global cooperation

What are today's radical Second Enlightenment/Renaissance Dangerous Ideas? Once upon a time, in a continent now known as Europe, radical thinkers gathered in private homes to discuss radical ideas for the world. Through countless discussions, debates, and writings, they envisioned the future that we now live in.

At the time, these ideas were radical and could easily lead to death and exile. Thus, why they needed to gather in private.

Some of these ideas included

- Downfall of royalty and nobility, allowance for "public" to vote for their government
- God as not a personal deity that's interfering on a daily basis and favoring some over others
- Belief that each person should be able to dictate their own spiritual life
- Allowing "free" markets to dictate what's developed versus central command
- Equality before the law, a universal set of laws should equally apply to everyone regardless of background

And more. Of course we can debate on how the ideals fell short of reality. Or how a lot of these ideas actually have earlier origins in Christianity and so on and so forth.

But, my Q is what are the radical ideas of the future, now?

So much of the current discourse is around trying to return to where we were in the 1990s/2000s or earlier. Rarely, has anyone really shared a big visoin of the future. Closest is some transhumanist dream of merging with AI and creating some sort of multiplanetary cyborg future. 

Some wide suggestions:

- We need a world government with real power in order to solve coordination problems of the global scale.

- We should have one monetary dominant currency that's based on crypto

- All assets (physical or digital) should be backed with a crypto so we can easily track its ownership as well as give gradient rights like renting access

- Separation of Church & State was a interim step that doesn't ultimately work. Need a universal church that allows for multiplicity of local contextual religions that's integrated with State & Marketplace.

- Everyone should have the right to end their life 

- Everyone should have basic universal income

- All land should be on a lease basis that defaults back to commons after death of leaser. Renewal is possible but not guaranteed.

- Voting should be mandatory (it is in AUS)

- Education funding should be equally applied rather than local property tax basis.

- Alcohol should be heavily taxed, weed should be heavily taxed, other psychedelics should be legalized

- Any company that takes in public funding should have to give away partial ownership shares back to commons

- A social trust score should be assigned to everyone. Everyone can review you. You cannot see your own score. Others can only see your score if you give them access.

- Owning large property w/o using it or doing conservation should be heavily taxed

- More services should be offered on a net worth basis rather than fixed cost.

- You should be allowed to pay 0 taxes but then you lose access to all public services (ER, police, fire, protection in foreign countries, extra fined for highway access) and you're listed on a database as such so others can charge/discount people on that basis

When it comes "the global warming debate," there are often third ways that are ignored. Often the framing is global warming and climate deniers or something like that.

but it seems like there are obviously multiple perspectives here, and these two black and white boxes keep us from really seeing potential solutions.

Bjorn Lomborg for example believes in man-made climate change, but also doesn’t like the alarmism. Although he cherry picks data like he accuses others of, he also I think rightfully points out lots of flaws in the arguments that help us identify solutions. Much of the hurricane damage increase over time is because we’re building bigger and more expensive houses in hurricane alleys; for this problem, we can stop building there; everybody stopping flying altogether until 2100 delays increases the increase by a few weeks, so stopping flying isn’t the solution. Often the solutions are smaller, more local, less sexy: want less polar bears to die? Increase regulation on poaching. (Polar bear populations are up over the past decade because of this, apparently). I would love to identify and popularize these solutions, so they are spoken in the same breath as global warming rather than it being all gloom and doom and end of the world.

There are real tricky questions about what we’re trying to preserve and for whom, as well. If all we care about are humans and climate migration, then building infrastructure in places like Haiti and even evolving to coal power would be more helpful.