I have been working with the theory of human metasystem transition theory (HMST) and the paradigm of global brain (GB) for quite sometime now. This theory and paradigm is directing my research and affirming my belief that we need new institutions for the 21st century. I think the most important institution we need to re-design is the governance institution, as the re-design of all other institutions will follow from the re-design of governance. As a result I have been working on specific properties of a 21st century “global brain” governance system. You can find my paper “Distributed Digital Democracy” below. This is an open-source Global Brain Institute Working Paper. You can find the PDF linked after the abstract, however I have also decided to publish the entire paper here as well. Constructive comments and feedback are welcome.
Abstract: Modern democratic political institutions are based on a decision-making system that is both inefficient and corrupt, as it seems to enhance the proliferation and implementation of ideas that benefit only political leaders, upper-class individuals, and multi-national corporations. Fortunately, this system is also unnecessary given advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) and the emergence of Web 2.0 features that enhance collective intelligence on the Internet. Several theorists have proposed alternative models of governance that can broadly be categorized as “e-democracies”. These models have been met with incredulity and resistance from policymakers, despite impressive theoretical developments, practical demonstrations, and empirical testing of their ability to maximize the collective intelligence of our societies. Broadly speaking, most “e-democracy” models are built within a framework of three pillars: (1) distributed decision-making, (2) digitally-based social mediums, and (3) a new paradigm of collaborative democracy. Therefore, the dominant models proposed to replace our current democratic systems can be referred to as a Distributed Digital Democracy (DDD). Here I attempt to introduce the main concepts of DDD, and suggest a potential pathway for the further development and implementation of a new governance system.
I definitely agree that if the political system changed, much else would follow. The financial system and corporate america are all in cahoots and have a sort of symbiotic relationship happening. If you disturb one, you disturb them all. That's why this idea is so dangerous. It's going to piss some powerful people off and will be met with a lot of resistance. It's probably no mistake that previous shifts in governance have always happened as the result of a revolution. -You mention the French and American revolutions. Do you foresee a modern revolution occurring?
I agree with Robert Reich that there are only two options in 2016: A) major peaceful financial reform or B) revolution. If there is peaceful financial reform you probably won't get a fundamental system change. I think web-based decision-making - not dissimilar to the model proposed in this paper - will emerge this century even if we have peaceful reform in 2016, but the nature of the transition will be gradual and most people will only notice in retrospect. If there is revolution then there is a chance that a web-based alternative to the current system could emerge as a contender sooner than most people think. If you go through my sources you'll find that these ideas are building steam. The blueprint for what I'm calling a Distributed Digital Democracy are already quite advanced.Do you foresee a modern revolution occurring?
In the aftermath of almost every conflict, with the victors emerges a leader. With this Distributed Digital Democracy, the victors would be "the people"; would there be a clear small group of leaders/influence peddlers? If not, this runs opposite of human nature, people crave and desire central leadership, don't they?
If the people established a social governance wiki there would undoubtedly be groups who were in charge of setting it up in the first place. Jimmy Wales established Wikipedia (for example). But how much of Wikipedia's content generation does Wales control in a centralized way? None. You and mk set up hubski... but if it grew any larger, how much of its content would you two actually control? For that matter, who controls Reddit? Nobody. These are examples of decentralized entities that, once established, take on a life of their own. They become baby brains to serve specific collective functions. This governance wiki would be a baby brain for a country. With the potential to represent a model for a global brain.would there be a clear small group of leaders/influence peddlers? If not, this runs opposite of human nature, people crave and desire central leadership, don't they?
I sort of hope that it's not an instantaneous thing and not just because I'd rather not live amongst a revolution but because things that are built up slowly and methodically tend to have stronger roots and are more sustainable. If people are able to make decisions aggregately, then the amount of marketing that will occur in order to get the herd to pull the right lever will be unprecedented, right? You'll have people comprising huge voting brigades that they'll sell to the highest bidder. Right now, it takes time and energy to vote and be a part of the process. This weeds out the less serious, those that aren't inclined towards actively being a part of the process. When it's too easy, does it run the risk of being overly inclusive? btw, I should mention that I've not read the paper yet, I'll try to read in full tonight. Congrats on conquering r/Futorology and r/Decntralization. I gave some love.
The modern political system was birthed in bloodshed, chaos, and societal revolution. No because policy decisions are made on the social wiki - the "herd" votes on the policy-decisions made within the Wiki. The structure of the social wiki will prevent bad policy proposals. You vote on whatever policies you want. It's customizable. I go into depth about this in the paper. I suspect that in this structure more people would vote, not less. I'd rather not live amongst a revolution but because things that are built up slowly and methodically tend to have stronger roots and are more sustainable.
the amount of marketing that will occur in order to get the herd to pull the right lever will be unprecedented, right?
When it's too easy, does it run the risk of being overly inclusive?
Also, my paper is at the top of Reddit's Futurology and Decentralization board.