Generator Functions of Existential Risk

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Description

Daniel Schmachtenberger:

"All (human induced) existential and catastrophic risks are symptoms of two underlying generator functions:

Rivalrous (win-lose) games multiplied by exponential technology self terminate. Rivalrous incentive has been the generator function of almost all the things humans have ever done that have sucked. Technologically mediated exponential suck becomes existential. Exponential tech cant be put back in the bag, so we figure out anti-rivalrous games or the human experiment completes. (Anti-fragility in the presence of decentralized exponential technology requires anti-rivalry.)

Complicated systems subsuming their complex substrate, becoming increasingly fragile till collapse becomes immanent. Our built world is complicated – not self organizing or self repairing; fragile. And increasingly inter-connectedly fragile. And the biosphere is losing its anti-fragility from the depletion and accumulation dynamics resulting from the open loops in the complicated system. This is related to how all previous civilizations failed. The current cycle is just the first fully global scale civilization. We need to learn how to build closed loop systems that don’t create depletion and accumulation, don’t require continued growth, and are in harmony with the complex systems they depend on.

Underneath both of these generator functions is the relationship between choice and causation. Both of these generator functions involve technology, without which we wouldn’t have the power to induce existential risk. Science has given us a solid theory of causation, which has given us incredible technological power that extends the magnitude of the consequences of our choices. But we do not have a similarly well grounded theory of choice (ethics), to guide how to use that power. So the default theory of choice has been game theory, the playing of which leads to these generator functions. We need a philosophy that gives rise to understanding choice and causation, and the relationship between them, that can inform effective choice making in the presence of exponential technological amplification.

Categorical solutions to these generator functions need held as design constraints of a viable civilization. Such a civilization is possible. Any civilization that doesn’t address these generator functions will inexorably self-terminate. Social change at this level is unprecedented. And necessary. And must be held as the central work of this time."

(https://civilizationemerging.com/solving-generator-function/)


Podcasts

Podcast: Future Thinkers Podcast: FTP057, 058, 059: Daniel Schmachtenberger – Solving The Generator Functions of Existential Risks

URL = https://futurethinkers.org/daniel-schmachtenberger-generator-functions/

  1. Daniel Schmachtenberger - Pt 1: Solving The Generator Functions of Existential Risks
  2. Daniel Schmachtenberger - Pt 2: Solving The Generator Functions of Existential Risks
  3. Daniel Schmachtenberger - Pt 3: Solving The Generator Functions of Existential Risks


Transcript / Summary

FT (paraphrasing Daniel Schmachtenberger):

"After addressing the existential risks that are threathening humanity in one of our earlier episodes, Daniel now dives deeper into the matter. In the following three episodes, he talks about the underlying generator functions of existential risks and how we can solve them.


Win-Lose Games Multiplied by Exponential Technology

Future Thinkers, paraphrasing Daniel Schmachtenberger:

"As Daniel explains, all human-induced existential risks are symptoms of two underlying generator functions.

One of these functions is rivalrous (win-lose) games. This includes any activity where one party competes to win at the expense of another party. Daniel believes that win-lose games are at the root of almost all harm that humans have caused, both to each other and to the biosphere. As technology is increasing our capacity to cause harm, these competitive games start to exceed the capacity of the playing field. Scaled to a global level and multiplied by exponential technology, these win-lose games become an omni lose-lose generator. When the stakes are high enough, winning the game means destroying the entire playing field and all the players.

Daniel then looks into some of the issues that capitalism, science and technology have created. Among byproducts of these rivalrous games are what he calls “multipolar traps”. Multipolar traps are scenarios where the things that work well for individuals locally are directly against the global well-being. He proposes that our sense-making and choice making processes need to be upgraded and improved if we want to solve these traps as a category.

Daniel believes that the current phases of capitalism, science, technology and democracy are destabilizing and coming to an end. In order to avoid extinction, we have to come up with different systems altogether, and replace rivalry with anti-rivalry. One of the ways to do that is moving from ownership of goods towards access to shared common resources. Daniel argues that we are at the place where the harmful win-lose dynamics both have to and can change.

He also proposes a new system of governance which would allow groups of people that have different goals and values to come to decisions together on various issues.

Humanity’s current predatory capacity enhanced with technology makes us catastrophically harmful to the environment that we depend on. Daniel challenges the notion of “the survival of the fittest”, and argues that it is not the most competitive ecosystem that makes it through, but the most self-stabilizing one."

(https://futurethinkers.org/daniel-schmachtenberger-generator-functions/)


Complicated Open-Loop Systems vs. Complex Closed-Loop Systems

FT (paraphrasing Daniel Schmachtenberger):

"The biosphere is a complex self-regulating system. It is also a closed-loop system, meaning that once a component stops serving its function, it gets recycled and reincorporated back into the system. In contrast, the systems humans have created are complicated, open loop systems. They are neither self-organizing nor self-repairing. Complex systems, which come from evolution, are anti-fragile. Complicated systems, designed by humans, are fragile. Complicated open-loop systems are the second generator function of existential risks.

Open loops in a complicated system, such as modern industry, create depletion and accumulation. This means that resources are depleted on one end of the chain and waste is accumulated on the other end. A natural complex system, on the contrary, reabsorbs and processes everything, which means there is no depletion or waste in the long run. This makes natural systems anti-fragile. By interfering with natural complicated system, we affect the biosphere so much that it begins to lose its anti-fragility.

At the same time, man-made complicated systems are outgrowing the planet’s natural resources to the point where collapse becomes unavoidable."

(https://futurethinkers.org/daniel-schmachtenberger-generator-functions/)


The Relationship Between Choice and Causation

FT (paraphrasing Daniel Schmachtenberger):

"Daniel explains that adaptive capacity increases in groups, but only up to a point. After a certain point, adding more people starts having diminishing effects per capita. This results in people defecting against the system, because that’s where their incentives are. He proposes that we create new systems of collective intelligence and choice-making that can scale more effectively.

Science has given us a solid theory of causation. Through science, we have gained incredible technological power that magnifies the outcomes of our choices. We don’t have a similarly well grounded theory of choice, an ethical framework to guide us through using our increased power. When it comes to ethics, science rejects all non-scientific efforts, such as religious ideas or morals. Instead, win-lose game theory has served as the default theory of choice in science. This has lead to a dangerous myopia towards the existential risks that are generated from win-lose games.

It is necessary to address these ethical questions, especially in terms of existential risk we are now at. We have to improve the individual and collective choice-making to take everything in consideration and realize how we are interconnected with everything around us. “I” is not a separate entity, but an emergent property of the whole.

We need to have a theory of choice which relates choice and causation. The core to the solution, as Daniel explains, is the coherence dynamics, which internalizes the external and includes it in the decision making process.


Daniel explains that the necessary design criteria for a viable civilization which is not self-terminating are:

  • Creating loop closure within complicated man-made systems
  • Having the right relationship between complex natural and complicated man-made systems

Creating anti-rivalrous environments within which exponential technology does not threaten our existence."

(https://futurethinkers.org/daniel-schmachtenberger-generator-functions/)


The Path to a Post-Existential-Risk World

FT (paraphrasing Daniel Schmachtenberger):

"Daniel talks about the need for individuals and systems to have strength as opposed to power. Strength is not the ability to beat others, the ability to maintain sovereignty in the presence of outside forces.

The path to the post-existential risk world is towards a civilization that is anti-rivalrous, anti-fragile and self-propagating. Ultimately, we have to create a world that has not only overcome today’s existential risks, but is also a world where humanity can thrive."

(https://futurethinkers.org/daniel-schmachtenberger-generator-functions/)


Discussion

Via ChatGPT, summarizing Daniel Schmachtenberger on: Why incentives are intrinsically evil

"Daniel Schmachtenberger argues that incentives can be intrinsically problematic because they often create "win-lose" scenarios that can lead to systemic harm. This is particularly evident in modern economic and technological systems, where individual or corporate gains can result in broader societal and environmental losses.

Here are some key points from Schmachtenberger's perspective:

Win-Lose Dynamics: Schmachtenberger describes how traditional incentive structures encourage competitive behaviors that benefit one party at the expense of others. These rivalrous dynamics, when amplified by modern technology, can lead to significant negative externalities. For example, a company might prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability, harming the environment and society in the process​ (Future Thinkers)​​ (Daniel Schmachtenberger)​.

Multipolar Traps: These are situations where actions that benefit an individual or group locally can be detrimental globally. Schmachtenberger highlights that many societal structures reward behaviors that are locally rational but globally harmful, such as pollution for industrial growth or financial speculation that destabilizes economies​ (Future Thinkers)​.

Complex Systems and Unintended Consequences: Schmachtenberger emphasizes that human-created systems often fail to self-regulate as effectively as natural systems do. Our systems tend to be "open-loop" and fragile, leading to resource depletion and waste accumulation. This fragility is exacerbated by incentives that do not account for the long-term consequences of short-term gains​ (Future Thinkers)​​ (Figments of Speculation)​.

Alternative Systems: He advocates for designing systems that promote "anti-rivalry" and shared benefits. This involves moving from ownership models to access models, where resources are shared rather than hoarded, and where incentives align with the common good rather than individual gain​ (The Great Simplification)​​ (Figments of Speculation)​.

Schmachtenberger suggests that a shift in our collective sense-making and decision-making processes is necessary to address these challenges. He argues for a more holistic approach to ethics and governance that prioritizes long-term stability and ecological health over short-term gains​ (Daniel Schmachtenberger)​​ (The Great Simplification)​."