LessWrong has a particularly high bar for content from new users and this contribution doesn't quite meet the bar.
Read full explanation
Throughout history, we see how priorities have changed. First, I suppose, it was about getting through the next call, and from there, things moved forward: securing shelter, protecting the next generation, surviving the winter, a drought, a neighboring tribe... In any case, thinking went a little further than just the immediate future.
Times have changed, the dangers and risks have changed, but one thing never has..
survival.
As societies developed, those initial attempts of just “tomorrow” or “just the next winter”
began to shift towards longer periods, looking a little further into the future.
to lay a foundation on which that ‘tomorrow’ could socially rest.
Perhaps as the first serious competitor, we have Confucius,
who in the sixth century BC tried to devise a moral and social code
that focuses on education and family hierarchy as the foundation of the state.
His contemporary, Lao Zi, offered a completely different concept – Taoism, where order is achieved by the state interfering as little as possible in people's lives. Here is a quote from chapter 80 of his work:
Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching (Chapter 80)
"If a country is governed wisely, its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy their labor and don't waste time inventing labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes, they aren't interested in travel.
There may be boats and carriages, but no one uses them.
There may be weapons and armor, but no one ever displays them"
we travel a bit through time and to the other side of the world where Plato, in the 4th century BC, tried to conceptualize his ideal State
and after him Aristotle, the student who criticizes the teacher. what we need today more than ever.
who lived from 384–322 B.C. his most famous teaching, the theory of the four causes
and the idea that the state is a natural community created for the purpose of achieving virtue and the good life.
as time went on, attempts intensified and the need for a system grew exponentially.
Ideas and concepts came and went, but the need remained or grew.
Thomas More-Utopia 1516.
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan 1651.
John Locke - Two Treatises on Government 1689.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract 1762.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto 1848.
John Rawls-A Theory of Justice 1971 and his “veil of ignorance” –– society should be organized in such a way that you would find it acceptable, even if you don't know whether you will be born into it as a rich person, a poor person, sick, or healthy
we have come to the present day, when in my opinion the need for a new social system is greater than ever.
the harsh realities of today, in which we see a world in a global crisis
rampant consumption of resources source:https://www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-2025
percentage of the population living below the existential minimum source:https://hdr.undp.org/content/ 2025-global-multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi#/indicies/MPI
degradation of moral values source:https://www.edelman.com/trust/2026/trust-barometer
I could keep citing sources, but it won't change the situation or the question in the title.
Do we have the capacity to devise and accept something new, a new system, because that initial premise about survival hasn't changed? The danger is just greater, globally. Are we as a society ready for radical changes?
Each of the ones proposed so far has had potential dangers: authoritarianism, lack of technical capabilities, etc. The question is, what dangers would this new system have?
Could we come up with a solution that is ethical, logical, and technically feasible?
Throughout history, we see how priorities have changed. First, I suppose, it was about getting through the next call, and from there, things moved forward: securing shelter, protecting the next generation, surviving the winter, a drought, a neighboring tribe... In any case, thinking went a little further than just the immediate future.
Times have changed, the dangers and risks have changed, but one thing never has..
survival.
As societies developed, those initial attempts of just “tomorrow” or “just the next winter”
began to shift towards longer periods, looking a little further into the future.
to lay a foundation on which that ‘tomorrow’ could socially rest.
Perhaps as the first serious competitor, we have Confucius,
who in the sixth century BC tried to devise a moral and social code
that focuses on education and family hierarchy as the foundation of the state.
The Analects of Confucius - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3330
His contemporary, Lao Zi, offered a completely different concept – Taoism, where order is achieved by the state interfering as little as possible in people's lives. Here is a quote from chapter 80 of his work:
Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching (Chapter 80)
"If a country is governed wisely, its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy their labor and don't waste time inventing labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes, they aren't interested in travel.
There may be boats and carriages, but no one uses them.
There may be weapons and armor, but no one ever displays them"
we travel a bit through time and to the other side of the world where Plato, in the 4th century BC, tried to conceptualize his ideal State
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497
and after him Aristotle, the student who criticizes the teacher. what we need today more than ever.
who lived from 384–322 B.C. his most famous teaching, the theory of the four causes
and the idea that the state is a natural community created for the purpose of achieving virtue and the good life.
as time went on, attempts intensified and the need for a system grew exponentially.
Ideas and concepts came and went, but the need remained or grew.
Thomas More-Utopia 1516.
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan 1651.
John Locke - Two Treatises on Government 1689.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract 1762.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto 1848.
John Rawls-A Theory of Justice 1971 and his “veil of ignorance” –– society should be organized in such a way that you would find it acceptable, even if you don't know whether you will be born into it as a rich person, a poor person, sick, or healthy
we have come to the present day, when in my opinion the need for a new social system is greater than ever.
the harsh realities of today, in which we see a world in a global crisis
rampant consumption of resources source:https://www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-2025
percentage of the population living below the existential minimum source:https://hdr.undp.org/content/ 2025-global-multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi#/indicies/MPI
degradation of moral values source:https://www.edelman.com/trust/2026/trust-barometer
I could keep citing sources, but it won't change the situation or the question in the title.
Do we have the capacity to devise and accept something new, a new system, because that initial premise about survival hasn't changed? The danger is just greater, globally. Are we as a society ready for radical changes?
Each of the ones proposed so far has had potential dangers: authoritarianism, lack of technical capabilities, etc. The question is, what dangers would this new system have?
Could we come up with a solution that is ethical, logical, and technically feasible?