Hi, my name's Tony, and I've got some tech I really wanna show you because it's able to bypass a lot of the resistance that comes up when people propose new systems.
Namely the catch-22 that is people needing to see everyone else believe in it before they'll contribute, leading to the new system not getting enough people to make the kinda impact that'll melt through lifetimes of cynicism and Make them believe.
So instead we built something more like Wikipedia but for all ideas, for any problem, and all problems for any subject. So the same tools a kid might use to learn how to share an idea for a problem at their school, can be applied to anything else. Even things like spoken languages, spots on the world map, corporations, and movements. This way people don't have to believe in anything more than 1 idea. -by simply sharing an idea or helping make one succeed, they end up helping the whole cause. People start getting more ideas.
I really like your messaging, I think the stuff I've seen so far's totally on point, and I'm curious if you're familiar with Marshal Rosenberg's NonViolent Communication. We gave people the ability to add layers to ideas on Needpedia for different kinds of experts, then realized if someone has an idea for something like a homeless shelter, then women, people with experience living in shelters, and people with disabilities should also be able to create layers as well, so that they can get their own space to discuss the idea among each other. Then we realized layers could be created for NVC and that's exciting because now people can spend entire days talking about the most controversial ideas on Earth without anyone using insults or other labels. NVC is so well defined that open source AI can be embedded to *only* let people post statements that comply with its rules. And it is lightning fast because it 100% focuses on what people need to solve a problem.
In case I miss your response here, please feel free to email me at Info@Needpedia.org
What are your thoughts about running individual nation states and even the entire world as a DAO (Decentralized autonomous organization)?
This will effectively eliminate politicians as decision makers altogether (no Parliament, No government) with the only mechanism needed is a very trim and highly efficient layer of public servants whose only role is to execute the decisions of the DAO to the letter and nothing else (they have no discretion. They are essentially automatons).
Even that layer will be the absolute minimum with the humans only performing tasks that cannot absolutely be done by a smart contract.
We went to Eth Denver to the Network State convention. Network States are digital countries that are being run as DAOs. These are critical but they have a problem that Collective Intelligence solves:
Namely, editing the DAO.
We have a new theory:
Network states (and governments and businesses) can be run with DAOs (smart contracts for those new to the terminology) but the DAO acts as the laws, and the justice department. However, how are laws written?
This is awesome and eerily similar to an idea I was pursuing a few months ago. I'd be happy to send you my very incomplete whitepaper if you have a public email address. I'm not sure I have the time or intellectual capacity to develop it fully on my own but there may be some nuggets you can use if interested.
Amazingly, I did think of YOU this very morning and wondered why you had not posted lately: I see you and your co-thinkers have been very busy working on the Questions and Answers and the concept of the human Swarm intelligence: I want to wish you a very HAPPY NEW YEAR 2024. I will not write a post on Substack for New Year's, instead I will read others. I posted a personal note on my Uptown L.A Blog. I still just Praise the Lord and seek answers from the The WORD. ttyl, Josh and have a New Year filled with the answers that you seek: I heard 8 balls are on sale half price at Target. HO HO HO. yes I still do have sense of humor; Best 2024 Isabell
This article does a good job of avoiding oversimplified solutions. It acknowledges that group decision-making systems aren't perfect and need careful design - things like time limits, anonymity, and multiple rounds of refinement. The writers admit they don't have all the answers about ideal group sizes or methods, which shows welcome humility. This practical, trial-and-error approach is valuable because it recognizes that human systems always have flaws but can be gradually improved.
However, the article has some unexamined assumptions worth noting:
It treats "trust" as an automatic outcome rather than something that needs to be actively built and maintained in large groups.
It assumes decentralized systems are inherently better, without considering how they can develop their own problems.
It's overly optimistic about group wisdom, overlooking examples where crowds make poor decisions.
The core idea - using structured group decision-making to combat corruption - has merit. But we should approach it realistically, recognizing that any human system can be gamed or manipulated, and building safeguards accordingly. The technology might help, but only if we're honest about its limitations.
Interesting, but the capitalist class needs to be neutered, so that social production can be employed. What else, given capitalism, as an economic system, is finished?
Capitalism isn’t the problem. The correct identification of the problem is : corruption, and lack of demand for transparent businesses and governments and all systems. If a system isn’t transparent, we should not trust it.
WOW. so KarlM alias said the capitalist class needs to be eliminated? I was going to just go on my merry way; I am sure that those who feel that a whole group of people like half the world including China biggest capitalists in the world or those who have studied history realize that there is no such thing as a "capitalist class" which not comprised of HUMAN BEINGS. so should I draw the conclusion that KarlM is saying HUMAN BEINGS NEED to be eliminated? My scientific and logic .. well.. that is how I got that to that conclusion. Phone ringing.. Happy New Year.. again. yes. You are right but you had to know that would be the response.. wonder how he affords a computer?.. later. Isabell
Neutered does not mean eliminated. If you read the referenced blog (https://techno-society.com/), you will see how wrong you are to say I think, 'HUMAN BEINGS NEED to be eliminated'.
There can be no discussion about “capitalism” or “democracy” without defining your meaning, since everyone takes liberty in the definitions and uses them to suit.
Would you rather give your money to Jeff Bezos at Amazon?
Or to a corporation that was completely transparent and run by a swarm which included the employees? One where you as the customer could see everything? How much our employees made, how much we made, and what we did with those profits?
Ethical capitalism is possible. Think of it from the consumer side. Transparency is the key, and most business owners won’t get their egos out of the way to do this. But this is not merely. a hypothetical. We have seen it work in businesses.
If you run a business you don’t have to believe us. You can try it and see.
Maybe, or maybe capitalism has run its course. You can see nothing better, but I bet the people living in Feudal times thought the same thing. Until feudalism was replaced, that is.
It has been unsuccessful due to a number of reasons. The technology at the time was not advanced enough. Only a few isolated countries tried 'socialism' - it cannot work that way. More or less the whole world needs to switch, as has always happened in previous economic system changes.
Anyway, you can have social production, or as outlined in https://techno-society.com/, part social production without people having to live in some lockstep dystopian nightmare. I want EVERBODY to have a say in how society operates, and all decisions made, but people don't seem to like that idea. I wonder why?
Go start a communist company. Nothing is stopping you. That is the beauty of the free market. You would think there should be at least one success story by now.
Huh? Communism always has a centralized and thus corruptible central government.
America was decentralized for the time. The system is corrupted again, so we need to decentralize it further and make our systems harder to corrupt.
We are building a digital version of this. So come try to prove it wrong with us. It’s like a flight simulator. A digital direct democracy.
It is the way out of this corruption. Decentralized systems are harder to corrupt. So are transparent ones.
Hi, my name's Tony, and I've got some tech I really wanna show you because it's able to bypass a lot of the resistance that comes up when people propose new systems.
Namely the catch-22 that is people needing to see everyone else believe in it before they'll contribute, leading to the new system not getting enough people to make the kinda impact that'll melt through lifetimes of cynicism and Make them believe.
So instead we built something more like Wikipedia but for all ideas, for any problem, and all problems for any subject. So the same tools a kid might use to learn how to share an idea for a problem at their school, can be applied to anything else. Even things like spoken languages, spots on the world map, corporations, and movements. This way people don't have to believe in anything more than 1 idea. -by simply sharing an idea or helping make one succeed, they end up helping the whole cause. People start getting more ideas.
I really like your messaging, I think the stuff I've seen so far's totally on point, and I'm curious if you're familiar with Marshal Rosenberg's NonViolent Communication. We gave people the ability to add layers to ideas on Needpedia for different kinds of experts, then realized if someone has an idea for something like a homeless shelter, then women, people with experience living in shelters, and people with disabilities should also be able to create layers as well, so that they can get their own space to discuss the idea among each other. Then we realized layers could be created for NVC and that's exciting because now people can spend entire days talking about the most controversial ideas on Earth without anyone using insults or other labels. NVC is so well defined that open source AI can be embedded to *only* let people post statements that comply with its rules. And it is lightning fast because it 100% focuses on what people need to solve a problem.
In case I miss your response here, please feel free to email me at Info@Needpedia.org
check email!
VERY interesting concept. Love it!
What are your thoughts about running individual nation states and even the entire world as a DAO (Decentralized autonomous organization)?
This will effectively eliminate politicians as decision makers altogether (no Parliament, No government) with the only mechanism needed is a very trim and highly efficient layer of public servants whose only role is to execute the decisions of the DAO to the letter and nothing else (they have no discretion. They are essentially automatons).
Even that layer will be the absolute minimum with the humans only performing tasks that cannot absolutely be done by a smart contract.
We went to Eth Denver to the Network State convention. Network States are digital countries that are being run as DAOs. These are critical but they have a problem that Collective Intelligence solves:
Namely, editing the DAO.
We have a new theory:
Network states (and governments and businesses) can be run with DAOs (smart contracts for those new to the terminology) but the DAO acts as the laws, and the justice department. However, how are laws written?
With collective intelligence systems.
This is awesome and eerily similar to an idea I was pursuing a few months ago. I'd be happy to send you my very incomplete whitepaper if you have a public email address. I'm not sure I have the time or intellectual capacity to develop it fully on my own but there may be some nuggets you can use if interested.
Our email is attached to our substack. Just reply to the email of any of our articles
Amazingly, I did think of YOU this very morning and wondered why you had not posted lately: I see you and your co-thinkers have been very busy working on the Questions and Answers and the concept of the human Swarm intelligence: I want to wish you a very HAPPY NEW YEAR 2024. I will not write a post on Substack for New Year's, instead I will read others. I posted a personal note on my Uptown L.A Blog. I still just Praise the Lord and seek answers from the The WORD. ttyl, Josh and have a New Year filled with the answers that you seek: I heard 8 balls are on sale half price at Target. HO HO HO. yes I still do have sense of humor; Best 2024 Isabell
Lol Happy New Year! You are too funny!
This article does a good job of avoiding oversimplified solutions. It acknowledges that group decision-making systems aren't perfect and need careful design - things like time limits, anonymity, and multiple rounds of refinement. The writers admit they don't have all the answers about ideal group sizes or methods, which shows welcome humility. This practical, trial-and-error approach is valuable because it recognizes that human systems always have flaws but can be gradually improved.
However, the article has some unexamined assumptions worth noting:
It treats "trust" as an automatic outcome rather than something that needs to be actively built and maintained in large groups.
It assumes decentralized systems are inherently better, without considering how they can develop their own problems.
It's overly optimistic about group wisdom, overlooking examples where crowds make poor decisions.
The core idea - using structured group decision-making to combat corruption - has merit. But we should approach it realistically, recognizing that any human system can be gamed or manipulated, and building safeguards accordingly. The technology might help, but only if we're honest about its limitations.
Interesting, but the capitalist class needs to be neutered, so that social production can be employed. What else, given capitalism, as an economic system, is finished?
https://techno-society.com/
If a business is transparent they are forced to follow the 5 pillars of ethical business like we wrote about here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/the-5-pillars-of-ethical-businesses?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Capitalism isn’t the problem. The correct identification of the problem is : corruption, and lack of demand for transparent businesses and governments and all systems. If a system isn’t transparent, we should not trust it.
WOW. so KarlM alias said the capitalist class needs to be eliminated? I was going to just go on my merry way; I am sure that those who feel that a whole group of people like half the world including China biggest capitalists in the world or those who have studied history realize that there is no such thing as a "capitalist class" which not comprised of HUMAN BEINGS. so should I draw the conclusion that KarlM is saying HUMAN BEINGS NEED to be eliminated? My scientific and logic .. well.. that is how I got that to that conclusion. Phone ringing.. Happy New Year.. again. yes. You are right but you had to know that would be the response.. wonder how he affords a computer?.. later. Isabell
Neutered does not mean eliminated. If you read the referenced blog (https://techno-society.com/), you will see how wrong you are to say I think, 'HUMAN BEINGS NEED to be eliminated'.
There can be no discussion about “capitalism” or “democracy” without defining your meaning, since everyone takes liberty in the definitions and uses them to suit.
Or, we can take over capitalism with swarms.
Would you rather give your money to Jeff Bezos at Amazon?
Or to a corporation that was completely transparent and run by a swarm which included the employees? One where you as the customer could see everything? How much our employees made, how much we made, and what we did with those profits?
Ethical capitalism is possible. Think of it from the consumer side. Transparency is the key, and most business owners won’t get their egos out of the way to do this. But this is not merely. a hypothetical. We have seen it work in businesses.
If you run a business you don’t have to believe us. You can try it and see.
Like this: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/fix-any-business-using-human-swarm
Maybe, or maybe capitalism has run its course. You can see nothing better, but I bet the people living in Feudal times thought the same thing. Until feudalism was replaced, that is.
A free market with a transparent and decentralized system is the answer.
uh huh..
Yeah we all know how successful Communism/Socialism is. Hard to believe there are this many Utopians that still exist...but they do---for now.
In what way is this communism socialism? This is direct democracy but instead of voting we are using a swarm. A way to solve problems in large groups
It has been unsuccessful due to a number of reasons. The technology at the time was not advanced enough. Only a few isolated countries tried 'socialism' - it cannot work that way. More or less the whole world needs to switch, as has always happened in previous economic system changes.
Anyway, you can have social production, or as outlined in https://techno-society.com/, part social production without people having to live in some lockstep dystopian nightmare. I want EVERBODY to have a say in how society operates, and all decisions made, but people don't seem to like that idea. I wonder why?
Go start a communist company. Nothing is stopping you. That is the beauty of the free market. You would think there should be at least one success story by now.