Second axiom of Loginomy (Purpose):
Based on what we know about our environment, we must identify the larger purpose of things, which gives the purpose of a logical political system.

       	First principles, Clarice: simplicity.
	Read Marcus Aurelius,
	'Of each particular thing, ask:
	What is it in itself?
	What is its nature?'
	What does he do,
	this man you seek?

	...Hannibal Lecter

We have an overview of our situation.  Reality as perceived by Science describes life on Earth as the evolution of biological intelligence, and ourselves - humanity - as the pinnacle of this evolution.  Now, to proceed from here, we need to know what we are aiming for.  And in the effort of creating a logical political system for people in general, we need to find what has collective purpose.

But can we extract meaning and purpose from the theories of Science?  At first glance - no.  Science merely describes the survival of patterns; a universe made of energy changing form, where whatever form survives, survives.  Science does not reveal how or why the universe exists in the first place.

To get any further, I suggest we must contemplate our own experience, and identify that our conscious experience itself is the only game in town.  Our experience can be further broken down into two dimensions - well-being and suffering, whence sentience is a higher order of the former (at least as it is required to prolong well-being).

This is of course not mere philosophy.  In 1973, neuroscientist Candace Pert published her article 'Opiate Receptor: Demonstration in Nervous Tissue', describing how opiates, or 'molecules of emotion', bind to receptors in the nervous tissue of the brain.  It was the beginning of a new era of documenting the molecular foundation of our feelings of well-being and suffering (including in other animals than ourselves).

So is pursuing our well-being what it all boils down to?  And since we have as much reason to believe that other animals, as other humans, experience well-being and suffering like we personally do, does this not suggest to include animals within the scope of our political system?  My answer to all this is rather different:

Cause there is still an even more fundamental dimension to our existence - our very survival!  If you want a glass of water, but you don't exist - what will you do?  If you want to colonize Mars, but Earth is a desert wasteland with no people on it - what will you do?  Any rational person will agree, that...

To accomplish anything, you must exist.

From this follows that we ought to put most effort into avoiding what could cause our downfall and extinction.  Only humans have a chance to save the species on Earth from a great volcanic eruption, a large meteor, or from eventually being swallowed by the sun.  Only humans can make the lifeforms on Earth truly redundant, by colonising distant planets and satelites.

As was discovered in 'Reality', an extrapolation of the exponential development of technology means that we are giving rise to an artificial superintelligence coming to life in a few decades.  Apart from yielding an abundance of energy and alleviating all suffering, artificial superintelligence has the potential of expanding swiftly throughout the solar system and beyond.

So the big question is - will humanity reach this scenario?  What really are the existential threats to our survival?  Well, let us first debunk two alleged threats:



Erroneous threat: climate change.
The gravest peril of climate change - rising sea levels - has up untill now been linear and in the order of a few centimeters/inches.  As exponential technological evolution is about to make 'artificial' processing power surpass the level of human brains in our ordinary microchips (a signifier), we can expect to soon possess the technology to take care of "the threat of CO2".  The (lucrative) hypothesis that 'climate change' represent an immediate threat to the survival of humanity is abandoned.




Erroneous threat:  powerless terrorism.
Power concentrations are always ahead of the curve when it comes to controlling destructive technology.  And by the nature of our developing technology, the powerless will not be able to develop the capacity to destroy the world, as Eric Drexler, the father of nanotechnology, explains neatly:

"We're seeing a greater and greater density of sensors in communications systems.  I think that the concern that people should have downstream a decade or two, isn't that there will be terrorists doing things that threaten them, but rather that systems that have been put in place to - among other things - suppress terrorism will have succeeded, and may be used to suppress things that they would prefer not to be suppressed."






Reverse-engineering doomsday.

The greatest existential threat to our survival has already revealed itself.  While organisations that do not have homogeneous values and beliefs may have internal conflict, it is the major conflicts of interest between large organisations, poorly described as factions of nation states, that has so far directly threatened the livelihood of humanity:


Near doomsday events:
1962:  Cuban Missile Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
1995:  Norwegian rockets incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident


As I can most accurately perceive it, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a threat to our survival because of the major conflict of interest between two major power concentrations (superpowers).  Most of all the power in the world was centralised in one vortex in the west (Washington D.C., USA) and one vortex in the east (Moscow, USSR).

The Norwegian rocket incident show that even with less tension, it is dangerous to set up a fragile international systems, where a bad signal have the possibilty of unleashing a cascade of catastrophic events.  But the actual danger from this incident also came from the existence of a major conflict of interest between two major power concentrations.

Obviously, it is not in our collective interest to blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons, or to destroy the world with other forms of technology.  So why do we even allow this to be a possibility?  At least we have been able to home in on what our primary purpose should be:

For the sake of our survival, the main task of a political system is to prevent major conflicts of interest among major power concentrations.
(...does this sound like your currently favoured political party?)

To express our situation succinctly:
-  A local war between North- and South-Korea, or even between Pakistan and India, will not destroy the world.
-  A war between western power concentration (NATO) and eastern power concentration (China/Russia/SCO) might destroy the world.


We definitely want to avoid a major interest conflict (or lethal accident from such tension) between the major power concentrations of our world.  Therefore we need to enlighten ourselves and others on how to move pragmatically in the opposite direction.



III Awareness