which women are equally educated with men, with equal opportunities to assume positions of influence and power, are more successful based on standard quality of life measures. Two of the most successful societies of antiquity, Dynastic Egypt and the Central Middle Ages, for centuries had such equality.
Q. What do you mean by prosocial behaviour?
A. Prosocial behaviour is simply behaviour that conforms to the norms of any group that an individual chooses to belong to. We intend designing the operating system in such a way that different groups (families, companies, villages, towns, cities, countries) can define their own socially accepted behaviours, within planetary boundaries.
Q. Among hundreds or even thousands of save-the-planet initiatives, what are your compelling differentiators?
A. The vast majority of well-intentioned initiatives have not delivered the outcomes they envision, and they lack a large enough community within which to thrive. The reasons for this general lack of significant progress are complex, so we’ve unpacked the reasons here.
Essentially, most are like the proverbial possessors of a hammer, to whom every problem seems a nail. We argue that seemingly intractable problems will continue to proliferate, like the mythical hydra, until we recognize that they all share a common root. That root is The Neoliberalism Ideology.
Q. Why are you the best people to manage Project 2030?
A. We may not be the best, but we are the only people who have demonstrated through our past work and writing that we are systems thinkers capable of tackling the vast complexities a project like this will entail — without attachment to a specific ideology.
In addition, we bring business development, project management and marketing skills. These skills are crucial to gaining widespread adoption of what will prove to be incredibly radical shifts in humanity’s consciousness.
Also, we are not in any way attached to our current ideas or methodologies. Instead we firmly believe that the only answer to our global challenges lies in a marriage of empirically proven, evolving solutions to consensually derived values, which may differ from one society to another. There are multiple ideas of what makes a society great and wonderful.
Q. How will this work, logistically?
A. We do not propose to reform the existing system. We propose to create a new, parallel system, that can be tested and debugged virtually until ready for implementation in a physical society — probably new rather than retrofitted.
We propose to use tools that enable a simulated, gamified society to be built, tested, debugged, and refined until sufficient would-be residents and resources are aligned to build it in the real world. Then it will continue evolving, and eventually be duplicated wherever wanted and needed.
We envision using a platform where diverse ideas can be heard, voted on and implemented by consensus. Such a platform should be based on the advanced technologies of a non-censored internet and blockchain, with provable, unhackable personal ID. We are tracking some of the more interesting platforms.
Q. When is the team ready to start full time work on Project NEOS?
A. Immediately (or as soon as funding is received). We have self-funded the significant preparatory effort. Now we want to (slightly) grow the team so we can massively increase our output.
Q. Will my investment be used wisely?
A. Yes. We are obsessed with frugality, mainly because we’ve had to live lightly in order to achieve what we have. For all in the core team, this is a lifetime commitment — a legacy of sorts. We have come far without any outside funding, and to squander what we have done in favour of a frivolous lifestyle is unthinkable for us.
We will offer transparent accounting, down to the line item level, for donors. We will agree to mutually acceptable auditing and, as appropriate, a CFO.
Q. Who are your competitors?
A. The Venus Project overlaps our thinking in some important respects. In our view, it places undue confidence in AI-based government and in a “top down” approach to systems design. We are also watching the developments at Arcosanti, although there is little evidence that their governance systems are any different from national governance.
The Seasteading Institute (SI) has many innovative ideas, some of which we also embrace. Indeed, seasteading is one attractive option for creating uninhabited lands, unencumbered by legacy systems, enabling competitive experiments in government. We agree that changing existing systems is ineffective, and that markets are generally best at allocating scarcity.
We differ in that they are not proposing the implementation of a new operating system to address the scarcity-based deficiencies of existing “isms”, nor are they proposing that a consensus-based culture of values first be established in a given society, from which everything else flows. We regard these as essential to attaining sustainable, healthy, wealthy societies — as contrasted to condominiums in which residents share common areas but, often, little else.
We know that the vast majority of people are not willing to consider a different way of living, so long as their current system works even moderately well. This is partly the reason for choosing a marketing and educational campaign that includes a Human Rights Income: we have to shift the way people think and show them that there are alternatives and that a system reset is the most workable outcome.
We are convinced that a tsunami of technological unemployment, starting in earnest in the 2020s, will destabilize existing systems. Governments and think tanks will not find satisfactory long-term solutions within the existing paradigm. Unemployment will exacerbate ecological and economic damage from climate change, with negative feedback loops. We must be ready with an alternative.
We expect that there may at some point be competition from the architects of the current system. However, we believe they are complacent because of their entrenched and established position, and in any case our thinking and proposals are being carefully designed to threaten no one.
