I had an opportunity to have Graham explain his theory over lunch a few weeks ago and I find much to like about it.

Interestingly enough, I was rereading Leviathan the other day and the introduction had me thinking about Graham’s theory.

NATURE (the art whereby God hath made and governs the world) is by the art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an artificial animal. For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principal part within, why may we not say that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the Artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that rational and most excellent work of Nature, man. For by art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the magistrates and other officers of judicature and execution, artificial joints; reward and punishment (by which fastened to the seat of the sovereignty, every joint and member is moved to perform his duty) are the nerves, that do the same in the body natural; the wealth and riches of all the particular members are the strength; salus populi (the people’s safety) its business; counsellors, by whom all things needful for it to know are suggested unto it, are the memory; equity and laws, an artificial reason and will; concord, health; sedition, sickness; and civil war, death. Lastly, the pacts and covenants, by which the parts of this body politic were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that fiat, or the Let us make man, pronounced by God in the Creation.

Both Graham and Hobbes are worth reading…

I am repeatedly impressed with the writing in the Atlantic.  So much so, that it joins the Economist as the only two periodicals to grace my Kindle.

James Fallows recent article with the same title as this post is a compelling read.  Although the reasons may not be what you expect.

The first reason is summarized best in a John Adams quote found in the article.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

It is worthwhile to consider the track record of democracy as long-term governing mechanism.  If you decide to undertake that, decoupling individual “freedom/liberty” from “democracy” during the process could provide new insights.

The second reason is the policy point around the importance of the public sector as “capital collector and director” (my words).

Robert Atkinson, the director of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, in Washington, has written that several times per century, a “transformational wave” of new technologies ripples through the economy and creates new opportunities and wealth. In the past, these have included mass-production systems, modern chemicals, aviation, and so on. Today the economically important technologies include genomic knowledge, information technologies like the Internet, and the geospatial information, from the GPS network, that is built into everything from dashboard navigators to the climate-change-monitoring systems that measure the size of glaciers or extent of forests. Private companies now create the jobs and wealth in each field, but public funds paid for the original scientific breakthroughs and provided early markets.

It couldn’t have been otherwise, Atkinson says. The scale of investment was too vast. The uncertainty of payoff was too great. The risk that profits and benefits would go to competitors who hadn’t made the initial investment was too high. The difference between promising and dead-end technologies was too hard to predict—especially decades ago, when work in all these fields began. So each started as a public program: the Internet by the Pentagon, the Human Genome Project by the National Institutes of Health, and the GPS network by the Air Force, which still operates it. The government could not have created Google, but Google could not have existed without government efforts to establish the Internet long before the company’s founders were born. This pattern—public investment and standard-setting, followed by private industrial growth—has been consistent through the years, Atkinson said, which is what worries him now. “Our companies and entrepreneurs are matchless in their power to adapt,” he said. “We lead in many categories the private economy can handle by itself. But where you need any public-private coordination, we’ve become handicapped. I worry that our companies can adapt, but our system can’t.”

Of this, I am of two minds.

My Romance, the desire for true brotherhood and love of the human family, wishes this to be true.

How long I have wanted such a world!

My Reason tells me that the king would be cut down in seconds.

How long have we lived in such a world and how much longer still?

Now, the real question is which world is best for humanity?

Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the “omnipotence of war”. Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the laboring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.

In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts. Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political system, old-fashioned corruption—envelopes stuffed with $100 bills—is probably a sideshow today, Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.

Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital—a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America’s position in the world.

People said it was impossible, but [Dean] Kamen hates that word. Don’t tell me it’s impossible, he says, tell me you can’t do it. Tell me it’s never been done. Because the only real laws in this world — the only things we really know – are the two postulates of relativity, the three laws of Newton, the four laws of thermodynamics, and Maxwell’s equation — no, scratch that, the only things we really know are Maxwell’s equation, the three laws of Newton, the two postulates of relativity, and the periodic table. That’s all we know that’s true. All the rest are man’s laws [bold mine].

http://www.esquire.com/features/dean-kamen-1208-3

I cannot tell you how important this view is to my personal philosophy or to the vision that I strive to achieve.

Non Serviam.

I really encourage you to read the entire thing and consider these questions at the end:  What do you value?  Why?  If you could create your own value system for humanity, what would it be?  What would the goal of humanity be?

Many lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: thus he discovered the good and bad of many peoples. No greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than good and bad.

No people could live without first valuing; if a people will maintain itself, however, it must not value as its neighbour valueth.

Much that passed for good with one people was regarded with scorn and contempt by another: thus I found it. Much found I here called bad, which was there decked with purple honours.

Never did the one neighbour understand the other: ever did his soul marvel at his neighbour’s delusion and wickedness.

A table of excellencies hangeth over every people. Lo! it is the table of their triumphs; lo! it is the voice of their Will to Power.

It is laudable, what they think hard; what is indispensable and hard they call good; and what relieveth in the direst distress, the unique and hardest of all,—they extol as holy.

Whatever maketh them rule and conquer and shine, to the dismay and envy of their neighbours, they regard as the high and foremost thing, the test and the meaning of all else.

Verily, my brother, if thou knewest but a people’s need, its land, its sky, and its neighbour, then wouldst thou divine the law of its surmountings, and why it climbeth up that ladder to its hope.

“Always shalt thou be the foremost and prominent above others: no one shall thy jealous soul love, except a friend”—that made the soul of a Greek thrill: thereby went he his way to greatness.

“To speak truth, and be skilful with bow and arrow”—so seemed it alike pleasing and hard to the people from whom cometh my name—the name which is alike pleasing and hard to me.

“To honour father and mother, and from the root of the soul to do their will”—this table of surmounting hung another people over them, and became powerful and permanent thereby.

“To have fidelity, and for the sake of fidelity to risk honour and blood, even in evil and dangerous courses”—teaching itself so, another people mastered itself, and thus mastering itself, became pregnant and heavy with great hopes.

Verily, men have given unto themselves all their good and bad. Verily, they took it not, they found it not, it came not unto them as a voice from heaven.

Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself—he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself “man,” that is, the valuator.

Valuing is creating: hear it, ye creating ones! Valuation itself is the treasure and jewel of the valued things.

Through valuation only is there value; and without valuation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear it, ye creating ones!

Change of values—that is, change of the creating ones. Always doth he destroy who hath to be a creator.

Creating ones were first of all peoples, and only in late times individuals; verily, the individual himself is still the latest creation.

Peoples once hung over them tables of the good. Love which would rule and love which would obey, created for themselves such tables.

Older is the pleasure in the herd than the pleasure in the ego: and as long as the good conscience is for the herd, the bad conscience only saith: ego.

Verily, the crafty ego, the loveless one, that seeketh its advantage in the advantage of many—it is not the origin of the herd, but its ruin.

Loving ones, was it always, and creating ones, that created good and bad. Fire of love gloweth in the names of all the virtues, and fire of wrath.

Many lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: no greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than the creations of the loving ones—”good” and “bad” are they called.

Verily, a prodigy is this power of praising and blaming. Tell me, ye brethren, who will master it for me? Who will put a fetter upon the thousand necks of this animal?

A thousand goals have there been hitherto, for a thousand peoples have there been. Only the fetter for the thousand necks is still lacking; there is lacking the one goal. As yet humanity hath not a goal.

But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity be still lacking, is there not also still lacking—humanity itself?—

Thus spake Zarathustra.

I closed my response to the comments by asking a question that I want to raise in a top-level post.

If we roll the clock forward 200 years, how do we think humanity will communicate quantitative information at a global level?

As a comp, take a quick look at what is going on in 1808.

I don’t consider this a science fiction exercise.

I consider it an exercise in brainstorming what we want the future to be like.

I am a fan of “The Long Now” and “The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Really smart people with reasonable funding can do just about anything that doesn’t violate too many of Newton’s Laws!”

There is a huge debate about how to “run” such a “ship” and what problems we need to address right away, but I would love for us to start with some simple things:

1. Adopt UTC time everywhere on the planet
2. Adopt the metric system (SI) everywhere on the planet

It is just unbelievable to me that I have to spend anytime at all doing time zone and measurement conversions (which I have been doing a lot of lately, so it is top of mind).

Also, I don’t think it is possible for people to work effectively unless they are all communicating using the same mechanisms and metaphors.

The same time and measurement mechanisms would be a great start to getting everyone on the planet “on the same page”.

Of course, that principle begs two other questions.  When do we move to a same currency?  When do we move to the same language (at least one we all agree that everyone should speak)?

I hesitate to even blog about this topic openly as know that these sorts of issues cause one to call into question one’s identity and values in a deep way, but if you have internalized that we are on a small ship in a vast sea with no land in sight (that could be taking on water), issues like language, currency, time zone, and measurement pale in comparison (at least for me).

One other point worth mentioning, I view measurement, currency, etc. as “encodings” for information.  The high order bit for me is efficient information flow.  Moving to a standard encoding (think Unicode, etc.) for time, economic value, etc. would be a huge win.

I wonder if there is an “Adopt UTC” or “Adopt SI” groups out there, may be I should start my own group: “Spaceship Earth Foundation”.

It turns out that there was something a little deeper there for me to grok; the importance of Soft Power.

This has always been applicable to nation-states, but I have been thinking about it in context of professional team interactions.

It is an interesting to reflect on the different styles of interaction between different teams, especially at a large corporation like Microsoft.

Zakaria’s book has started to help me see the utility of soft power in a different light.

This puts it firmly in the “fair trade” category.