Local and global optimum of a society
„None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free“
“Niemand ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als jene, die fälschlicherweise glauben, frei zu sein.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The creation of heaven on earth is considered an impossible task by 99.99% of people. I want to show in this chapter that they might be wrong, even if all our attempts to improve the world have always failed so far.
I can’t explain the main concept of this chapter without a little bit of mathematics. Sorry for this.
Look at the following graph of a function of two variables (A and B) which shows the output of a function (labelled with „Prosperity“) on the vertical axes plotted against A and B:
(Image by author)
We can see in this graph the values of the prosperity of a hypothetical society for different values of the parameters A and B. A and B are two arbitrary parameters which describe properties of the society (e.g. its culture). Let’s assume it is possible for us to modify A and B. We now look only at two variables but in a real society the number of such parameters is much much larger. The reason why we chose such a simple example is that we can only visualize the situation for a small number of parameters (but the argument works in the same way for the real, high dimensional case).
Let’s assume our society is in the state A=0 and B=4 (with a prosperity corresponding to the smaller of the two peaks).
Now we can observe the following: If we move away only a little bit from the current state, the prosperity decreases very quickly. This gives us the (false) impression that we are in an optimal state and that it is impossible to increase the prosperity by changing the parameters A and B. Or in other words: whatever change we introduce, things only get worse and therefore our current society must be the best possible. But in the graph we see that there is in fact another state which offers a much larger prosperity: A = -4, B = 0 (i.e. the large peak). We say in this case that our current state is only a poor local optimum and the much better global optimum is at a different state.
Note that we cannot create such a graph for our real society. We don‘t known the value of the prosperity for each possible combination of parameters and even if we knew it we could not plot it due to the very large number of parameters. We don’t know if the current state of our society is a local or the global optimum. But the argument shows that it is at least possible that the current state is not the best possible and therefore a better state exists.
How can we find a superior state (i.e. better values for all the parameters)? And if we have a good idea where the better optimum could be, there is still the question of how to get there. As we have seen any small change in the parameters reduces the prosperity (i.e. increases our suffering). This means we have to change several parameters together quickly and dramatically (i.e. we have to „jump“ in the parameter space) to avoid suffering. Or we have to find a „path“ consisting of a series of parameter combinations which lead from the local optimum to the global one without increasing suffering much (in the example chart: the path following the direct connection between the peaks).
I believe that our society is currently in a very poor local optimum and even drifting fast to a much worse state. A much higher prosperity is probably possible.
It could be risky to „jump“ in parameter space when the prosperity in the target state is actually unknown and can be only guessed („does the new thing really work or is it in the end even worse than what we have now?“). We have to plan carefully to minimize the risk of jumping to an even worse state. But I think, considering the outlook of complete destruction in the current system as described earlier, it makes much sense to risk a well planned experiment.
„The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible“
Arthur C. Clarke