Thats correct, the universe is dynamic and not static, but there is such change that has a bad result for most and changes that good results for most.  Such is the case throughout history.  We are just a microcosm of the universe itself.

Perhaps the reason why we haven't seen any signals from civilizations in the universe is because the Great Filter is ahead of us (I firmly believe this to be the case) that technologically civilizations, or at least the vast majority of them are inherently self-destructive and dangerous to themselves and to their environment.  Using us as an example, we already have an answer to that in the affirmative.  

There is no self-motivated driver in natural evolution- but there is in artificial evolution.  In the latter, short sighted instant gratification motives like greed, desire for power, etc are the internal drivers.  Evolution has no such driver (although it can benefit from these, they aren't what causes it- we don't know what causes it, although I have some sneaking suspicions that evolution needs to be seen from a higher level- meaning in the context I want to use it in, there is no real distinction between living and nonliving and once we step onto that level we see that evolution can occur in socalled "nonliving" objects too- like crystals for instance and perhaps even the natural selection of universes (Smolin thinks along of these lines.)  Once we stop making a special distinction between living and nonliving, I think we'll have a much better, more cosmic understanding of evolution.

There is also a connection between economic systems that put industry and money above all else. Not only does it overproduce and do nothing to tackle the negative externalities of that (like pollution and environmental degradation), but it leads to many social ills as well, even as it also enriches many people and improves their standard of living. It is true, whether you like it or not, that our global economic system is inextricably linked with how we handle our environment. Having an environmentally-conscious economic system will require some significant changes. The market won't solve it, or at least not before it's too late. It really isn't just a question of whether or not climate change is happening, or what the damage will be, but also a question of what does address it and other environmental problems entail. And the answer is, unfortunately, likely to involve some big changes in our system. Doesn't mean we all become communists (I do think social democracy is the best system of government and so do most unbiased sources), but crony capitalism and a culture of consumption needs to go away.

Mid your nation comes to near the top of most of these lists

Here's the new worldwide healthcare rankings

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-m ... e-systems/

 

The top 10 are:

1 – Iceland

2 – Norway

3 – Netherlands

4 – Luxembourg

5 – Australia

6 – Finland

7 – Switzerland

8 – Sweden

9 – Italy

10 – Andorra

 

Then, there’s the US. It has a disparity value more than twice that of Japan’s, which the team tentatively linked to challenges of getting healthcare to everyone that needs it, and – most importantly – economic and healthcare inequality in poorer regions.

Whatever you think of the politics, it’s impossible to argue that healthcare in the US is weirdly expensive compared to other developed nations for individual Americans; significantly, this means those with larger wallets have access to better healthcare. The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was a way of leveling the playing field for the less well-off; sadly, the latest GOP tax bill was essentially a redistribution of wealth to the rich.

Here's another list, the US ranks last

https://www.internationalinsurance.com/ ... ountry.php

 

According to a recent publication from the Commonwealth Fund, The USA is ranked last out of 11 Countries.

“Among the 11 nations studied in this report – Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2014″

Searching for the Best International Health Insurance? Visit: Compare Global Medical Plans

They go on to report on each country:

“Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.”

You can read the full report here: Commonwealth Fund Report

Update. According to 2017, the USA still ranks 11th:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... cy%20Index

http://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index
A new index released this week offers a sobering look at how democracy is faring in the United States.

According to the 2018 edition of The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, the U.S. doesn't even make the list of top 20—its demonstrably "flawed democracy" notching it the 25th spot.

The ranking is based on 60 indicators spanning five interrelated categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Each category gets a 0-10 score, with the final score being the average of those five.

Topping out the index are Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, and Denmark. They are each declared "full democracies," as their scores, all above 9.22, were easily above the 8.2 threshold. With a final score of 7.96, the United States, in contrast, earned the "flawed democracy" label. The country's highest score was 8.22, which it earned back in 2006 and again in 2008.

North America still holds the claim for the highest average score of any region, but that's thanks to Canada's 9.15, which landed it the number 6 spot overall. Twenty countries (12 percent) were designated as full democracies, 14 of which are located in Western Europe.

Rounding out the bottom of the list, meanwhile, are Chad, the Central African Republican, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, and North Korea, with scores identifying them as "authoritarian regimes."

In the United States, according to the analysis:
http://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us ... et-weaker/

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm

http://hse-econ.fi/sarvimaki/intgen_trends.pdf

http://www.rothstein.dinstudio.se/files ... _State.pdf

North America still holds the claim for the highest average score of any region, but that's thanks to Canada's 9.15, which landed it the number 6 spot overall.

Yay? I don't know how much legalizing pot will influence this .

just on the above few posts, In Australia health insurance is a joke, hardly anyone earning average amounts can afford it. But on the plus side the public health which is practically free is ok so even though the waiting lists are long it's still something.

I heard in the US the pubic free health is non existent?

I am actually surprised we rank that high as profit above all else is the norm here. Also we are one of the worst for climate change denial. It amazes me how much so when in such an extreme climate that we already have the negative effects of climate change are so obvious now.  Seasonal heat and fires are more aggressive and longer lived than ever before, dry winters and shifted seasons etc.. and way more freak storms to the point they are the norm now.

Funny thing is the government here are the biggest deniers of it and refuse to help renewable energy as they are heavily vested in coal.

Funny thing is the government here are the biggest deniers of it and refuse to help renewable energy as they are heavily vested in coal.

Yeah, not to rub it in or anything, but wasn't Malcolm Turnbull voted out of his position for Prime Minister of Australia because he proposed a mild form of carbon tax? I would feel smug about Canada, if it were not for the fact that we are building a massive oil pipeline to the United States. Our policy on climate-change has been slowly slacking ever since our accord with the Paris Agreement. 

I heard in the US the pubic free health is non existent?

It's little better in Canada. Most people can't afford health care, especially lower-income families.

haha we have legalized pot in NY too, let's see how that goes.  NYC now has universal healthcare (even for undocumented immigrants) I wonder how healthcare that only covers city residents will work- the mayor did say it will actually lower costs because instead of taxpayers footing the bill for uninsured visits to the ER, each resident will have their own primary care physician, specialist and prescription drugs they need.  The theory is people will get the care they need when they need it instead of holding off and ending up in the ER later.

We had a sad case (in North Carolina I think) of a school principal getting arrested because she lied and said a student who was sick was her son so he could be covered under her healthcare.  Turns out his parents were uninsured and he didn't have access to antibiotics and was out of school for several days so the principal stepped in and gave him access to her healthcare.

The system is so greedy that they arrest someone for doing the right thing.

That dirty tar sands pipeline is in the news a lot.  Your Canadian prime minister is a bit less progressive than most people think lol.  Native Americans protest (of course the corporate backed mass media does not cover it, thanks to supermergers most of our media is owned by a total of 6 corporations) and now they are allowing fossil fuel companies to seize private land to build pipelines using eminent domain- they pay police to remove people off their own land and give them a small compensation for it.  Meanwhile pipeline fires and explosions are getting more and more common.

Regarding Australia, they have a record extreme heat wave going on there, several days above 104 (40 C) and the Australian Open is going on!

The Canadian healthcare system is only slightly better than America's the UK's and Scandanavian nations and Germany are actually at the top of the list.  The thing that article you linked to is only partially correct, yes people are less healthy in the US but thats also because of less regulation and more bad chemicals in our food and a bad diet that causes more obesity and diabetes and higher cancer rates as well as over 2000 superfund sites full of toxic chemicals and pesticides.  They are unregulated because the chemical lobby bribes our politicians and the result is children with brain damage or cancer.  The doctors and hospitals also vastly overcharge as do the pharmaceutical companies (more supermergers) so their lobbyists bribe our politicians to keep the bad system in place.  We were going to go universal healthcare several different times and these people and their dark money tainted the system.  Over 70% of Americans want universal healthcare but the politicians get bribed to not let it happen- thats the pure definition of a plutocratic system.

And that site you linked to is a bastion of conservative "thinking"- I half expect to see antievolution anticlimate change posters on there (whether they are "doctors" or not.)

It's trash like this which is also posted on the same site that is equal to climate change denialism

https://www.city-journal.org/drug-prices-16224.html

You can be sure I left numerous comments on all their articles calling them out and educating them but based on their brainwashing I doubt they have the intellectual capacity left to understand- just like with climate change deniers.  At least I filled up the comments on all the articles so what I posted actually has more content than their trash articles lol.

I really want these regressive conservative "thinkers" to drown when sea levels rise (same goes for those ignorant Newfies who participate in the seal hunt where seals are killed with hammers), that would be poetic justice for the poison they spread.  And the planet would be MUCH better off without them not to mention that would solve our overpopulation problem.  Too much greed in our society today.

Funny thing is the government here are the biggest deniers of it and refuse to help renewable energy as they are heavily vested in coal.

Yeah, not to rub it in or anything, but wasn't Malcolm Turnbull voted out of his position for Prime Minister of Australia because he proposed a mild form of carbon tax? I would feel smug about Canada, if it were not for the fact that we are building a massive oil pipeline to the United States. Our policy on climate-change has been slowly slacking ever since our accord with the Paris Agreement. 

I heard in the US the pubic free health is non existent?

It's little better in Canada. Most people can't afford health care, especially lower-income families.

There has been a few attempts for a carbon tax with all PMs being voted out at some point after. Gillard lost due to the same thing and mining tax also if I recall right.

I suppose we got ok healthcare then. If you have little or no income it's free and medication is normally capped at $6 per packet/script.

only seeing specialists and operations have a big waiting list. On privet health the list is non existent and you get first dibs.  But basic health insurance is over $100 a week for the most minimal cover with complete cover several 100 to over 1000 a week. which is the average wage for a large portion of people.


To A.L.E.X   Yes the heat here is unbearable at the moment, worst heat waves since black Saturday back in 08. We've been lucky this time there hasn't been catastrophic fires like on black Saturday.   This time the days above 35 has been the most I can ever remember and certainly quite a few over 40 as well.  Nasty indeed.

Native Americans protest (of course the corporate backed mass media does not cover it, thanks to supermergers most of our media is owned by a total of 6 corporations)

Eh? The Native's protests were covered on The National CBC news channel. Check it out some time if you don't believe me. Are you talking about American news channels?

And that site you linked to is a bastion of conservative "thinking"- I half expect to see antievolution anticlimate change posters on there (whether they are "doctors" or not.)

Huh. I didn't really explore the rest of the site and so was unaware of that, but thanks for the heads up.

(I do think social democracy is the best system of government and so do most unbiased sources)

I'm curious: would you rather live in a true democracy, wherein all opinions are valued and which in our modern world seems to inevitably lead to a situation like we saw in Australia (ignoring for the moment corporate concern), or an 'environmental dictatorship' wherein citizens are forced to comply to environmental conservation laws and change their lifestyles, maybe in drastic ways, like having no cars whatsoever and traveling everywhere by e-train (for example). Could democracy be salvaged if improved education in the people made it so that the climate-change denialists or downplayers are in minority - or is this naively assuming the best in people. Would a despotic regime be justified if it ultimately saved the planet from catastrophic environmental damage, at the expense of personal freedoms?  

The American media wasn't covering it well unfortunately   It was awful actually.  I dont turn to corporate backed media anyway, my media sources are usually not for profits but I know a lot of the older generations still rely on TV news.

I love democracy but in a system where money is allowed to taint it, it can turn into a really bad system.  We have way too much corporate influence in our politics which is why you see such denialism.  An example is regarding climate change- Meet the Press did a survey and compared 1999 vs 2019, in 20 years, Liberals, Progressives and Independents went from believing climate change is a problem 56% to now it's a problem 85%  Conservatives on the other hand, in 20 years, went from 15% to 16%  It's because of how much money is spent in places where conservatives reside (the South) to sway them towards climate change denialism aka the Bible Belt (there is a direct correlation between religious fundamentalism and regressive thinking.)  One of the ways why Europe is better is because they are much less religious (in the specific nations I mention lol.)  The drug cartel also has a big influence, along with fossil fuel companies, they buy up most of the advertising during our news broadcasts.  Now both are being sued because of undermining health and covering up side effects in favor of profits.

I posted about that before, about pharma being sued by multiple states over covering up opioid side effects and addiction as well as stimulants (ritalin/adderall)  as well as supermerging companies like Exxon being sued because of covering up climate change research.

I support personal freedom and am against things like the surveillance state (which has been going on in the US, Canada and the UK) but what I am against is dark money influences in politics.  I support personal freedom not corporations being allowed to do what they please to our environment and in our politics.  Psychology Today characterized corporations as being psychopathic entities and they do function that way.

I think human beings, if they were free from the corrupting influence of money, would naturally make environmental choices- take millenials for instance.  Far fewer of them drive, many do not even have licenses.  And a record low number of them (under 20%) said they would ever even consider working for fossil fuel companies and 80% support universal healthcare and a Green New Deal, a 15 dollar/hr min wage, free college, etc.

I support personal freedom not corporations being allowed to do what they please to our environment and in our politics.

Corporations arise when the personal 'freedom' of someone in business is explored and used to make money in some way in cohesion with other interested individuals, whether by investments or capital gains etc etc. In this manner, democracy unfortunately will inevitably promote corporate growth and capitalization. A state of pure democracy would be wonderful, wherein 'decency' in society wins out by virtue of personal liberty - but basic human nature tends to win out if given the freedoms to, and greed will stake it's mark on the society in which it finds itself unopposed. In order to avoid this, a lifestyle that does not effect a monetary system to which abstract value can be emphasized might work - essentially a communist government. But as we know from various examples in history, communism tends not to work out due to corruption and other societal complications that we need not get into here. To kill the idea of a corporation altogether, any monetary system would need to be abolished. It would be hard to envision a civilization that does not place abstract value on items of worth, since for as long as we have had a civilization or basic tribalism, there has been some form of monetary system (bartering being a simple example). As long as there is a worth to any item or concept, and as long as it remains in a state of near-scarcity to your lifestyle, there will be those who seek a monopoly on it. This renders the idea of one style of governance being better then another meaningless if each ultimately pander to the same goal (hegemony of lifestyle) and differ only by how they attain it through the people they govern. 

I think human beings, if they were free from the corrupting influence of money, would naturally make environmental choices- take millenials for instance.

Millennials: a generation noted for their narcissistic behavior. I admire your optimism towards the individual decency of humans A-L-E-X, but in my interactions with the iGen I noted a underpinning state of apathy and resignation, coupled with a detached interest in non-personal matters. They are the parents (and already are in fact) of the future, but have been shouldered with a burden of righting the wrongs of their parent's errors in regard to environmental and political damage. Most try their best, and those who are passionate about their causes can do a lot, but all in all are frustrated and confused by their lack of greater impact - which is so at odds with their upbringing's emotional promotions that each of them is special and will impact the world in a big way (recall that 'everyone is special' *** pushed by parenting and educational boards in the '90s and 2000s) . This blunts the enthusiasm and in the end they resign like their parents and just try to get by. Realizing that you are just average and probably won't solve world hunger (at least alone and not in a short time span) can be a real dozy and in our Western society tends to promote introversion and more self-centered mindsets.

I support personal freedom not corporations being allowed to do what they please to our environment and in our politics.

Corporations arise when the personal 'freedom' of someone in business is explored and used to make money in some way in cohesion with other interested individuals, whether by investments or capital gains etc etc. In this manner, democracy unfortunately will inevitably promote corporate growth and capitalization. A state of pure democracy would be wonderful, wherein 'decency' in society wins out by virtue of personal liberty - but basic human nature tends to win out if given the freedoms to, and greed will stake it's mark on the society in which it finds itself unopposed. In order to avoid this, a lifestyle that does not effect a monetary system to which abstract value can be emphasized might work - essentially a communist government. But as we know from various examples in history, communism tends not to work out due to corruption and other societal complications that we need not get into here. To kill the idea of a corporation altogether, any monetary system would need to be abolished. It would be hard to envision a civilization that does not place abstract value on items of worth, since for as long as we have had a civilization or basic tribalism, there has been some form of monetary system (bartering being a simple example). As long as there is a worth to any item or concept, and as long as it remains in a state of near-scarcity to your lifestyle, there will be those who seek a monopoly on it. This renders the idea of one style of governance being better then another meaningless if each ultimately pander to the same goal (hegemony of lifestyle) and differ only by how they attain it through the people they govern. 

I think human beings, if they were free from the corrupting influence of money, would naturally make environmental choices- take millenials for instance.

Millennials: a generation noted for their narcissistic behavior. I admire your optimism towards the individual decency of humans A-L-E-X, but in my interactions with the iGen I noted a underpinning state of apathy and resignation, coupled with a detached interest in non-personal matters. They are the parents (and already are in fact) of the future, but have been shouldered with a burden of righting the wrongs of their parent's errors in regard to environmental and political damage. Most try their best, and those who are passionate about their causes can do a lot, but all in all are frustrated and confused by their lack of greater impact - which is so at odds with their upbringing's emotional promotions that each of them is special and will impact the world in a big way (recall that 'everyone is special' *** pushed by parenting and educational boards in the '90s and 2000s) . This blunts the enthusiasm and in the end they resign like their parents and just try to get by. Realizing that you are just average and probably won't solve world hunger (at least alone and not in a short time span) can be a real dozy and in our Western society tends to promote introversion and more self-centered mindsets.

In Star Trek and other futuristic outlooks, they basically state that for humanity to become a spacefaring culture, we need to evolve away from the divisions that money, race, religion, etc., all create.  I put all these problems on an equal level- income inequality is as bad as racism is as bad as bigotry, etc.  They all have common causes too.
How about a value based system that rather than money, places value on a person's reputation, honesty, integrity, desire to do goodwill, etc.?
And we could keep one type of corporation- called the benefit corporation.  Basically they receive incentives to do good, so rather than a money-at-all-costs policy, by doing good and getting paid for it, they would accomplish loftier long term goals than merely seeking the most profit.
Do you think that letting AI run our governments might be better?  They would be devoid of greed by their very nature (careful programming needs to be done to avoid human pitfalls).
I generally agree with everything you said about selfish, greedy, instant gratification oriented Western lifestyles, and I wonder if this is the kind of philosophy we have been spreading to the rest of the world, and that's why there are endless wars and conflicts everywhere because other cultures are not equipped to handle it- perhaps we need a global Prime Directive to not interfere with other cultures?  Eisenhower was right when he said to beware of the military-industrial complex, you see its effects now with global conflicts, mass surveillance and police militarization as well as supermergers and near monopolies that Theodore Roosevelt would be turning in his grave to stop.  Something will need to change somewhere or else we might all become a victim of the Great Filter that lies ahead of us.

Regarding reversing climate change, two things I am seeing that are encouraging is reducing the usage of concrete and planting more greenery in our cities, including rooftop gardens, even on skyscrapers.  Concrete is a major source of climate change and pollution.  The other is individuals devoting more time and effort to stop the ocean plastic problem.  Companies that do good like the ones that are designed to solve these problems should be incentivized and greatly rewarded while the ones who contribute to the problem should be more highly taxed.

How about a value based system that rather than money, places value on a person's reputation, honesty, integrity, desire to do goodwill, etc.?

This is called a meritocracy. More value is placed on a persons personal traits and skills then those of organizations. Singapore is the only city-state that practices a government of meritocracy, and it is considered one of the most climate-friendly and technologically advanced places on Earth. The only weakness is what is the definition of a 'merit' or value in a society. It could be anything.  

Do you think that letting AI run our governments might be better?  They would be devoid of greed by their very nature (careful programming needs to be done to avoid human pitfalls).

Yes, I do think that we as a species are unable to efficiently govern ourselves as the world becomes too complex for politicians to navigate.  Especially when certain 'values' like we discussed are placed ahead of the good of the planet. As you said though, we would need to be VERY careful with whom we surrender the reins to. Technically we would still be ruling ourselves, since we made the AI, but an ASI that has achieved Singularity would impossible to predict, especially if no safe-guards and strict core protocols are in place that do not so much as restrict it's abilities (since we need those), but rather steer them to societal ends desirous to us.

It's a tricky topic, and certainly a hard pill for many people to swallow. But look at it this way: if technology is running the world more and more, and we are further integrating technology into our life-styles (essentially becoming the dictionary-definition of cyborgs) - then less importance will be placed on the values of being 'organic'. To the 'humans' of the future, an AI governing society will be no less weird to them then us using GPS to navigate a country. Well, a sentient GPS. That is the thrust of Transhumanism - especially Singularitarianism.  In this sense, an AI-state would be not only natural, but inevitable.

But you will run into an issue here, and probably the hardest sell to the meatsacks: there can be no form of democracy in an AI-controlled society. The idea that all get an equal right to run for the control of anything by vote against one or a network of supragenius computers that have intimate connections to the pulse of the world would be laughable. At best you might have a mild form of oligarchical communism with a council of human(ish) intermediaries representing the rest of humanity, all of which are all considered equal to everyone else by the AI(s) at the top. In order to maintain order and balance, there would be flavors of despotism like constant surveillance. All in all, that may not be a bad thing, because the AI would be completely confidential and would only use it to further your utopian existence. This sort of future is called the "Rapture of the Nerds", if you're interested. The AI ruling the world (or beyond) would be a god. Psychologically speaking, humans seem to be predisposed to accepting guidance from intangible "Alphas of the Ultimate Pack", so this might not be a big an issue of acceptance as one might think.   

Honestly though, if we are to colonize even a sliver of the galaxy, AI would need to at least help us get there. If we squabble over the 148,429,000 square kilometers of the planet's continents incessantly, how much better are we going to fare in space? How could our flawed, biased brains comprehend the logistics of maintaining any appreciable order when faced with light-lag, time-scales and speciation across colonies?   

Companies that do good like the ones that are designed to solve these problems should be incentivized and greatly rewarded while the ones who contribute to the problem should be more highly taxed.                               

Corporations are slippery customers with this. Do these incentives include awarding a company for solar-panel installation when the manufacturing of such plants causes environmental damage in of itself? Or commending a fuel company for sponsoring a biofuel campaign that clears swaths of rain forest for planting? I guess it's a step in the right direction (pardon my sarcasm). If you are talking about those initiatives for environmental clean-ups, then yes - those are commendable for their actions. It's sad to see that you can only do the right thing if you are non-profit...

Yes I was talking about environmental clean ups- the other things seem suspect at best!  There was a 60 Min piece I linked earlier you might find interesting, developing biofuel from common plant sugars and also using it to create plant based plastics that biodegrade completely within 12 weeks!  I find that amazing and it wouldn't ruin the rain forests.

I do like meritocracies but as you said we have to define what that merit consists of- perhaps some kind of "credit" similar to "likes" people get but based on what they have done for others, how they have helped the environment, etc.?

I worry about surrendering full control to an AI also as well as the global surveillance issue you mentioned.  Do you think some form of human input should be given, let's say once a decade or so, to see in which direction human society was going and to perhaps form some form of course-correction in case AI was veering off?

Over the big things we'd all agree- no more wars, no more famine, starvation, disease, violence, homelessness, pollution, mass extinctions, etc., but there might be more nuanced factors which need some AI course correction once a decade or so.  That would still preserve some democracy in the machine

you might like this


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6127 ... aded-next/

perhaps some kind of "credit" similar to "likes" people get but based on what they have done for others, how they have helped the environment, etc.?

Interesting notion, but the idea of rating people based on their supposed 'achievements' gives me bad flashbacks to that Black Mirror episode "Nosedive" when our entire society is based on this superficial rating system. It made everyone shallow, fallacious and petty.

global surveillance issue

It really depends what surveillance we're talking about. Like you, I wouldn't want my personal information to be at the beck and call of a government in a Orwellian police-state of 24/7 household cameras and microphones. Yeah you might be 'secure', but your freedom and private life is being intruded upon and the psychological effect of knowing that someone is potentially watching you can be very damaging. Another aspect of this that was explored in 1984 was of course brain-washing, and by restricting peoples intellectual depth, made them powerless to domination via fear-tactics. Unfortunately brainwashing is an inevitable part of living in society. You and I were both brainwashed when we were little growing up, and we were further brain-washed through any education or interaction with those outside the original family we partook in.
What would be a 'benign' level of surveillance/ societal brainwashing? I'm not even going to guess - but you can be sure that it will be a part of our lives in a very immediate and intimate way.

going and to perhaps form some form of course-correction in case AI was veering off?

Human-input would be needed to start the ball rolling anyway. At that time, human values (hopefully universally beneficial ones) will be encoded into the core algorithms of the AI/ASI and ensure that despite the exponential nature of its processing power and equivalent mental abilities during Singularity it will maintain and expand upon those principles in a way that is benign to us in a easily-relatable and non-tricky way. These uncertainties in the evolution of an ASI will probably be the very reason why we'll never make one, or at least one with enough power to actually solve our problems on it's own within a useful timeframe. It would have great benefits to us for it to do so, but the slightest action that we perceive from our perspective as deviating from the core principles could be disastrous.

democracy in the machine

Instead of a 'ghost'... I like it.

I do like meritocracies but as you said we have to define what that merit consists of- perhaps some kind of "credit" similar to "likes" people get but based on what they have done for others, how they have helped the environment, etc.?

China has implemented this.  It is, of course, much easier when there's no democracy.

China has implemented this.  It is, of course, much easier when there's no democracy.

Yes A-L-E-X, if you really want to see what a society is like when sci-fi technology is implemented into daily life, look no father then the most 'advanced' nation on the planet. With their President-for-Life, truly the future is now. This worked in China because of it's long standing cultural traditions influencing daily life. Thus anti-corruption campaigns and citizen evaluation-systems are more acceptable to the public. The danger in this is that other nations previously averse to this kind of sociopolitical control might be buoyed by the apparent 'success' of these initiatives and implement them in their own societies.

you might like this

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6127 ... aded-next/

Interesting. There is no doubt in my mind that the science of neurology and computer engineering will be hand in hand. Simply creating an artificial mind will not be possible until we know more about what makes ours tick. A natural conclusion would be the first truly sentient AI being a digital copy/upload of a humans neural pathway. From their truer progress can be made.