So I've been considering the current changes that things like globalization, technology and access to knowledge are having on shaping our path as a species.

For this discussion, I'm interested in looking at how we can use calculative tools to approach the issue, in a way that doesn't rely on improving the human condition, but actually works under that assumption that the human condition (at least for now) evolves too slowly to be the factor that we can improve first.

Note: I'm not saying that it is the case. But I think that in order to look at the alternative starting points to progress I will assume the human condition to be a constant in the equation.


As the world becomes more socially conscious, the richest are becoming exponentially richer, and the bridge separating the remarkable innovations we've made with the people who need them the most remains sinfully wide. The threat of technology, nuclear war, climate change etc is growing faster than our species is collectively civilizing, or enlightening. So what then can the most educated, the most awakened, the most aware altruistic tier of people do to instigate a sharp shift in our coexistence? It seems that we need something, an era of intense change, if we are to avoid the seemingly imminent threat we pose to ourselves. The problem is that eras like the 60's etc are more unlikely as people are numbed by their facebook and prescription meds, and their focus on self. And also, the volume of information available is a catalyst for apathy.

The word revolution may come to mind, and historically it has been what ushers in change. But I think that we are in a time where improving ourselves must come from tactics, strategy and long term investment. Revolution and conflict in this world would only benefit the elite, and at best segeway into another version of the same realities.

I've been thinking about the differences between the power of a person's altruism and the power of a person's lack of conscience. It's an interesting thing to see how altruism is limited by it's own integrity while the freedom to seek goals by any means necessary has a compounding growth. Taking the metaphor of seeds, the beautiful seed of altruism may only grow under certain conditions while the self serving seed of selfishness will spread as a weed, inhabiting all the space it can.

Take charities and corporations. We have seen many charities which were started with good intentions become profit making machines. To survive, they gradually evolve to become less efficient (in relation to our cabilities) and more open to being tools for political capital. Corporations on the other hand are absolutely thriving. They're growth is of a compounding nature, as they can climb around almost any legal restrictions put in place. We live in a world where companies like facebook and google are as powerful as nations.

So this is where I started to consider other ways to approach the problems we are facing - IE not from examining the human condition.

The elite and the most powerful institutions, states and individuals will not facilitate any radical shift of our existence that will affect their goals, way of life or accumulated power. So an adversarial stance against those who profit from the status quo seems futile. They're presentation of the "way of doing things" is deeply rooted in every aspect of society, and they are resourced with product, media, money and influence. But the thing that altruism has in its favour over this is its longevity. And if we can learn to structure our approach to progress in a way that outlives the lifespan of what is self serving, we can maybe get there in time.

I have no real idea of how this could be done. But I think the following factors are important parts of the puzzle.

1) In order to improve our world, the distance between the highest and lowest must be narrowed. That needs to be done from both sides IE improving the baseline of human existence with medicines, food, shelter and education, while dispersing power and influence to larger numbers of people.

2) Find a way where the increase in equality and the deconcentration of power is done incrementally so as not to be seen as threatening to the structures and people at the top. Finding ways where they stand to benefit along with everyone else would be optimal - an example being startbucks gaining more customers by announcing they commit to hiring a percentage of refugees as their staff.

3) creating more social capital and reverence around innovations that help the overall progression of global improvement - Have the budding elon musk's of tomorrow setting their genius towards working from the bottom up, rather than the top down. Encouraging the idea that they can still be on the frontier of human advancement by getting water to every human as opposed to sending some poor chap to mars. Again this is not trying to change people's ego, but to redirect it to lifting humanity as opposed to pulling it.

I was thinking about starting points. Perhaps one could be creating altruism as a currency or capital. We've seen the power of mass mobility via social media, #metoo being an example. Weinstein was a catalyst, of course, but with twitter etc there was a path for the momentum of people's individual reactions to flow collectively, and was too fast and too reinforced to be squashed by all the money and influence that was thrown at it. If we could create an online platform, an app, or software that was a permanent fixture in our daily lives that could facilitate changes like metoo then it would be a place for causes to catch fire.

Or an app/online platform that scores companies by their ability to provide for their communities. Restaurants gain points by giving spare food to the homeless, or companies scoring for their low carbon footprint, or companies who employ staff with disabilities. These things are already done by companies, but play their game by making them compete with each other over it. You could be a person who is sensitive to a certain cause, and only buy from companies with high accumulated scores for aiding that cause. The mindset and structures required are already ingrained in our lives. Take how we socialise online, and use that construct for how we consume. This is something that doesn't need a shift in the human condition, as people will do it simply to feel good about themselves, and it could take relatively little sacrifice for the individual if it was done correctly. Then the trend becomes ingrained in our way of life, and the human condition will evolve as a result, rather than the other way around.

If there were enough of these types of structures and channels for altruism to take root, then maybe we could do what hasn't been done before, and enable altruism to work under the paradigm I used to explain the power of a person's lack of conscience. So that altruism is offered exponential growth and less obstacles. And none of this relies on improving our moral integrity, but actually gives it the opportunity to grow as it would anyway, but without the threat of extinction beating it to the finish line!

Final thought:
This is a collection of ideas that represent the furthest my imagination has gone in looking at what we are, and considering where we could most tangibly take autonomy over our future. I am sure that there are major problematic factors I haven't considered, and I really welcome them being pointed out. I would love your detailed explanations of the problems you find, and if you feel there's any idea above to tease out together, fire away and I'll happily bounce back and forth!

Thanks for reading!