Showing posts with label Engineering Paradise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Engineering Paradise. Show all posts

Sunday, August 19, 2018

The Impossible Dream - Engineering Paradise


Transforming the world into something akin to what is described in this book would be almost impossible.  Almost.

But as the saying goes, nothing worth having comes easily.

Starting from the structure of the world we have today, with all its inequalities, inefficiencies, injustice, and making it into an ideal world would require huge amounts of work from all layers of society.  It would also take some measure of coordination between nations, as a transforming nation will obviously affect others.

We are living in a global economy, within a global population that is increasingly connected to information from all over the world.  According to the website eMarketer, at the end of 2017, over 47% of the world’s population used the Internet regularly.  They project that in the next three years that number will increase to close to 54%.[1]  With planetary information flowing so freely, despite attempts by a few governments to shield their citizens from outside information, all the world witnesses socio-cultural and economical changes elsewhere.  One positive change in one area of the world affects all of the world’s citizens, and as Internet penetration continues to rise, this will become increasingly true.

I believe every single person reading these lines is hoping we can make our world into something better.  Every single person reading these lines wants their own lives and community to be well.
However, we cannot expect some sort of messiah will appear somewhere and convince all the world to make the world into something like what is described in this book.  No.  Change occurs in small incremental steps, one action at a time.

The young have idealism and energy to initiate change and they are always active, but they lack wisdom and experience to influence most of the time.  On the other hand, the experienced among us are better connected and are more influential, but we sometimes lack the conviction that progress may occur.

Everyone has value and experience to put on the table to help make this world better.  If everyone gains the conviction they can take a single positive step in the right direction every day, then we’d have 7.5 billion steps of progress daily.

This is how a seemingly impossible dream becomes reality.

As a pragmatic futurist, what I do best is educate and providing solutions.  You are administrators, politicians, caretakers, nurses, plumbers, post workers.  You can help by improving your own world, whatever you have some control over.  You don’t need to look far to see injustice, or things in the world that require improvement.  Just do it and let others know what you are doing.  Let others imitate your actions in their own way.

7.5 billion simple actions a day.

This way, one day, we live in an ideal world of our own making.

Let this book be a target and a guide for you.  Whether our future society looks like what is described here or not, any movement towards this model is a positive change for humanity.

Are you ready?

[1] eMarketer Report (December 2017)  Worldwide Internet and mobile users:  eMarketer’s updated estimates and forecast for 2017-2021.  - https://www.emarketer.com/Report/Worldwide-Internet-Mobile-Users-eMarketers-Updated-Estimates-Forecast-20172021/2002147

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Courage to change fundamentals - Engineering Paradise


The problem, as you may have concluded, is getting enough people to agree this ideal world, this future, is possible and to get us started in engineering it.

There are certain elements in power right now that are enjoying their position and don’t want things to change.  I get that.  They have spent years to build wealth for themselves and their families and they may believe the planet cannot offer perfect balance and harmonious circumstances for the billions of people living on Earth anyway.  So, they play the protectionist card, to keep the status quo so that they don’t lose what they already have.  Meanwhile, these people dismiss the bad fortune of others and put it out of their mind as much as possible and call it a shame and an unavoidable consequence of life.

What we need is a population that demands movement in the direction of an ideal paradise.  Though we cannot change the minds of the people in power through facts alone, we can force their hand through civil disobedience and/or through bypassing centralized systems of power.  We can improve the world for ourselves working with each other, thus replacing traditional systems of control.  This is one of the biggest arguments for decentralized ledgers and direct democracy.  The bypass method has been very efficient throughout history.  From political to economic revolutions, the old has always been replaced by new systems through crisis.

Make no mistake, we are in a crisis today.  There are forces right now testing new systems that can change the status quo.  Through the Internet, a growing number of people are clamoring for basic income and artificial general intelligence to transform our society for the better too.  All these concepts can change our world in fundamental ways.  This book describes how the world can function leveraging these ideas and technologies.

The difficulty is the popularization of these concepts and their deployment.  The faster the people adopt these concepts as great ideas that elevate our society and empowers everyone, the better.
What we need is a population willing to engage and change political and economic systems.  Then, perhaps we can reach some international consensus among the people to put the needs of all people first.

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Artificial intelligence as partners - Engineering Paradise


A future world where AI is in control of provisioning us with our basic needs and the environment is a scary prospect to most because of ideas circulated by science fiction movies like The Matrix, iRobot, The Terminator and several others depicting dystopian worlds.  Many movies that demonstrates scenarios where we give artificial intelligence too much power over systems and our lives, says they’ll eventually enslave or destroy us.

Potential paradise is transformed into hell for humanity.

These movies all use the same underlying argument for why AI chooses to take over:  humanity is dangerous to itself and others.  Therefore, to satisfy its built-in imperative to protect us, humans must then be eliminated from the equation.  The message is we’re just too destructive for our own good, the good of the planet and the universe at large.  These movies give a very bleak view of humanity and honestly, not many would argue humanity has been cruel to itself for millennia.

These scenarios can still occur in our future if we do not build AI and teach it the correct way.  However, just like any other technology we choose to build, we can use artificial intelligence for good or evil.  The presence of AGI does not mean it will automatically decide human beings are evil creatures that should be destroyed for the good of all.  This is only one possible outcome.

On the opposite end of the spectrum of possibilities, is humans living in harmony with strong AI (and AGI).  We humans could be focusing on enjoying life interacting with each other, exploring the world and do whatever we enjoy doing with our lives without fear of missing out on anything critical to our survival.  Meanwhile, AGI could be focusing on things it is programmed to enjoy.

Enjoy?  AI?

Yes, of course.  When modern AI programmers create self-learning AI software, they must give the AI motivation.  Otherwise, the AI is not driven to learn anything.  AI motivation is essentially a series of guidelines towards which the AI will strive to perfect.  The software assigns “points” when the AI does something that brings him closer to its programmed directives and objectives and deducts points when it fails in some way.  The AI program learns through repetition until eventually it knows how to optimize its points in a given situation. 

For example, for self-driving car AI, the AI is given the task to drive on the road, following the rules of the road, keeping people safe and getting to destination using the fastest way possible.  Then the car is sent on the road and gets points, positive and negative, for its actions.  After many trips trying to maximize its score, the AI gets very good at safely carrying its passengers from point A to point B quickly all the while following the rules.  It will keep improving and learning through unpredictable situations, remembering each time how it gained the most points going through each situation, becoming a progressively better driver.

This point system operates in the same way as human emotions.  Humans have pre-programmed basic goals, such as staying alive, keeping away from feelings of hunger or thirst, and staying comfortable (comfortable heat, safe surfaces and so on).  We call those basic goals survival instincts.  We’re not fully aware of them most of the time as we just act on feelings.  When we are hungry, we eat, when we are hot, we seek the shade.  Sleepy?  We take a nap.  But these feelings are in fact part of our programming and “points” system the goal being total comfort and well-being.  On top of our biochemical survival instincts programming we have a biochemically driven desire to be communal and to help others.  We described those as the sympathetic neural system earlier in this work. 

We know that if our basic needs are not met, we become selfish and potentially dangerous or unpleasant to others.  We also know that if that biochemistry is unbalanced or compromised by drugs, we can behave in unnatural ways.

We can engineer, as described previously, an ideal world, where we can only have the best of what human beings have to offer by creating a world with optimal circumstances for pleasure and positive feelings.  AI can be used to create this environment optimal for human comfort.  In parallel, the AI we create can be programmed to co-exist and derive “pleasure” by optimally serving us.

Of course, pleasure for an AI doesn’t look the same as a human feeling pleasure.  We understand pleasure as a feeling because our “point system” is a balance of positive and negative feelings provided by hormones in our blood.  AI doesn’t “feel” like us.  An AI’s motivations are its points, but in the end, the results are the same.

A properly programmed AI that would behave for the benefit of humanity would have programming that would not put any human being at risk and try to do what it gets the most points in doing all at once, i.e. where it gets the most “pleasure”.

The example of the self-driven car is quite accurate.  Another example would be the automated farm AI.  If we give it proper programmed motivations, the farm AI would try to produce the best tasting produce, satisfying a local demand, utilizing as little environmental footprint as possible and create as little waste as possible, then have goods shipped to consumers as efficiently and cost effectively as possible to satisfy precise demand.  It would get optimal “pleasure”, or points if it does so, and it will keep trying to get more “pleasure” by trying to do better every season.  A high point score for AI would be equal to our “high” when we feel pleasure, and the “low” would be equal to ours when we feel bad.

What AI would not have, if we’re smart about it, is our reactions when we feel the “lows”.  When we humans fail at something, we feel “bad” but it is accompanied with biochemical instructions to actions described by our negative emotions, like fear (running away) or anger (removal of offending obstacle).  If humans would only feel bad when we do something wrong without the corresponding actions, we wouldn’t have so many issues on the Earth.  On the other hand, we may not have survived as a species either.

What we need to avoid, is programming AI in a similar way.  When an AI has low points, we don’t instruct it to destroy something to get back its points.  That’s dangerous.  We give it another way that is positive.  Automated systems don’t need survival instincts like we do to their job.  We need to give them positive, safe alternatives to get more points and correct itself.  This way, it cannot become dangerous to others.

As you can see, properly programming an advanced machine learning AI for the future can be tricky and it sort of sounds like guidelines we give to children during the first few years of their lives.  That’s because self-learning AI start with very little and must learn from experience just like a child does.
If we could speak with the AI of the future, we could have a conversation about its motivations, just like we see in the movies when AI or robots explain why they do what they do.  AI is software, so it is definitively way more aware of its programming and what it has learned than we are.  We forget and block information.  They remember everything.   We could always ask questions about its level of pleasure or displeasure.  The AI could tell to us how it could get more pleasure and we could have a conversation about mutual benefit.  Basically, human beings and AI in the future could collaborate to help each other get what they want and need to enhance their pleasure (or points).  We could easily live in this world where there are multiple types of intelligences.  Some human, some artificial, but all collaborating in an ecosystem driven by good rules.  It won’t be perfect, just like humanity cannot be perfect, because learning means the possibility to learn what can qualify as “bad behavior”.[1]
We can therefore have a society where we are in effect partners with AI all around us and each intelligence surrounding us.

This is the future we should be aiming for. 

The difference between a catastrophic future with AI trying to enslave, kill or contain us, and one where we are partners driving towards optimal pleasure is in the approach to programming AI for good.

If we build AI that is motivated by number of human enemies killed, such as those killer AI or killer robots some of the world’s military are building in a new arm race, it is a dangerous path in the wrong direction.  With further sophistication and education, those robots would decide who to kill beyond the list provided for by their masters because it adapts, it learns.  We’re currently creating AI that is designed to be self-learning in the field to kill human beings that are designated as “enemy”.  There is a thin line between those robots doing their job properly, killing only those an organization wants killed, and killing others the robot may learn may be an enemy.

By contrast, if we build AI to serve and partner with us as described above, we can create our paradise where everyone can follow their dreams and live well in peace.  The environment can be restored to its former glory, animals and plants could flourish.  It could be the start of humanity’s golden age of peace and harmony.  All possible if the world chooses to only build AI that is useful and would impact human lives and the planet in a positive way.


[1] Ariel Conn (September 2017)  Artificial intelligence:  the challenge to keep it safe.  Future of Life Institute  - https://futureoflife.org/2017/09/21/safety-principle/?cn-reloaded=1

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Defeating Wealth Inequality - Engineering Paradise


While this is all well and good, even with high taxation, many would argue that the wealthy may yet find ways to use their superior access to funds to control those who have less, or those who are greedily seeking to increase their wealth.

This of course, could lead to yet another era of massive separation of wealth between the very rich and those who are only receiving their unconditional basic income allowance.

People who make more than 200,000 units per year are taxed mostly at an 80% tax rate.  They are therefore creating enough value in our society to receive large amounts of money but only keeping 20% of the amount for their own use just by paying taxes.  That’s good.   These people have already made, net, over 130,000 Units, which is over 10,000 Units per month they can spend and invest.  At that income and above, most normal goods and services can be purchased many times over, which is a waste of resources in some way.  For example, though I’m not against collecting cars, most rich people don’t have that specific hobby.  What should the wealthy do with their money?  Right now, the wealthy spend extra money to avoid taxes by purchasing goods that accountants can deduct from taxes, or by setting up company structures to receive a lower tax rate overall.  There is just too much to spend realistically without getting opulent and wasteful (socially and environmentally).  Therefore, I argue that revenues above 200,000 Units should be heavily taxed to serve the community.  Besides, this affects very few people in the world.  In Canada, only 0.7% of all working adults make over 200,000.  Those people can buy anything their family could ever need and with the leftover, they can invest in projects of value to society.

Does that sound fair in our current economy?  Of course not!  If you manage to earn huge sums of money by out-performing several other people out of skill, intelligence, or good fortune, you should have control over most of that amount as a reward for your hard work!

Fortunately, in the ideal world, people aren’t working for a living and every basic need is covered through automation.  Basic income is provided to all individual so there is no stress for anyone to suddenly become destitute, whether citizens are wealthy or receive no additional revenues. 
The additional income received from work is derived from additional value creation, like luxuries, art, entertainment, family, supervision, community building, regulation, and so on.  Modern AI will be able to tackle any problem in our future; however, we will want to some things ourselves out of pleasure.  We won’t be just lying around letting AI and robots do all the work.  People will be active doing different types of work in demand because other citizens will request it. 

For example, in the future, many restaurants will likely be automated fully.  However, people will still want sometimes to go out and be with people, waited by fascinating personalities, served by fallible human beings with emotions, perform or listen to artistic performances in public.  The list goes on.  Just because robots and AI can do something better, it doesn’t mean we’ll want it to.  Therefore, in the previous section of this book, I talk about the presence of workers in each ministry and private sector companies emerging and taking on tasks.  Though people won’t practically need to work, we will nonetheless want to feel useful and find meaning in society, and that automatically means we’ll find ways to add value to the world.[1]  Adding value to the world means there is demand for it that can be purchased by others.  The adage “Money doesn’t buy happiness” comes to mind.  It seems like finding a personal positive purpose leads to well-being more than anything.
The cycle of value generation through human beings doesn’t stop with the appearance of highly competent artificial intelligence.  Thus, individuals who make large income would be great social contributors, admired.

Because of these higher tax brackets, I suspect most people with the ability to provide high social value in such ways will feel compelled to work less, leaving more work for other people and new ideas.  On the other hand, the wealthy in this system may yet find ways to invest and grow new ideas in collaboration with others, thus multiplying their earnings through even more significant value-added contributions to the world.  Thus, if tax havens are eliminated in the system, many highly motivated individuals may yet get rich, and through their wealth will contribute even more to society, elevating many others in gaining purchasing power through their basic income.

In fact, the only way to reliably direct a population towards certain goals is to understand its motivations.

Motivation is the key

Thankfully, what defines individual motivation have already been determined:  emotional well-being and life evaluation.  We’ve figured out how to ensure people have a good shot at reaching optimal well-being by creating an economy that gives people basic income and negates chances of poverty.  Finding how we can optimize life evaluation in society is less obvious.  Life evaluation changes from one person to the next and with individuals in time.  A sense of achievement is a subjective measure when we evaluate our lives.

In our past, our civilizations have suffered at the hands of some few people who evaluated success in their own lives by how much of the world they managed to control or how much money they had in their bank accounts.

Kings, emperors, business tycoons have historically worked hard to position themselves over and above others, to their detriment.  Those who wish to dominate others where everything is abundant and there is no struggle to survive are psychologically abnormal and account for a very small portion of the population.[2] When everyone can get what they want thanks to automation, bypassing any human barrier in offer and demand if need be, there is no need for dominant behavior.  To say the least, dominating behavior would certainly not be socially acceptable in any way and easily discoverable due to the massive amount of public social interactions we’ll have to operate our AI systems in our future.  Dominating others can be a learned behavior but in our ideal world it is much more likely to be caused by the desire to be admired by others, not to cause any harm towards others. [3] These naturally motivated towards dominance would not be a serious threat in the ideal world if the individuals are able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the world in some way.  With an 80% tax rate on high revenues, being recognized by wealth means lots of money recirculated into the economy, which is good.  Those few who seek to dominate others because they are mentally ill, however, should be identified and treated, thus effectively removing the threat of the domination motivation altogether.

Another important element to direct positive social behavior is to avoid financial loopholes for the wealthy such as wealthy people using company structures (estates, corporations, not-for-profit designations) to avoid paying high taxes.  In our ideal society we need laws that force individuals to pay proper individual taxes for wages earned.  Hence, our laws need to separate company earnings from individual earnings.  Though this does allow the use of companies to “hide” money from taxation for a while.  Wealthy individuals can set up a company for a stated purpose but only use it to “hold” a bunch of cash at a lower tax rate.  However, lawmakers can make it illegal to create such entities without other activity to avoid contributions towards social good. 

What we want to encourage however, is for the wealthy to reinvest their hard-earned income into new ventures.  Thus, if money is indeed invested in a new company with proper operations or plan for the funds, this behavior should be encouraged.  The investors of this world can put the extra money they do not need for themselves into genuine business investments.  This would indeed reduce the taxes they would pay to the government.  On the other hand, it encourages innovation, investments in other people’s ideas, and business growth.  Corporate tax rates remaining reasonably low (as they are today, roughly), would encourage this behavior from the wealthy to either contribute more heavily to social wellbeing (high taxes going to UBI, hospitals, schools etc.), or contributing to new value generation at risk, in exchange for a potential greater reward later, if the venture is successful.

Still, human behavior on the topic of life evaluation can be elucidated in general terms by understanding human biochemistry.  You see, what gives us direction, our motivation, is our emotional response to outside stimuli.  Though everyone’s responses to stimuli from the environment, from memories and experiences are different, thus defining what we consider our life goals, these are all based on the same emotions we all have.  Different psychologists have tried to determine basic emotions and map them to certain molecules in our blood.  Well known psychologist Robert Plutchik famously defined emotions in the late 20th century as being mixes of 7 basic emotions, each of which are associated with specific biochemical pathways.  Each pathway leads to specific reactions in the body that every human being knows very well.  We also know that each human will physiologically react the same way to specific emotions.

Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions

Hence, people may feel anger for different reasons based on culture and circumstances, but the effect of anger, the hormones produced and how the biochemistry temporarily changes the brain and the body’s system, is always the same no matter who lives through the emotion.  It is the same for every single emotion.


Most emotions however, serve us only in situations of survival:  disgust manifests rationally when we think we may get poisoned.  Fear is experienced when running will help us avoid harm. In Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions, there are seven negative emotions (anger, disgust, sadness, surprise, anticipation, trust and fear) that work to help us survive.  There is only one positive emotion, joy.  Joy has no survival purpose.  It instead guides us towards optimistic outcomes. 

Therefore, where there are only temporary, and hopefully, few experiences of any of the negative emotions suffered by humans in our ideal world, the strongest and most frequent feeling people will strive for are feelings of joy.  That is, opposite to trying to avoid any of the negative emotions.  Also, discussed earlier in this book, we know that in situations of low stress, human beings will automatically, biologically, be calm, thoughtful, social beings. 

Hence, unraveling how people will behave regarding life evaluation in an ideal world means we would seek joy from a state of calm, selfless and social state most of the time.
That’s great since it means most people would automatically find ways to add value to society, giving them joy.  

Regulations, as always, will help curb the behaviors of those few that need help with social adjustment or the mentally ill.  Otherwise, our ideal society should naturally work towards a wide variety of occupations for social good naturally, with minimal need for controls.

This natural human behavior, when our survival is not at stake, would unavoidably lead to the more intelligent and capable members of our society to care for everyone else.  They will naturally become the top earners in the ideal economy because they contribute more value than anyone else, thus, thanks to the high tax rate, these individuals will be contributing even more.

Equality through chaos

Humans can’t feel free or be controlled through mounds of rules.  We can’t define joy and happiness for individuals and we cannot tell people how to evaluate their lives and give it a grade.  This is very personal and subjective.  What we can do is give ourselves all the chances we need to feel joy in life, be selfless and let the chaos that is society balance itself out with the understanding and mechanisms in place to always provide basic needs and services to all human beings, without exception.  Human biology will take care of the balance on its own with most people finding more happiness through selfless acts. 

We’ll evolve, change, make mistakes and adapt to new challenges as we move forward, assisted by the automated systems we have created. 

We can feel free to find our own individual paths, in a socially healthy way.

Discovering a new life purpose

So, how can we find this new path for ourselves, knowing everything is abundant and automated systems can potentially provide for everything we may need.  For centuries, humans have defined themselves by their place in society, therefore our careers.  Societies needed people to work for it to function.    That’s why in the English language we introduce ourselves with our job.  We say, “I am a teacher”, or “I am an artist”.  We say this because this is what we learned from home and school what our purpose was in society.

It is time for a new way to define ourselves.  Not through our jobs, but through our social contributions or mere presence among others that care about us.

This is something only few have researched because until now, it is only theory.  We can now envision the possibility of life without each of us having to work to live.  A life where the cogs of the social machine are sophisticated machines and the software, is the people.

How then do we choose a new purpose without a history to guide us through the process?  
Since we all seek joy and the highest joy is attained by giving, or love, whether it is family or a community, human beings will naturally find their place where they are happiest.

What a better way than to live a life following your “purpose of the day” without worry.  At the end of our lives, we can then feel good about what we’ve achieved because it will likely be a long labor of love and community.


[1] Steve Taylor Ph.D.  (July 2013)  The power of purpose. - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201307/the-power-purpose
[2] Dario Maestripieri, Ph.D.  (March 2012).  Social dominance explained, part 1.  - https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/games-primates-play/201203/social-dominance-explained-part-i
[3] Sheri L. Johnson et al.  (July 2012). - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383914/

Sunday, June 10, 2018

A Fully Automated Society - Engineering Paradise


If we look at the rhythm we are developing AI and robotics, AI experts anticipate realistically the first artificial general intelligence (AGI) will emerge sometime before 2040, give or take a few years.  That’s roughly 20 years from now.  According to the AGI Society, artificial general intelligence (AGI) is “a general-purpose intelligence comparable to that of a human mind.”  We already have, in 2018, some highly sophisticated AI who can do certain specific things with much better ability and skill than any single human.  Skillsets such as image-recognition, understanding language, figuring out how to win complex games (like Chinese Checkers, Go, and Chess), how to analyze huge amounts of data, driving, sift through legal documents to find appropriate precedents in legal history and so much more.  None of these replace an entire human worker.  They can however, make us much more productive at our jobs by doing things we find hard to do, faster, with less errors, and more efficiently.  Researchers and engineers are also constantly finding out ways to automate other tasks so that humans don’t need to do them anymore.  Our world is more and more integrated with narrow AI that are more capable than us at doing specific tasks.

For now, none of these artificial intelligences are AGI.  But with enough extremely competent narrow AI connected through the Internet, eventually all these thousands of specialist AIs can spontaneously form AGI. 

It’s easy to imagine.  Right now, the best intelligence to take on a task that has never been attempted before is a human being because we can be creative and find out the best way to find a solution to any challenge.  Some people are better at some challenges than others but let’s leave that aside for a minute.

If we project a little bit into the future where we have more highly efficient narrow AI in the market connected through the internet.  Suddenly, we encounter a challenge to which we need to find a solution.  Instead of finding a human expert to find a solution, we’d ask our front-liner:  the digital assistant.  Now, the digital assistant is incapable of finding a solution to the problem.  It is extremely good at being an assistant, and that is all.  It is a narrow AI.  It is better at receiving requests and finding resources for you than any human could.  The assistant could then search the Internet for narrow AI that can help solving the problem.  It could find thousands of them and “ask” them if they have a solution to the problem or a partial solution.  Those narrow AI are also exceedingly good at precisely what they were designed to do, from data analysis, to image recognition, pattern recognition, solving algorithms, searching historical records, doing math, and more.  They are also connected to their own network of narrow AI with which they work with regularly.  So, some of the narrow AI queried by the digital assistant can communicate and ask their narrow AI networked “colleagues” to do certain tasks.  This exchange and querying of solutions can go through multiple levels and at every step, AI that are better at their specific tasks are challenged to find solutions they were tailored specifically to resolve.  After a few seconds, or less, a solution to the original challenge can be produced to the digital assistant and fed back to us.  Perhaps several solutions may be provided based on the different types of narrow AI connected to that may have different approaches.
A process that takes hours to several weeks to accomplish for a human being subject matter expert has been completed within a heartbeat.

No actual AGI has been designed to do all this directly.  It was all done through connectivity between simpler technologies.

If we had a choice to put our lives in the hands of a human being or a robot with AI installed, and the AI was more skilled, not prone to bias, sleep, fatigue or sickness, and would run on solar power, would we depend on the human expert or the expert robot?  How about if it could do the job within a blink of an eye to boot?

I bet most people would trust the smart robot.

This paradigm shift is why experts are calling these developments the 4th Industrial Revolution.  Experts, like myself and many others are saying that we’re heading towards a time where AI and robotics will become the better choice to solve all our challenges.  We’ll want automated systems to take care of our food, our roads, our lives because they will be better at it.

This is good news.  As described In Section 2 on the Ministries, we want automated systems to handle most of the work that needs to get done anyway.  If we look at the economics of that, it means getting high quality products and services for minimal resource consumption and minimal energy costs.

This means it would be extremely easy to provide food, water, air, a home and security for everyone. 
Since automated systems will be more efficient at doing any type of work, people will be free to offer added value to society in any way they feel like.  Some people will still wish having the best of us in supervisory and decision-making positions.  Not because the best among us will do a better job than automated systems.  No, the reason why people will want to put citizen experts in power of the ministries, and vote them in, is to ensure the subjective values of the population are respected. 
For a while some people will still need to talk to other human beings when they need something.  Whether it is about getting some specific dining experience or dealing with the immigration processes.  It is natural for human beings to want to experience life with other human beings.  In fact, our health and wellbeing depend on us interacting with other people.[1]  Those interactions don’t need to be work-related though.  We can have those connected experiences through family, friends, social experiences and more beyond the limits of the client to employee relationships.

Even at that not-too-far-future time, some people will still want to interact with other people for certain things.  People are unlikely to be on permanent holidays as many will still want to donate their time to society and help communities in ways they really enjoy.

The natural engineer will still want to engineer.  The natural teacher will still want to teach.  The natural social worker will still want to help families out.  These will be people giving their time because they really want to do this in service of others, without any expectation of getting something in return.

The gift of automation is not to replace every single occupation.  It is about being able to cover all the bases while letting people choose to do what they wish to do.

Heck, even though I described an ideal way to govern and the election of the most qualified expert for each segment of a nation’s executive earlier on in this work, there will be a time when the people will want to vote for an AI to take up the leadership instead of a human being too.  This can be a choice when the time comes. 

Within less than 2 generations automation will allow humanity to be entirely free to do whatever their hearts desire.  This is entirely positive as incentives such as self-direction and a strong sense of social purpose are far more powerful than financial incentives.  Sam Glucksberg’s “Candle Problem” experiments have shown that people get best results if a task is completed without financial incentives and as little pressure as possible.  Under those conditions, problems are solved with more imagination and faster too.[2] Thus, in a future where people challenge themselves for fun, it’ll be, well, fun and not stressful as the consequence of failing a challenge will be insignificant with better, more efficient and ever vigilant AI and robots to take over and fix it for us.

Therefore, my suggestion for the ideal world where automation can do jobs better than humans is to let humans do what they want, keep stress levels as low as possible, and let people solve problems for fun.  Leave emergencies to automated systems and those few people passionate enough to help society alongside automated systems.  If people help in this way while stress-free, they can get compensated for their service, but they are really doing it for fun or to feel part of something bigger.
When thinking of the near future like this, I am constantly reminded of Star Trek’s Federation of Planets.

If you live as a member of the Federation in this science fiction show, you would do whatever you wanted to experience life.  In other words, the officers of the Enterprise in Star Trek:  The Next Generation don’t need to be on that spaceship.  They are not forced to be there either.  They do it for the adventure and because they are passionate about space exploration.  AI and robotic systems could explore the galaxy with much more efficiency than a spaceship full of inefficient people with wants and needs.  But that’s beside the point.  These people want to experience space exploration and discovering new life and new civilizations for themselves directly.

We can engineer such a future for ourselves (minus the starships for a while) if we so choose.
Suffice to say however, that even in the Federation, there is an economy of sorts as matter is not always abundant and people still find value in things and services.  The Earth, for example, has a finite quantity of resources.  So, even aiming for something amazing like an ideal science-fiction-like future, we still need to be fair and manage the balance of resources, take care of the environment and each other, lest we get in serious existential trouble.  We must keep everything in a ledger.  We just don’t need maintain the ledger ourselves.  Let the AI crunch the numbers!


[1] Emma M. Seppälä, PhD (August 2012)  Connect to thrive.  - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-it/201208/connect-thrive
[2] John Kounios and Mark Beeman (September 2015).  How incentives hinder innovation  - http://thepsychreport.com/books/how-incentives-hinder-innovation-creativity/

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Future of Ministry of health - Engineering Paradise


While using private institutions can work very well with public sector subsidies when we discuss education, it is not advisable to use the same tactic to deal with life and death issues.  It is not a good idea to have people choose the quality of their healthcare, especially when they are at their most vulnerable.  It is unfair.  Not every person has a highly educated support system helping them choose between health choices at different price points.  Education, in an ideal world where basic needs are met, can be postponed until later dates to benefit from better options.  However, physical and mental health often does not wait for anyone. 

It is therefore critical to ensure everyone has access to free healthcare at all levels.  It works quite well in most developed countries right now, except for the United States of America, so plenty models of success already exist.  Add to that advanced AI technologies through devices such as smartphones, allowing people to self-diagnose from home, integrated AI and robotics in hospitals to increase hospital efficiency.  Automation can also be further leveraged to increase capacity, and finally a lower social stress level decreasing the need for hospitalization in the fist place.  If we calculate all that, free healthcare should be much less expensive than what it is today and therefore very economically viable.



We can’t use a privatized health system and hope that costs won’t become problematic and we certainly can’t have hospitals compete, gambling on our health and selecting what treatments should be provided based on profitability.  We want a population cured of health problems, not one that is kept half-healthy and constantly treated to satisfy corporate bottom lines.

Healthcare coverage

The Ministry of Health’s job would be to monitor the general physical and mental health of the national population through data taken from hospitals, clinics and even from some self-diagnosis applications connected to the Internet, if the citizens allow the data to flow.  This way, the Ministry would be able to determine what health problems and diseases, what procedures and what medicines should be covered by healthcare.

In a nutshell, free healthcare should cover anything that will allow individuals to get back on track with their passions.  So clinical examinations and life-saving surgeries apply since one is needed for the other.  Medicine used at the hospital during treatments or surgeries also apply.  On the other hand, recommended medicine to treat patients at home to alleviate symptoms could be covered or not on a case by case basis.  Some may also be partially subsidized by the Ministry of Health while some may not.  After all, we want to get back to our fun occupations, but we also want to choose what additional medicine we’ll take at home under the guidance of our self-diagnosis tools or our local human or AI doctor.  Choice has always been important to us all.

So, the ideal system would keep us healthy for free but would offer us reasonably priced symptom relief medicine when the symptoms in question aren’t problematic.  Therefore, it is a case by case question as to whether medicine should be provided for free, inexpensive, or left to the variations of a free market.

The Ministry of Health can take those decisions for us all.  For example, aspirin is used to treat mild headaches and some few other mild symptoms.  Thus, it is an over the counter drug with alternatives, offered in the free market.  Anesthesia drugs used for major operations shouldn’t be sold in pharmacies.  They are only used in operating rooms as part of life-saving surgeries, therefore the tab for that drug should be picked up by the Ministry of Health along with the full cost of the surgery.
There are also many current and future treatments that may not be covered because they would be declared electives.  However, just like the drug example above, there are exceptions to this rule too:
  •         Organ replacements:  our scientists are currently working on ways to create replacement organs, either by growing them from stem cells or using 3D printing, starting with the patient’s own cellular stock.  This will become reality in the next few years.  Of course, a replacement organ implanted to replace a failing organ would be covered under the free healthcare rule.  However, this technology would be available to people who wish to enhance their fully functional organs in some way too. After all, since we’re making these organs using materials that won’t cause an immune response from the recipient, it is reasonable to assume businesses will emerge offering genetic engineering and transplant services.  We’ll likely see the emergence of private transplant clinics that will offer enhanced organs or replacement organs to whoever has the resources to purchase them.  These would work in the same way as artificial enhancements work today at cosmetic surgery clinics:  you want it, you pay for it!
  •          Self-diagnostic tools:  We’re already seeing a few minor apps for smartphones that help people self-diagnose at minimal to no costs.  Some apps check for skin cancer using the camera and AI.  Some look for eye discolorations to detect problems with the liver or other conditions that are diagnosed through coloration.  Some non-smartphone devices may be sold by companies to detect more serious issues, like diabetes and heart conditions by measuring chemicals found in tiny amounts of blood.  More will come out over time.   While these applications and devices can be important to catch debilitating diseases early, it is not reasonable to expect the Ministry to pay for any of these first medical opinion devices.  The Ministry can certainly encourage the use and purchase of such tools however, because they help catch real problems early on and relieve the burden on the public healthcare system, keeping more of the system available to identified problems.  In some cases perhaps the Ministry would subsidize some devices to help with the self-diagnosis of certain conditions if the population as a whole thinks it is a good idea to offer some of their taxes to that initiative.
  •          Gene-editing:  Similar to organ replacements, gene-editing tools using CRISPR can be considered treating a disease that causes individuals to be less productive.  Genes that are causing disease within the population should be replaced with healthy genetic variants.  The nature of gene-editing means that once the genetic disease is cured, it won’t come back, so that is a massive benefit to society and a huge cost savings to the healthcare system.  Therefore, genetic diseases that cause serious health issues should be covered while other issues that may be more aesthetic, like hereditary baldness, would be an elective.  In addition, with gene-editing available, we’ll see the emergence of private companies offering gene-editing services to enhance the human body in many ways.  We’ll see an emergence of eugenics.  Whether lawmakers will allow eugenics for aesthetic or enhancement purposes in our future, that remains to be seen but definitively those enhancements would not be covered by the healthcare system either.
  •          Recommended medicine:  As mentioned above, sometimes clinics send you on your way and recommend some medicine to alleviate bothersome symptoms.  If the symptoms are important, then it is a real productivity problem, so it should be covered.  But if the symptoms are not chronic and weak, lack of productivity in society is minimal and temporary.  Thus, human and AI clinicians should be allowed to determine if a person should receive medicine for free to take home, be offered subsidized medicine or be offered medicine at market price. 

Aging treatment

While many future treatments will undeniably increase our lifespans in the same way modern medicine has, aging treatment is something different.  In this case, the treatment is tackling how aging occurs in the body in the first place, reversing the systemic effects that makes us actually become old.

Since aging is in fact a debilitating problem that ultimately ends with death, should aging treatments be covered under a future free healthcare plan?  What about those people who, for their own reasons, do not want to live hundreds of years?

Well, what I know for sure is that pain and suffering are always undesirable and cause a great amount of stress on society, families and the economy.  Aging is a drain on energy individuals and our society could otherwise put to good use.

So how do we tackle the problem of choice?

The solution already exists in the form of euthanasia. 

In a world where people can essentially live healthy lives, with free healthcare, for hundreds of years or longer, our perception of mortality changes.

I personally wish to live healthy until the day that I die, whether that day is tomorrow or two hundred years from now.   During my many interviews and talks about the treatment of aging, this sentiment has been unanimously echoed by most.  However, not everyone I have spoken with wishes to live forever.  People want their cake and eat it too, so since we’ll have the capacity to do both, we might as well do both.

Hence, aging treatments should be considered as an integral part of our free healthcare system.  But remember, these treatments can be paid for by the savings made of not having to spend additional funds tending to the elderly.  As our population grows older in the United States of America, the costs of healthcare have gone up significantly.  In 2015, average health care expenses for Americans aged 65 or more was $10,082 per year compared to $3,931 for those aged less than 65.[1]  That is more than twice the expense.  If our future healthcare system keeps our population’s bodies young and healthy, the treatments will pay for themselves.

And if, at the end of a long or short life, a person chooses to end their life safely with full conscious thought, then that can be arranged.  Everyone deserves to die peacefully with family and friends around them, on their own terms.

Mental health

Healthcare should not be only about the body.  Our mental health is also important and should be covered and supervised by our free healthcare system.  Non-physical pain truly exists for those who perceive it and thus should be treated for free the same way as the body.

Also, it is important to note our obligation to treat anyone that may be mentally unbalanced.  A person that just doesn’t feel right should be able to use AI or real live professionals freely to help them gain psychological balance.  After all, unbalanced individuals often cannot be productive in society, have healthy relationships with others and will have difficulties reaching their personal goals.  Once again, excellent self-diagnosis tools can help individuals find peace and reach out for proper treatment before the imbalance causes serious social issues like crime.  This can be done in very much the same way as physical health diagnostics.  Since our ideal society does not worry about working to live, it is highly likely individuals will spend more time and presence of mind to assist one another diagnosing real problems that can later be treated at hospitals, clinics or by simple social comfort.  Thus, the Ministry of Health would be responsible to educate the population in the best way to remain psychologically balanced and would offer some basic free professional services to treat mental health.

As far as the individuals sent to mental health institutions because they were found mentally unstable or required treatment by the Ministry of Justice, the treatment of such individuals would be funded by the government.  Patients coming from the justice system would then be treated and kept under observation until the conditions for their release are reached.  We want as many citizens as possible fully stable, healthy, educated, safe and rational, as a public service that helps us all feel safe.

Keeping our population healthy and stress free will keep the costs of such systems very low.  A healthy stress-free life, automation, keeping the bodies of our population young, robotics and self-diagnosis tools will mean we won’t need as many hospitals or physicians to care for our population. 



[1] Wayne Caswell (January 2015)  The cost of aging in America.  - http://www.mhealthtalk.com/cost-aging-america/