Thoughts Inspired by Non Zero

So I recently went and read Non Zero by Robert Wright. For a short summary of Wright's ideas, I'd recommend watching his TED speech, especially since I don't particularly feel like explaining the basic ideas. Instead I'm just doing to skip the thoughts it inspired in me:

One concept from Non Zero that I particularly liked is the idea that there are two basic things that impede non-zero sumness: trust and communication. Without trust and communication, the profit from non-zero relationship cannot be realized and all through out history new ways to achieving trust and communication have been invented, each one allowing greater non zero advantages to be realized. What I like about this idea is the way it fits so nicely into my feelings about Reputation networks (which I will get around to writing about some day)

Moving on to things I did not like, I find Wright's argument in favor for one-world government unconvincing because, paradoxically, of arguments found in other places in his book. Wright feels that a global government is the logical outcome of the progression we've made over the human history, a grand realization of our ability to exploit non zero opportunities. He feels that it's particularly important now that we face such global threats as global warming, international disease, and terrorism. My objection comes from his discussion of the medieval world. There Wright argues that the reason Europe was ultimately the party who conquered the rest of the world was because of it's political division. In China, exploration was begun but was ultimately shut down when the politics turned against it. In contrast, when Colombus was turned down by Portuguese crown when he asked for sponsorship of his voyages, he was able to simply get funding the Spanish crown. Under a many government system, if a government makes the wrong decision, another government will likely make the right one. Under a one government system, if the government makes the wrong decision it can doom entire civilizations. If a one-world government, a wrong decision could destroy the world. Wright gives the WTO as an example of the begins of the apparatus that will one day become a world government, but quite frankly I don't trust the WTO to make decisions for the entire planet. It is only through the sort parallel development* that division can bring can we truly find out what the right way to act is.

My general distaste for much of Wright actually suggests reveals, from my view, the ultimate failure of Wright's view. I mean, it's all well and good to observe the general trend of increasing cooperation and nonzero sum interactions. But what does this tell us about how we'll increase cooperation in the future? Nothing. I agree with Wright's fundamental point - we can probably predict that we'll continue to develop more and more ways to cooperate and more ways to reap the bounties of nonzero profits. But if you want to actually develop these ways of cooperation, the fact that they will be developed doesn't help you any. So it may be true, but it's not very useful.

And working from there, observing the trend in general doesn't tell you anything about ''what'' social technologies will continue this trend (outside of the basic principle discussed above). I personally feel that Wright completely fails to recognize the fact that the next big social technology is the collective networks people go on about. Getting back to world government for a moment, I completely agree with Wright that what we need right now is more global oversight over what's going on, to observe disease spreads and terrorism and all the rest of the vast incoming threats to life on earth. As Patrick Farley put it "It is now dangerous for even one person to feel oppressed."** But I'd say it's not coming from the social technology of the 20th century (government) but the social technology of the 21st (collective networks). Or more likely some clever combination of both. (For an example of how this might work in the case of diseases, I'd recommend looking at the first chapter of Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge).

Some lesser problems I have with Wright's basic argument:
The total lack of the Singularity. The idea is in there - he clearly admits that innovation is accelerating as populations increase and information flows more freely. But he doesn't seem to make the connection or feel it worth commenting on that we'll soon hit an interesting point were innovation out paces our ability to meaningfully predict it. An even smaller quibble is that I found his final chapter about consciousness and the possible theological implications incredibly boring - that's mostly because of my own personal interests and less about the case Wright makes.

Despite these objections, I would recommend Non Zero. It's an interesting and though provoking book. Go read it.

*I'm using the phrase "parallel development" where many people would probably use the word "competition." I do this because I feel competition is misleading - what's important isn't that each separate body is trying to defeat the others, what's important is that each separate body tries something different from the others and that bodies trying things that don't succeed either die off or switch to a tactic that is working. This is process, while competition implies a goal, the defeat of your enemies.

**I was sad to find that Patrick Farley's the Spiders has dropped off the web. It was really a very good piece of work. For a look into what's no longer available, you can check out this review.