Hi, every­body. So, maybe the place I should start is mak­ing sure that every­body is com­fort­able with their under­stand­ing of the blockchain. Raise your hands if you’re com­fort­able, you’ve no particular…okay, right. So, let me give you the nick­el expla­na­tion, because it looks like about 80% of the audi­ence real­ly are not com­fort­able.

Very briefly, work­ing through time. Here is 1970, and it’s where we invent the data­base. And in this era, we have one com­put­er per orga­ni­za­tion, and the com­put­er is very heav­i­ly pro­tect­ed and guard­ed because it’s very phys­i­cal­ly frag­ile.

We come across to the 1990s, and in the 1990s, we have one com­put­er per per­son, and the com­put­ers are net­worked togeth­er to give you a kind of high­er func­tion than you would have on a sin­gle indi­vid­ual machine. And that for­mat of of one machine per per­son and every­thing is net­worked is still the dom­i­nant par­a­digm of com­put­ing. It’s what we all use every day, and there are a few vari­a­tions with it like document-centric, which I’ll say a lit­tle bit more about.

Then we get over here, 2010s. You get the evo­lu­tion of Bitcoin. And this mod­el is real­ly one com­put­er per plan­et. It’s the ear­ly stages of build­ing a sin­gle inter­face to all of the com­put­ers in the world, where the share infor­ma­tion, they share state, they share pro­grams. So for exam­ple, if you’re using some­thing like Bitcoin, the entire world agrees on what your bank bal­ance is. If you’re using some­thing like Ethereum, the entire world agrees on what pro­gram it is that you are run­ning.

So, these mod­els of one per orga­ni­za­tion, one per indi­vid­ual, one per world, these are three kind of par­a­dig­mat­ic ages of com­put­ing, and we’re at the very first stages of the one com­put­er per world phase. And it will be as dif­fer­ent as the 1970s mod­el of the com­put­er was from the 1990s mod­el. So the dif­fer­ence will be from the 1990s mod­el of com­put­ing to the mod­ern mod­el. Continuous change is nor­mal.

Within that, there’s a bunch of very very scary high-tech weird­ness to pro­duce the inte­gra­tion of all of these lit­tle com­put­ers into what [? Galvin?] calls the World Computer. And that process of inte­gra­tion is still at its ear­li­est stages. We’re only just fig­ur­ing out the right way to do this. The sim­i­lar process­es from the 1970s era involved things like SQL query opti­miz­ers, which you’ve prob­a­bly nev­er heard of. In the 1990s, there’s a whole bunch of very scary information-centric math­e­mat­ics to make sure that you can suc­cess­ful­ly trans­mit a sig­nal over an Ethernet cable. If you don’t know about about that stuff, don’t wor­ry about Bitcoin min­ing, don’t wor­ry about Ether min­ing. It’s a low-level tech­ni­cal, prac­ti­cal detail.

So, with­in that frame­work, what kinds of things can you do with one com­put­er per plan­et? And this is kind of a weird notion. But I think the obvi­ous thing to do with one com­put­er per plan­et is fix cli­mate change before it destroys agri­cul­ture and leaves bil­lions of peo­ple to starve. That seems like a fair­ly rea­son­able kind of an objec­tive. You know, there are all kinds of lit­tle opti­miza­tions you could do with these things, but fun­da­men­tal­ly the big unsolved chal­lenges that human­i­ty faces are cli­mate change and resource scarci­ty. We’re just burn­ing too much car­bon. And although we are rapid­ly decar­boniz­ing the econ­o­my, it’s noth­ing like rapid­ly enough. Also, once we’ve decar­bonized the econ­o­my, there is no guar­an­tee that there won’t be anoth­er envi­ron­men­tal cri­sis right on the back of it for some dif­fer­ent rea­son.

So right now the world is run by essen­tial­ly a trade orga­ni­za­tion for nation states called the United Nations. And the United Nations is an orga­ni­za­tion which gives you no indi­vid­ual rep­re­sen­ta­tion at all. You only have rep­re­sen­ta­tion through your gov­ern­ment. So, it’s not that sur­pris­ing that we the peo­ple don’t feel like we have any con­trol of the world, because we don’t have any con­trol of the world. We have a lit­tle bit of influ­ence on our nation state, but then our nation state’s a part of this large trade orga­ni­za­tion. And the trade orga­ni­za­tion doesn’t real­ly rep­re­sent the peo­ple, it only rep­re­sents the orga­ni­za­tion­al form of the nation state. And the nation states have had thir­ty years to get ori­ent­ed to cli­mate as a prob­lem, and have done essen­tial­ly zero. It’s very clear that the nation state is unable to engage in glob­al chal­lenges that require coor­di­nat­ed action, because two hun­dred nation states are inca­pable of form­ing a suf­fi­cient­ly shared under­stand­ing of the prob­lem to then take effec­tive action on a solu­tion.

And this is not a small cri­sis, right. When we can actu­al­ly watch the car­bon diox­ide and the plan­e­tary warm­ing infor­ma­tion in front of us, what we’re see­ing is a fail­ure to gov­ern our­selves in a way that puts our very exis­tence at risk. I can’t think of a worse cri­sis for a sup­pos­ed­ly intel­li­gence to face, right? I can’t think of a worse cri­sis for a sup­pos­ed­ly intel­li­gent species to face than being so unable to gov­ern itself that it basi­cal­ly boils itself to extinc­tion on its home plan­et. This is com­plete­ly unrea­son­able.

So, to get past this prob­lem, the one com­put­er per world par­a­digm would allow us to poten­tial­ly build glob­al gov­ernnance with­out glob­al gov­ernment. Now, the dis­tinc­tion between gov­er­nance and gov­ernment is quite sub­tle, but basi­cal­ly a bank is an insti­tu­tion which moves mon­ey around and it pro­vides a set of ser­vices. Similarly, a gov­ernment is an insti­tu­tion which moves gov­ernance around and pro­duces ser­vices.

So, in the same way that Bitcoin allows you to issue your own cur­ren­cy, Ethereum allows you to issue your own gov­er­nance. You could pub­lish a set of rules which are essen­tial­ly law for any­body who choos­es to put their assets into your set of rules. This is quite rad­i­cal, but you know, break it down, right. 1970s, data­bas­es. 1990s, net­works. 2010, the net­work and the data­base and the pro­gram­ming lan­guage com­bine into a sin­gle glob­al struc­ture. You put your­self for into that glob­al struc­ture. Everybody in the world can see it. Everybody in the world can run it. All those pieces of infor­ma­tion are fused into a whole.

So, sup­pose that I’m try­ing to do some­thing about cli­mate change. Suppose that we decide— And these are big jobs, but just for instance. Suppose that we decide that every large-scale emit­ter of car­bon will pub­lish its car­bon emis­sions direct­ly onto a blockchain. And by a large-scale emit­ter, I mean a pow­er sta­tion. I mean a coal plant. I mean an oil refin­ery. I don’t mean your car.

We could take this very very large-scale data… We could enforce pub­li­ca­tion using the pub­lic will. We could use the same kind of cam­paign­ing tech­niques that were effec­tive on say, the fight against ozone dam­age. We could have broad-scale pub­lic action for trans­paren­cy in cli­mate emis­sions, so we can actu­al­ly see where the car­bon is com­ing from.

And with all that infor­ma­tion logged into a glob­al sys­tem, we could then also poten­tial­ly— (and this is quite spec­u­la­tive, but hear me out) We could also poten­tial­ly have one per­son, one vote, for the entire world, to decide what we’re going to do about this set of facts. Because the lifeblood of democ­ra­cy is truth. Without truth, there is no democ­ra­cy. And as you all know, we have a very hard time reach­ing the truth these days, because of the mas­sive monop­o­liza­tion of the media by large cor­po­rate inter­ests. Without truth there is no democ­ra­cy. So, if you start putting the facts of the sit­u­a­tion on to blockchains so that there is one truth that the entire world can see, it becomes imag­in­able that you could that have demo­c­ra­t­ic decision-making at a glob­al lev­el.

Now, the imme­di­ate ques­tion is how could we pos­si­bly get sev­en bil­lion peo­ple to vote? And the answer is, you don’t need sev­en bil­lion peo­ple to vote. If we had a hun­dred mil­lion randomly-selected human beings around the globe, for many issues, a hun­dred mil­lion is a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant sam­ple. If, for exam­ple, 80% of that hun­dred mil­lion peo­ple are very against an idea, and that hun­dred mil­lion is gen­uine­ly cho­sen at ran­dom, it is almost cer­tain that if you did a vote for sev­en bil­lion peo­ple it would still be a resound­ing uni­ver­sal no.”

And this notion that you could take indi­vid­ual state­ments of opin­ion, plus extreme­ly sophis­ti­cat­ed pub­lic opin­ion analy­sis soft­ware, and pro­duce a rough esti­mate of glob­al pub­lic opin­ion on a set of key issues seems entire­ly cred­i­ble and rea­son­able. Different aca­d­e­mics could pub­lish dif­fer­ent analy­sis of the glob­al data set, but in the areas where there is a heavy con­ver­gence of opin­ion in the pub­lic, it is like­ly that all of those mod­els will con­verge on the same basic thing. So, for things which are between 60 and 40% split, you might have lots of argu­ment about whether it’s 51% or 49%. But for things where it’s 8020 or 7030 it should be rel­a­tive­ly easy to do a first-cut analy­sis that tells us giv­en a set of agreed-on facts, what is the glob­al pub­lic opin­ion?

Now, there are things that this doesn’t address. In areas where the facts are heav­i­ly cul­tur­al­ly deter­mined, (where dif­fer­ent cul­tures have dif­fer­ent opin­ions about the truth, in oth­er words) it is very dif­fi­cult to imag­ine a sys­tem like this work­ing. So it’s prob­a­bly bet­ter for sci­en­tif­ic data than it is for mat­ters of his­to­ry or pub­lic opin­ion. A good exam­ple would be the Armenian geno­cide, where what is true depends entire­ly on who you ask. And it’s extreme­ly heav­i­ly con­test­ed. There are hun­dreds of mil­lions of peo­ple who will tell you it nev­er hap­pened.

Similarly, in areas where there are heavy prob­lems around the nature of the mod­els or poli­cies which are proposed—a bunch of peo­ple say some­thing will work, a bunch of oth­er peo­ple say it won’t work—it’s very hard to imag­ine vot­ing on that basis lead­ing to any kind of sol­id out­come.

So this is not a uni­ver­sal way of fix­ing glob­al democ­ra­cy. It’s not a uni­ver­sal way of run­ning the plan­et. But I think it’s a real­ly good fit for cli­mate change. And I think it’s a real­ly good fit for a lot of the oth­er envi­ron­men­tal issues around things like, for exam­ple, nan­otech­nol­o­gy and biotech­nol­o­gy. I think the world is over­whelm­ing­ly against, for exam­ple, the release of genetically-engineered organ­isms direct­ly into the wild. And I think that it would be quite easy to have a glob­al pub­lic opin­ion estab­lished where we could sta­tis­ti­cal­ly prove that the world on the whole was against the release of GMOs into the envi­ron­ment. And once it is clear that that is glob­al pub­lic opin­ion, it becomes pos­si­ble to pun­ish the gov­ern­ments and the orga­ni­za­tions which thwart the will of glob­al democ­ra­cy in the name of their own self-interest.

Now, in this sort of mod­el, all of the his­to­ry of colo­nial­ism and the his­to­ry of the inva­sion of poor­er coun­tries by coun­tries which are now mas­sive­ly rich­er, will even­tu­al­ly be exposed. It’s impos­si­ble to talk about the world in any kind of objec­tive way with­out deal­ing with the fact that there was an enor­mous peri­od of pira­cy and loot­ing by, frankly, the ances­tors of most of the peo­ple that I see in the audi­ence. And that the resources which were stolen dur­ing this peri­od are still the foun­da­tion of the wealth of the Western soci­eties.

Similarly, there’s no way way around the fact that some­thing like 90% of the car­bon that’s been admit­ted to the atmos­phere over the entire­ty of human his­to­ry was emit­ted by the coun­tries that went through the Industrial Revolution ear­ly, and are still enor­mous­ly rich and pow­er­ful, and are large­ly block­ing any fair dis­cus­sion of the cli­mate process.

So, when you get into this kind of mod­el where you begin to talk about glob­al­ism as a real prac­tice for indi­vid­u­als, one of the things that you have to face is that we’re going to wind up with a vast­ly poor­er future for the major­i­ty of the peo­ple that are in Western coun­tries. If you actu­al­ly have to pay fair prices for the car­bon that you emit… if you actu­al­ly have to make repa­ra­tions for the enor­mous trans­fer of wealth dur­ing the colo­nial era… If you actu­al­ly ask the peo­ple of the world what their opin­ion is, they’re not actu­al­ly ter­ri­bly pleased with the Western pow­ers and what they’ve done with the mon­ey that they stole.

So when we talk about build­ing a tru­ly glob­al shar­ing, where there is truth and there is democ­ra­cy, we will have to address the resource divi­sion issues and the resource scarci­ty issues, which is going to mean an enor­mous trans­fer of wealth from the rich, who stole it, to the poor, from whose ances­tors it was stolen. And we can’t have glob­al democ­ra­cy until you are will­ing to abide by the rul­ings made by a brown plan­et which was robbed blind dur­ing the colo­nial era. And if you give peo­ple the pow­er of democ­ra­cy, they will large­ly votes to tax the West, and use those resources to fill in the enor­mous devel­op­men­tal deficits left by the colo­nial era. And this is the point of the sword. This is the hard prob­lem. The price of a glob­al democ­ra­cy is fair­ness, truth, and rec­on­cil­i­a­tion around the colo­nial era. Are you ready for it or not?

Further Reference

The OuiShare Fest 2016 site.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.