Order Without Orderers
By Max More [Editor: This article is reprinted from Extropy #7, Winter 1991. Extropy was published by The Extropy institute]
The Importance of Spontaneous Orders
Transhumanists of all kinds - Extropians, Venturists,
Immortalists - look forward to making some radical alterations in the human
condition. We want to remake ourselves into something more than mindless nature
has generated. This will require some powerful technologies and will produce
enormous social changes. We are therefore obligated to think about appropriate
constraints on the pursuit of our goals. The purpose of this paper is to argue
for the recognition of spontaneous ordering as just such a constraint.
To understand the importance of spontaneous orders (SOs) and
spontaneous ordering principles (SOPs), we first need to distinguish them from
another kind of order. I will usually refer to this other type of order as a
constructed order or as an organization. The two types of order have been
called by many names.(1) Here are a few:
Spontaneous Organization
Self-generating Construction
Grown(organic) Artificial
Endogenous Exogenous
Kosmos Taxis
Abstract Concrete
Spontaneous orders are orders designed by no one, though
someone may have prepared the ground for their development. I will provide a
number of illustrations of the prevalence of spontaneous ordering; for now,
some examples are: the complex biological forms resulting from genetic
variation and selection without any conscious direction; crystals which form
into a pattern without that pattern being specified by the initial atomic
forces; the free-market economic system; and the development of language.
Examples of constructed orders are ubiquitous: automobiles;
the legal structure of a corporation; a painting; a computer program. Clearly,
many orders are mixed to various degrees. For instance, the pattern of
activities you engage in over a month is partly the result of your planning (a
constructed order), and partly the result of unpredictable interactions with
other people and events, and unforeseen opportunities. Large organizations are
typically a mixture of the two types of order; a corporation's basic legal
structure and its goals will be the result of planning by one or a few people,
but many details of operation will emerge over time depending on multifarious,
protean factors.
Since I will be explaining why spontaneous orders are so
valuable and important in shaping our futurist goals, I should stress here that
I am not arguing that SOs are, in a general sense, better than constructed
orders. Both types of order have their place. In writing a paper, we cannot
expect our thoughts to spontaneously self-organize. For the task of
paper-writing, planning and deliberate organization is clearly more
appropriate. On the other hand, social systems are best allowed to
spontaneously order, containing within them many smaller constructed orders.
The Hidden
Order
The pervasiveness and importance of spontaneous orders are
poorly appreciated by most people. There are three reasons for this: First,
concrete, constructed orders are easily perceived because of their relative
simplicity. Since constructed orders are designed and organized by one person
or one integrated group of persons, they are necessarily limited to the degree
of complexity comprehensible and controllable by those minds. This is not true
of spontaneous orders.
Spontaneous orders can achieve any degree of complexity. SOs
that are extremely complex may be difficult to recognize as orders. For
example, we sometimes hear of 'the chaos of the market', a phrase signifying
the speaker's failure to understand the enormously complex spontaneous ordering
at work in a decentralized, free market economic system. As this person sees
it, there is no order in economic affairs unless they can see some person or
group of persons designing the order, setting a pattern for the outcome.
Recognizing SOs is further complicated by the abstractness
of almost all such orders. SOs consist of a system of abstract relations
between elements which are themselves defined only by abstract properties. The
abstractness of an order means that the same order can persist even though the
particular elements that comprise it change over time. So long as elements of a
certain kind continue to be related to each other in a certain manner, the
order will persist. A language, for instance, can remain the same language when
spoken by different speakers. The double abstractness of a spontaneous order
can be illustrated by the free market: The order of the market is constituted
by the abstract relations between persons, and the persons themselves, in this
context, must be understood abstractly as agents constituted by sets of
desires, purposes, beliefs, and actions.
The abstractness of SOs makes them particularly difficult
for the untutored mind to recognize. You can't simply look at an SO and spot
it. You need to apply a theory. Your theory allows you to examine the objects
and events and to cognitively reconstruct the order by applying explanatory
principles. Application of a theory to the phenomena amounts to filtering data
in search of a pattern.
Apart from complexity and abstractness, there is a third,
surprising, feature of spontaneous orders that renders them less obvious than
constructed orders. This is their purposelessness. Concrete orders are designed
for a particular purpose or group of purposes, and so we can recognize them
easily due to their specificity and goal-directedness. The essence of
spontaneous orders is their purposelessness. This feature does not detract from
their usefulness in the least. While an SO is not designed and so has no
purpose, it may be capable of sustaining within itself an enormous variety of
purposes. An order that is itself without specifiable purpose may serve as the
framework for purposive action. Again, a clear example is the market. The
market system is not there for any particular reason, yet allows a limitless
number of persons to pursue their goals.
Some spontaneous orders might have a meta-purpose, though
perhaps such orders would be partially organizations and partially spontaneous.
An example might be an artificial ecosystem set up to evolve new life forms,
but where the creators have no idea what the particular results will be,
expecting only that some useful results will be generated in the ecology. In
this case, the ecology has a meta-purpose, which is to generate interesting new
life forms, but it does not itself have a purpose or function in a purposive,
directed manner.
If no one designs a spontaneous order, how can it turn out
to be ordered? This is a question that has arisen in economics, biology, and
cosmology. In each of these and other fields, the details of the answer are
different, but they all share something in common.
The common answer lies in recognizing the self-organizing
possibilities of systems that operate according to certain well-defined rules
or principles. So long as the elements of the system do or must follow the
rules, and the rules have the necessary structure, then self-organization will
occur, and complex orders will be generated. Perhaps the best way to clarify
this is to introduce several cases of SOs. This will also support my earlier
assertion that spontaneous orders are tremendously pervasive and extremely
important for futurists and Extropian transhumanists.
Examples
Economic Markets: Having mentioned free markets several
times and because they are a clear and generally familiar case, I will begin
here. While a corporatist, fascist, or national-socialist economy (and, to a
lesser degree, a mixed economy) will be deliberately structured, regulated, and
controlled to pursue certain goals - such as world domination, maximizing the
power of the leadership, enforcing certain moral views, etc. - a market economy
does not have a goal. Of course, it may produce certain results, such as
maximizing output, increasing freedom and diversity, and stimulating
technological advancement. However, these emergent results are not goals of the
system as such.
A fully free market economy requires certain principles
regulating the behavior of the agents within it if the order is to be
preserved. In a market system, the regulating principles are private property
rights. Fundamentally, there is a right to self-ownership - the right to live,
think as you choose, and choose your way of life in respect to others' same
rights. All other property rights are extensions of that fundamental right.
Maintaining a market order simply requires people to respect each other's rights
to life, liberty, and property. When violations of these rights occur, such as
theft, assault, and fraud, the system primarily requires restitution to restore
legitimate claims and to repair the harm done to the rational expectations of
the persons involved in voluntary market activities.
A fully free market system is often described, in a
political context, as 'libertarian' because of the minimal coercion of some
persons by others. I also refer to the system as 'spontaneous voluntarism'.
This term has the advantage of emphasizing the voluntaristic and spontaneously
ordering characteristics of the system. Tom W. Bell has offered the term
'consent rich', and we could also refer to this system as 'maximally
consensual'. Whether the maintenance of a system of property rights requires
any role for a monopolistic agency of coercion ('the State') is a question I
will not touch on here.(2)
The careful definition and maintenance of the structure of
private property rights is essential to the ordering processes of the market.
If there is constant coercive intervention in the economy, widespread legal
and/or cultural disregard for the rights of self-ownership and property, then
disorder will ensue. An enormously complex order such as the market is able to
withstand much disregard for its underlying principles, but if disruption
becomes excessive or invades crucial areas such as the monetary system, chaos
begins to dominate.
The effectiveness of spontaneous orders in facilitating
interactions and communication of information in extremely complex systems is
well illustrated by the present example. In a market order, efficient use is
made of the particular and special knowledge possessed by individuals.
Effective production and the efficient satisfaction of consumer wants require
the coordination of billions of persons and their plans, expectations, and
knowledge.
No central planner could hope to acquire all the information
necessary to coordinate all these actions into an efficient plan. There are
many reasons why authoritarian central control cannot work. The individuals to
whom the planner is to give orders and from whom to gather information may be
unwilling to be controlled and directed from above. Even if they are willing to
give the planner all the information requested, they may be unable to express
the situation-specific information they possess. Much of the success of
producers is based on tacit knowledge - knowledge that cannot be verbalized. It
is frequently procedural, not declarative in nature. Entrepreneurs may have
ways of working, of interacting with customers and fellow workers that they may
be consciously unaware of; even if they are aware of all their procedures, they
may be unable to express what they do to a bureaucrat.
Even if these problems were not insuperable, the central
planners would face an impossible task in coordinating all the information
flooding in, no matter how powerful their data processing capacities. We can
see the problems inherent in central planning by looking at our own economy.
Government officials compile economic statistics.
Government officials compile economic statistics such as
figures for the money supply, gross national product (GNP), employment, income,
growth rates, and so on. These figures are always revised after initial
publication, often revealing a large error margin. Making central plans based
on such faulty data, data that is continually changing in a dynamic economy, is
inherently problematic. By the time the inaccurate data becomes available, the
economy has moved on, rendering the information immediately incorrect.
The decentralized market economy deals with this problem by
making it unnecessary for anyone to know everything about the entire system.
Price signals - generated by voluntary decisions based on private property
rights - transmit the relevant information to those who need to know it.
Incommunicable tacit knowledge is reflected in the market prices of the
producer with no need for her to explain to anyone how she does her job.
The market system has the further advantage of requiring
minimal coercion. Coercion (the threat or use of physical force) is required
only to prevent persons from violating others’ rights to life, liberty, and
property. By decentralizing decision-making and rational planning to
individuals and voluntary groupings of individuals, the market harnesses
productive capacities for everyone's benefit. As Adam Smith wrote two centuries
ago, the market works as if there were an 'invisible hand' ensuring that the
actions of individuals produce benefits for all. The better someone is at
supplying others with what they want, the more she is rewarded.
Of course, this requires that the proper principles
necessary for the functioning of the spontaneous order are maintained; this
means that self-ownership and private property rights must be respected both by
the legal system and the culture. External costs (such as polluting activities)
should be internalized by the consistent application of private property
rights. The spontaneous ordering processes embodied in the market then
economize on the use of information and optimize production from the point of
view of the voluntary agents within the system.
Evolution: Another enlightening paradigm of a spontaneous
ordering process is genetic evolution. Although yet far from completed,
scientists have gone a long way in explaining how organisms and genetic
material could have spontaneously evolved from molecules in the environment(3).
The rules of the system that allow spontaneous generation of organisms are the
principles of physics and the genetic system in environments falling within
certain parameters (temperature, pressure, availability of elements).
We can now see a revealing parallel between theists and
socialists. Those who believe in a god who creates the universe, life, and
consciousness, and those who reject the market because of its purported chaos,
both fail to appreciate the power of spontaneous ordering principles. Theists
don't understand how vastly complex phenomena such as the structure of
galaxies, life on Earth, and conscious intelligence could possibly have come
about other than as the deliberate design of some ineffable being. (Of course,
they further violate the principle of explanatory parsimony in introducing a
being whose complexity must be greater than the original phenomena to be
explained.)
Likewise, socialists and other statists can't understand how
human purposes can be efficiently pursued without some wise persons designing
and controlling a social system. Put into reverse, this confluence of
intellectual deficiencies may explain why such a high proportion of Extropians
and transhumanists are both atheists and free marketeers.
Evolutionary Models: Evolutionary principles have recently been fruitfully applied in constructing computer models of self-ordering systems. Examples are strategies such as Tit-For-Tat, cellular automata such as Conway's Game of Life, and other evolutionary strategies. Tit-For-Tat, a strategy that was submitted to a Computer Strategy tournament organized by Robert Axelrod(4), proved it consistently outperformed other strategies in terms of scoring points in its interactions with them. As a result, the cooperative Tit-For-Tat strategy gradually grew and swamped the others.
It did this by adhering to simple rules embodying, the
principles of niceness - not attacking first, retaliation - hitting back when
another strategy “defects”, forgiving - not holding grudges, and clarity -
being simple enough for other strategies to understand. By allowing this
simulation to run through many rounds, an overall pattern of Tit-For-Tat
behavior came to dominate the environment even though this result had not been
programmed into the computer. Similar processes have been invoked to explain cooperative
behavior among animals.
“Artificial life” (A-Life) is an attempt to create many
small “agents” in connectionist computers and to allow them to evolve useful
behavior. It also involves using these small agents to make tiny robots that
can perform functions like walking, exploring, and cleaning buildings. So far,
many of the examples of A-Life are both intriguing and amusing: Rod Brooks, at
MIT's robot lab, built “the Collection Machine” which travels around the
building recognizing and collecting soda cans. One of his students built a
device that tracks your movement around a room and calibrates the stereo so
that you always enjoy the best sound.
A-Life researchers often work with cellular automata (CA) -
grids of cells in computational space. Each cell is determined to be dead or
alive (off or on) by a set of rules that refer to the neighboring cells. The
Game of Life is an example of CA; it applies a few simple rules and generates
complex patterns that were in no way specified in the original rules. Watching
the screen, you would first see a few dots appearing, disappearing, and
apparently moving around. Over time, you would observe a multiplication of
patterns that start to assume characteristic forms - such as blocks, loaves,
beehives, blinkers, glider guns, and puffer trains. Again, nothing in the
original rules of the program specifies these patterns.(5)
Physics: This section may be complex for most
non-physicists. For those interested, see Polkinghorne, 1984. In quantum
mechanics, there are two methods for calculating probabilities. The traditional
method involves solving the Schrödinger equation to find two wavefunctions
(with one slit open, the other closed in the two-slit experiment). The square
of the moduli of these wavefunctions, or probability amplitudes, yields actual
probabilities for the state of motion. The alternative method, invented by Richard
Feynman and known as the path integral or sum over histories approach, directly
calculates probability amplitudes without using the Schrödinger equation.
Feynman's approach involves assigning a complex probability
amplitude to each of the vastly many trajectories an electron might take. While
in conventional quantum theory, an electron has no trajectory, in the sum over
histories approach, it has every trajectory. Feynman's perspective enables us
to see how quantum mechanics can correspond with the neat, regular trajectories
of classical, Newtonian physics. In other words, we can understand how the
apparently chaotic behavior at the quantum level generates macro-level
regularity. In the sum over histories approach, there is an enormous amount of
interference between the different paths of the electron, and these tend to
cancel each other out. Essentially, “For really large systems this will have
the consequence that the only paths that contribute significantly to the final
result will be those in a region where the action changes as slowly as
possible, since here the cancellations are minimized.” (Polkinghorne, p.43)
This region follows the path of stationary action, which is just the classical
trajectory.
Memetics: Memes are patterns of replicating information,
whether in brains or computers. They encompass ideas, beliefs, tunes, habits,
traditions, morals, designs, jokes, and fashions(6). In memetic evolution,
variation is propelled by imagination, invention, and confusion, and the
governing principles lie within the realms of psychology. New and often
intriguing memes can emerge without conscious design, similar to the generation
of new somatic types in biological evolution. However, in the memetic case, it
is the memes themselves that perish if unsuccessful, not their carriers (with
some unfortunate exceptions such as kamikaze and Jim Jones memes). The
burgeoning field of evolutionary epistemology aims to comprehend scientific
progress in terms of evolutionary and spontaneously ordering processes. Since
memetics is frequently discussed in these pages, I will refrain from further
discussion.(7)
Agoric Open Systems: The remarkable pace of modern society's
computerization is a fascinating phenomenon to witness. However, as these
systems become more complex and interconnected, we are increasingly confronted
with the challenge of resource allocation in computing: “As programs and
distributed systems grow larger, they are outpacing the capacity of rational
central planning. Managing complexity seems to rely on decentralization and
granting computational ‘objects’ property rights in their data and algorithms.
Perhaps it will even require utilizing price information regarding resource
demand and availability that can arise from competitive bidding among these
objects.(8)
The computer analogy for property rights is “object-oriented
programming systems” (OOPS). This programming method involves assigning tasks
to computational objects; these objects are autonomous sections of code whose
functions cannot be modified by other objects. This allows programmers to build
a program containing many objects whose internal workings she need not know.
Decentralized, spontaneously ordering mechanisms for
handling computation are known as agoric open systems. An agoric system is
defined as a software system using market mechanisms, based on foundations that
provide for the encapsulation and communication of information, access, and
resources among objects.(9) In this system, programs would bid for memory and disk
space, paying more for coveted memory than disk space and paying more during
times of peak demand.
Establishing networks and programs along these spontaneously
ordering lines would enable the limitless growth of computational complexity
and interconnectivity. Another advantage would be the promotion of innovation
and discovery. With encapsulation ensuring computational property rights and
agoric systems conveying price information, entrepreneurial activity would be
stimulated, similar to a market economy. Programmers could take existing
objects and add their own algorithms to produce new software. They would not
need to reinvent the original code now in the objects and would not even need
to fully understand it.(10)
Neurocomputation and Connectionist AI: The recent issues of
this journal have extensively covered topics on artificial neural networks,
connectionism, or parallel distributed processing (PDP). This computational
approach stands in contrast to “Classical Artificial Intelligence (AI)” due to
its significantly enhanced ability to recognize patterns. Similar to agoric
systems, connectionist models represent spontaneously ordering processes.
Learning occurs through the adjustment of weights in components that contribute
to the system's improvement in pattern recognition. Essentially, by configuring
the network and providing feedback based on the appropriateness and success of
its output, the network autonomously organizes its internal states (activation
vector spaces).
As artificial networks become increasingly complex and
brain-like, the challenge of coordinating components grows. Miller and Drexler
propose that by integrating connectionism and agoric systems, networks could
improve their ability to credit components contributing to success. Current
connectionist models often utilize the “back-propagation” algorithm for this
purpose(11). As the system develops, market competition will reward objects which
employ more sophisticated negotiating strategies that better reflect both the
value derived from the various contributors and what their competitors are
offering.” (Miller & Drexler, 1988b, p.172).
Contelligence and Society of Mind: This discussion leads us
to comprehend how spontaneous order aids in understanding consciousness,
intelligence, and developing our own contelligences.(12) Our brains are now
recognized as highly intricate and massively interconnected neural networks.
The neurons represent the elements, while the axons, dendrites, and
neurotransmitter releases from the synapses are the connections. The brain
functions as a spontaneous order, lacking a central processing unit. Classical,
rule-based AI has struggled to make significant progress in developing genuine
intelligence because it has followed a formal processing model reminiscent of
neoclassical economics. Connectionist AI, though currently moderately
biologically realistic, holds the promise of significantly greater potential
for flexible, intelligent cognitive behavior.(13)
The brain has been likened to a “society of mind”(14) and
displays remarkable similarities to an economy. Cognition in all its forms -
reasoning, belief formation, emotions - is increasingly being comprehended in
the context of interactions among specialized sub-systems, or “agents”. To
develop genuine artificial intelligence, we anticipate replicating certain
aspects of neural networks. However, we also envision surpassing nature by
eventually creating faster and more powerful thinkers, potentially utilizing optical
or nano-computers. When constructing self-organizing artificial intelligences,
agoric principles will be immensely beneficial in coordinating the cognitive
contributions of numerous agents forming a network.
SOs and Transhumanist Goals
Having observed the pervasive influence of spontaneous
orders in both constraining and facilitating the extropic processes of
creation, organization, and information generation and dissemination, we can
now explore the available means in the pursuit of Extropian transhumanist
objectives while upholding the SO principle.
Freedom vs. Technocracy: Laws governing experimentation with
transformative technologies should be abolished. Dismantling the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in North America would be an effective starting point in
allowing individuals to engage in personal experimentation(15). Regulations
concerning research, genetic self-modification, and neurochemical
self-enhancement should also be discarded. With the rapid technological
advancements enabling self-enhancement, it's timely for legally-minded
Extropians to contemplate action towards constitutional guarantees of our
freedom for self-modification.
Likewise, given the growing significance of electronic and
soon hypertext communications in disseminating diverse information, robust
legal safeguards for our freedoms in these domains are essential. Presently,
electronic mail lacks the same protection as traditional paper mail, and
surveillance of computers and BBSs occurs without consideration for user
privacy. If the State can intrude into our conversations at will and restrict
our free discussions, it will only hinder progress.
H.G. Wells envisioned a scientifically planned world where a bright future was ensured through efficient control by scientific experts at the center. In 1991, after decades of failed central planning, Wells' vision for our future seems impractical. Just as government struggles with centrally planning industrial policy and investments, allowing it to control our transhuman development would be ineffective, stifling, and damaging.
Instead of technocracy, Extropians advocate for individual
self-experimentation, constrained only by the minimal negative injunction:
"Do not interfere with others' pursuit of their developmental path."
The only dissenters to this minimal limitation are the exploiters and
controllers, as they see personal gain primarily in restraining and taking from
others. As long as we uphold non-aggression guided by private property
principles, we will mutually benefit regardless of our chosen paths. By exploring
diverse paths, we will make discoveries that might otherwise remain unnoticed.
A spontaneous, free social order provides incentives and means to share these
discoveries, as my earlier examples illustrated.
States, Countries, and Planetary Exodus.
As long as people on this planet are segmented into nations,
freedom should be optimized by minimizing one country's control over another.
Governments are just as inept at "reforming" other countries'
governments as they are at managing their own, for identical reasons. While the
most promising paths for political evolution would involve dismantling the
massive power blocs known as nation-states, the political landscape on Earth
might persist within a statist framework. To the extent that states and countries
endure, the objective of any international institutions (such as the U.N. or
the EEC) should be to restrain international coercion and foster free trade and
movement(16). This does not preclude individuals from attempting to influence the
conduct of foreign governments. Individuals should have the freedom to do so,
just as they currently have the freedom to assist a person being mugged.
However, they should not compel individuals with differing ideologies to
finance and partake in a collective assault.
Space habitats will provide an unprecedented opportunity for
social experimentation. Interplanetary and, later, interstellar civilizations
appear to offer a far superior "utopian framework"(17) compared to our
terrestrial societies. The confined environment and fixed nature of Earth-based
societies will be shed. Some space habitats will attract individuals sharing
similar political views, some with common ethical or religious beliefs. Others
will be communities of individuals with specific preferences in physical
attributes. We can anticipate various combinations of these possibilities, akin
to rural villages and bustling metropolises like Los Angeles.(18)
As humanity progresses beyond its tribal origins, it
confronts and addresses various societal issues like racism, sexism, and
irrational behaviors. It's imperative to support and nurture this progressive
trend while also preparing for the emergence of new species diverging from Homo
sapiens. In this transformative journey, it's essential to avoid substituting
old prejudices with new fears of those who differ from us.
The process of intercommunication and commerce is expected
to largely sustain adherence to a fundamental bodily form that most individuals
will choose for the foreseeable future. Although some may consider significant
deviations from the humanoid form, many are likely to prefer enhancements that
seamlessly integrate with our current human structure. Anticipated enhancements
might include reinforced skulls utilizing nanotech-built ultra-strong
materials, brain augmentation with additional databases and processing power,
the substitution of internal organs with more durable and powerful synthetic
alternatives, strengthened muscles, and immune systems fortified with nanite
defense mechanisms. Importantly, these upgrades can be accommodated within our
existing physical framework.
The primary advancements in altering our natural bodies will
likely involve the incorporation of synthetic organs, gene therapy, genetic
enhancement, neurochemical fine-tuning, and interfacing directly with
computers. Assuming feasibility, many individuals may eventually opt to
transfer their consciousness to superior carriers or gradually shift their
cognitive processes into new hardware. Initially, most individuals choosing
these enhancements will likely maintain an exterior appearance resembling Homo
sapiens. However, entirely new and exotic somatic forms may emerge in more
distant space habitats in the future. Yet, the mere availability of such
radically new forms won't prompt an immediate rush towards them. Instead, it
will be a gradual process, necessitating the development of new cultural norms.
These forthcoming developments are a natural extension of our evolving practices of self-definition. Primitive life on Earth was entirely shaped by genetic and environmental factors. With the emergence of humans possessing consciousness and basic culture, the concept of self-definition was born. Throughout history, humans have exhibited an insatiable desire to choose their appearance, beliefs, lifestyle, and behavior. In the 20th Century, we even began modifying our personalities and involuntary behavioral patterns through applied psychology and neurochemical alterations, using substances ranging from alcohol and marijuana to MDMA and lithium.
This practice of self-definition and self-construction is an
ongoing process. As we become increasingly conceptually sophisticated, gaining
deeper awareness of the factors influencing us, and as our technological
prowess advances, allowing us to act on this enhanced self-understanding, the
threat of determinism continues to diminish. We're gaining greater control over
our bodies, cognition, emotions, appearance, and environment. While not
everyone may opt to engage in an unceasing process of individualization and
self-transformation, this newfound freedom will be available for those
unwilling to remain stagnant within familiar but limited forms.
New Children and Few Children.
As we undertake the process of self-transformation, we'll
also redefine the means by which we bring offspring into the world. In the
foreseeable future, individuals, couples, or groups will likely have the
autonomy to determine the genetic makeup of their children, aiming to eliminate
deficiencies and maximize mental health, physical capabilities, and emotional
stability. Adhering to the principles of spontaneous order, it's imperative
that the design of a new transhuman child and the structure of the family be
left to the discretion of the individuals involved. Authoritarian government
control over such choices should be nonexistent.
Following the trend observed in more developed nations, the
rate of new children being born or engineered may decrease. This might lead to
increased attention given to each child and a slowdown in population growth,
which could somewhat offset the effects of longer lifespans. Although our
planet can potentially support many more inhabitants than it does currently,
many individuals might prefer a more spacious environment. However, space
migration might not immediately resolve this issue, unless birth rates drastically
decline or until leaving Earth becomes significantly more feasible and
cost-effective.
There might be proposals for coercive solutions, such as
governments offering the choice between the right to have a child and the right
to access (legal) longevity treatments, or between longevity treatments and
residing on Earth. Considering spontaneous order considerations, it's essential
to establish property rights that hold child-creators accountable for the
social costs of their actions. This could begin by removing tax subsidies for
education and welfare benefits that incentivize larger families.
Handling the Blast of Information.
The emergence of hypertext technology offers the promise of
swift and effective access to the exponentially growing information landscape
and holds the potential to enhance memetic evolution (see Nelson 1974, 1981,
and Drexler 1986, ch.14). Hypertext enables highly adaptable cross-referencing
of information, allowing users not only to trace references backward in time,
but also forward, identifying individuals who have commented on a particular
piece of writing.
Several advantages accompany hypertext technology, including
considerably reduced lag times for the appearance of refutations and rebuttals.
This accelerates discussions and research, steering them towards more
productive directions at an earlier stage. Moreover, hypertext facilitates
comprehensive information searches across all fields, mitigating the current
tendency toward academic compartmentalization.
Hypertext systems embody principles of spontaneous order:
they lack central organization, allowing anyone to contribute comments and
information. However, frivolous contributions may be limited, as seen in the
Xanadu system currently undergoing testing, which uses charges and filtering
systems programmable to individual preferences. For example, when researching a
contentious topic, users might filter out individuals with questionable
reputations or accept only peer-reviewed or positively commented material. The
proposed Xanadu hypertext system suggests compensating every writer each time
their writing is accessed, fostering a productive market for disseminating
information.
An additional epistemological approach inspired by
spontaneous order theory is the "Futures Market in Ideas" proposed by
Robin Hanson (see Hanson 1990, 1990b). This concept aims to refine fact-finding
processes, facilitating the establishment of well-grounded consensus on
scientific and technical matters. Under this framework, individuals would have
the ability to bet on contentious scientific and technical issues, and the
resultant market odds would form a consensus basis for policy considerations.
This would be particularly invaluable in scenarios where policies and funding
are reliant on technological projections, such as predicting the availability
of technologies like nanotech assemblers or more cost-effective space launches.
Hanson's proposition offers an advantage similar to other
markets involving contingent assets like stocks and securities: irresponsible
or uninformed betting would come at a financial cost. Financial incentives
would encourage prudent betting practices and provide funding opportunities for
leading research projects. According to Hanson, "Arbitragers would
maintain the consistency of betting markets across a broad spectrum of issues,
while hedgers would offset various common human biases, such as overconfidence"
(Hanson, 1990b, p.3). The integration of idea futures markets with hypertext
would enable significantly more accurate and swift fact-finding processes,
crucial in a future characterized by the continuous expansion of information.
Longevity, Cooperation and Eupraxosophies.
In Axelrod's
previously cited work, it was observed that significantly more cooperation
emerged in iterated Prisoners' Dilemmas over time compared to situations
involving a single interaction. Agents capable of impacting one another,
whether positively or negatively, tend to grow more inclined - even from
self-interested perspectives - to cooperate as they anticipate longer-term
interactions with each other. One of Axelrod's recommendations for promoting
cooperation is to "enlarge the shadow of the future." This entails
increasing the anticipated number of interactions between these agents.
Consequently, the influence and impact of future interactions will become more
extensive over time.
The prospect of prolonged and indefinite future interactions
among individuals will gain strength due to the expected increase in longevity,
ultimately leading to the virtual elimination of natural death. As society
becomes accustomed to planning over centuries and even longer periods, there
will be reduced incentives for fraudulent activities. Individuals will be less
inclined to engage in fraudulent behaviors, foreseeing the long-lasting
repercussions of their actions. They will become increasingly cautious about
involving themselves in any form of violent conflicts, whether on a personal or
inter-governmental level. The realization of living with the consequences of
their actions will discourage short-term gains obtained by violating others'
rights.
Moreover, extended lifespans will cultivate open-ended and
liberal philosophies. Religions are likely to continue their gradual decline,
making way for a diverse array of eupraxosophies(19). Extropianism stands as a
prime example of a transhumanist eupraxophy: Its core values are adaptable and
open to individual interpretation while maintaining clear commitments. The
fundamental principle of Self-Transformation in Extropianism embodies the
intention to consistently grow and enhance one's capabilities and possibilities.
Unlike religious doctrines that dictate specific beliefs and practices as
dogma, Extropianism provides a platform for free discourse on means to advance
the fundamental values it upholds.
The landscape of transhumanistic philosophies is
diversifying rapidly, with several ideologies emerging that align with
Extropianism.(20) Venturism, for instance, is an athanophic eupraxophy committed to
eradicating involuntary death through scientific advancements. Many individuals
engaged or interested in life extension, cryonics, nanotechnology, advanced
computing, and related fields share values and ideas akin to those embraced by
Extropianism and similar eupraxosophies. Rather than replicating the historical
conflicts often associated with religion, the future seems poised to witness a
coexistence of various evolving transhumanist philosophies.
This paper has offered a survey of spontaneous ordering and
its multifaceted applications. It has delineated ways in which the trajectory
of the future hinges on spontaneous orders, emphasizing the advantages of this
approach. Spontaneous order processes are integral to realizing the Extropian
principle of Boundless Expansion. For our knowledge, intelligence, creative
capabilities, and experiences to perpetually expand without constraints, it's
imperative to establish and uphold the requisite supporting frameworks.
Spontaneous ordering stands as the linchpin for constructing and sustaining
these essential frameworks.
1)Reference: Hayek, 1973.
2)References: Bell, 1991 (in this issue), and David Friedman
(1989) arguing that no monopolistic agency is necessary.
3)References: Dawkins, 1989, 1986.
4)Reference: Axelrod, 1987.
5)Moravec, 1988, presents a mind-expanding discussion on
advanced A-Life, computer viruses, and cellular automata.
6)The original coinage of the term "memes" can be
attributed to Dawkins, 1976. Additionally, Henson & Lucas have written
articles in this journal: "A Memetic Approach to Selling Cryonics,"
in EXTROPY #7, and "Darwin's Difficulty," in EXTROPY #2, Winter 1989.
Also, Miller and Drexler, 1988, "Comparative Ecology: A Computational
Perspective."
7)This will remind philosophers of the distinction between
teleological and deontological moral theories. Similar to moral theories, the
distinction between spontaneous vs constructed order is an idealization.
8)Reference: Lavoie, Baetjer, and William Tulloh, "High
Tech Hayekians."
9)Reference: Miller and Drexler, 1988b.
10)Simon! D. Levy will cover agoric systems in detail in
EXTROPY #8 (vol.3, no.2), Fall 1991.
11)See "Neurocomputing Part 3," by Simon! D. Levy,
in EXTROPY #6 (Summer 1990).
12)I use the term "contelligence" to indicate that
intelligence (in the sense of "the ability to perform a range of
tasks") and consciousness (awareness, especially self-awareness) may not
always go together. This is a point of controversy in the uploading argument.
If posthumans want to upload the contents of their brains into computers, they
will want to be sure that they will be conscious as well as ultra-intelligent.
(See Moravec, 1988, on uploading.)
13)For an excellent overview of the connectionist view of
mind, see Churchland, 1989, and my review of his book in EXTROPY #6 (Summer
1990).
14)Marvin Minsky, 1988. The Society of Mind.
15)The FDA's highly restrictive policies result in many
thousands of premature deaths every year. This agency does not hesitate to raid
organizations like Life Extension International, based on the company selling
"unapproved drugs" (i.e., selling vitamins and offering good
information on their beneficial effects, without the permission of this
authoritarian agency. For an economic analysis of the baneful effects of the
FDA, see M. Friedman, 1980.
16)James Bennett has made similar recommendations in his
talk, "After the Nation-State, What?" at the Albert Jay Nock Forum,
Long Beach, California, April 2, 1991.
17)See Nozick, 1974, ch.10, "A Framework for
Utopia." A science fictional portrayal of humanity diverging in only two
directions is found in Bruce Sterling's fascinating Schizmatrix, 1985.
18)An interesting long-term project for Extropians aiming
for enormous longevity could be the design, organization, financing, and
construction of the political constitution and physical creation of a
space-based society conducive to Extropian values and maximal progress. The
building of such an "Extropolis" could occupy us for the next few
centuries.
19)See "Futique Neologisms" in this issue for
definitions of "eupraxophy," "athanophy," etc. 20)Extropianism
will continue to evolve in this journal and in an eventual book.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Axelrod, Robert. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York:
Basic Books, 1987.
Barry, Norman. “The Tradition of Spontaneous Order.”
Literature of Liberty, September 1982.
Bell, Tom W. “Privately Produced Law.” EXTROPY #7,
Winter/Spring 1991.
Churchland, Paul M. A Neurocomputational Perspective: The
Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. Bradford Books, MIT Press, 1989.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press,
1976, 2nd edition 1989.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton and Co.,
1986, 1987.
Drexler, K. Eric. Engines of Creation. New York: Doubleday,
1986.
Dyson, Freeman. Infinite in All Directions, ch.5. Harper and
Row, 1988.
Foley, J.D. “Interfaces for Advanced Computing.” Scientific
American, October 1987: 127-135.
Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom, 2nd Edition. Open
Court, 1989.
Friedman, Milton. Free to Choose. Harcourt, Brace
Jovanovich, 1980.
Hanson, Robin. “Could Gambling Save Science? Encouraging
Honest Consensus.” Proc. Eighth Intl Conf. on Risk and Gambling, London, July
1990.
Hanson, Robin. “Market-Based Foresight - A Proposal.”
Foresight Update, 10, 1990.
Hayek, F.A. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” Individualism
and Economic Order, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1948.
Hayek, F.A. “The Theory of Complex Phenomena.” Studies in
Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1967.
Hayek, F.A. “The Results of Human Action but Not of Human
Design.” Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, Chicago, 1967.
Hayek, F.A. “Cosmos and Taxis,” Chapter 2 of Law,
Legislation and Liberty: Rules and Order, vol.1. University of Chicago Press,
1973.
Hayek, F.A. “The Pretence of Knowledge” and “Competition as
a Discovery Procedure.” New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the
History of Ideas, University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Hayek, F.A. “The Telecommunications System of the Market.”
Part II of 1980s Unemployment and the Unions - (IEA Hobart Paper #87, 1980).
Lachmann, Ludwig M. “On the Central Concept of Austrian
Economics: Market Process.” The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics, ed.,
Edwin Dolan. Sheed and Ward, Inc., Kansas City, 1976.
Lavoie, Don, Howard Baetjer, and William Tulloh. “High Tech
Hayekians: Some Possible Research Topics in the Economics of Computation.”
Market Process, Vol. 8, Spring 1990.
Lycan, William G., ed. Mind and Cognition: A Reader.
Sections II and IV. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1990.
Maren, Alianna, Craig Harston, Robert Pap, eds. Handbook of
Neural Computing Applications. Acadademic Press, Inc., Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1990.
Miller, Mark S., and K. Eric Drexler. “Comparative Ecology:
A Computational Perspective.” The Ecology of Computation, Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V., 1988.
Miller, Mark S., and K. Eric Drexler. “Markets and
Computation: Agoric Open Systems.” The Ecology of Computation, Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V., 1988.
Minsky, Marvin. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1986.
Moravec, Hans. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human
Intelligence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Nelson, Theodor. Computer Lib/Dream Machines.
Self-published, distributed by The Distributors, South Bend, Ind., 1974.
Nelson, Theodor. Literary Machines. Swarthmore, Pa.: Ted
Nelson, 1981.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books,
1974.
O'Driscoll, Gerald P. “Spontaneous Order and the
Coordination of Economic Activities.” New Directions in Austrian Economics,
IHS/Cato, Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1978.
Polkinghorne, J.C. The Quantum World. Princeton University
Press, 1984.
Reekie, Duncan. Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty, ch.3.
Wheatsheaf Books, 1984.
Rothschild, Michael. Bionomics: The Inevitability of
Capitalism. Henry Holt, 1990.
Sowell, Thomas. Knowledge
Comentários
Postar um comentário