Remark: This article is from The Conversation France written by Victor DOS SANTOS PAULINO & Nonthapat PULSIRI (V&N) — Experts from Toulouse Business School and The SIRIUS Chair (France)

Lorsque nous parlons d’espace, nous pensons aux étoiles que nous voyons la nuit ou à de bons films de science-fiction. Or, l’espace comprend également tous les satellites et engins qui sont lancés depuis la Terre. Dans certains engins spatiaux, il y a des astronautes, comme l’Américaine Christina Koch ou le Français Thomas Pesquet, qui voyagent pendant plusieurs jours ou mois pour de nombreuses missions.

Pendant ce temps, plus de 8 000 satellites non habités opèrent sur les orbites terrestres pour améliorer la vie quotidienne. Par exemple, les satellites de communication contribuent à améliorer l’accès à Internet dans les zones blanches, les satellites d’observation sont essentiels pour les prévisions météorologiques et les satellites de navigation (GPS) sont indispensables pour les besoins de transport actuels et futurs tels que les véhicules autonomes.

Les progrès dans le secteur spatial offrent aujourd’hui de nouvelles opportunités dans la mise en orbite de constellations de milliers de satellites (par exemple, la flotte Starlink lancée par SpaceX, la société de l’homme d’affaires américain Elon Musk) ou encore dans l’exploitation minière spatiale et le tourisme spatial. Certains pays (dont la France et les États-Unis) ont par ailleurs annoncé que soutenir leur écosystème spatial constituait une priorité pour dynamiser l’économie.

Des sociétés comme SpaceX ou encore Blue Origin, lancée par le milliardaire américain Jeff Bezos, peuvent en effet stimuler les modèles d’affaires d’autres entreprises dans des secteurs non spatiaux comme ceux de la logistique et de l’énergie. Ces nouveaux entrants contribuent ainsi à élargir l’impact des activités spatiales à d’autres secteurs.

Plus de 3 300 satellites non opérationnels en orbite

Dans le même temps, la société civile apparaît cependant de plus en plus préoccupée par les problèmes croissants de développement durable dans les activités spatiales.

Le premier problème identifié concerne les débris spatiaux, qui sont des objets fabriqués par l’homme se trouvant en orbite terrestre et n’ayant plus de fonction utile. Ces objets comprennent des satellites non opérationnels, des étages de lanceurs abandonnés, des fragments de satellites mis hors service et même le résultat de collisions entre objets spatiaux.

À lire aussi : Les satellites Starlink nous empêcheront bientôt d’observer les étoiles

Imaginez que plus de 30 000 débris spatiaux nuisibles et 3 364 satellites non opérationnels peuvent aujourd’hui entrer en collision avec les 4 852 satellites opérationnels, et que toutes leurs fonctions utiles à la vie quotidienne disparaissent. Cela désorganiserait des pans entiers de la société comme les transports, la sécurité nationale, ou encore la finance.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embe…idth=550px

Certaines activités spatiales ont également un impact écologique sur l’environnement terrestre, tel que la pollution de l’air, de l’eau et des sols. Par exemple, les substances toxiques potentiellement libérées par le tourisme spatial font encore l’objet de débats animés sur la légitimité environnementale de développer ces nouvelles activités. Par conséquent, les activités spatiales ne concernent pas que la communauté spatiale, elles concernent tout le monde.

[Près de 80 000 lecteurs font confiance à la newsletter de The Conversation pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux du monde. Abonnez-vous aujourd’hui]

Pour aider à trouver des solutions, nous suggérons trois axes de travail prometteurs sur la base de nos récents travaux de recherche : (1) la collaboration, (2) les technologies spatiales vertes et (3) les politiques de soutien.

Le soutien de la société civile en jeu

La collaboration constitue une première solution qui doit s’envisager via l’interaction de cinq parties prenantes clés : les gouvernements, le monde universitaire, l’industrie, la société civile et les acteurs environnementaux comme les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG). Cependant, alors que l’industrie a déjà pris conscience des problèmes, le rôle des institutions académiques dans la collaboration reste incomplet. Les progrès concernent aujourd’hui notamment l’identification des débris, la gestion du trafic spatial, l’enlèvement des débris et la maintenance en orbite.

À lire aussi : Pollution dans l’espace : et si on taxait ?

La deuxième solution consiste à développer des technologies spatiales vertes qui vont minimiser l’émission de pollutions lors de la conduite des activités. Ces technologies peuvent être liées à l’écoconception et au développement de technologies spatiales respectueuses de l’environnement, telles que la propulsion verte, l’énergie propre, les matériaux non toxiques et l’enlèvement des débris spatiaux.

Enfin, la dernière solution suppose la mise en œuvre de politiques de soutien à l’innovation qui à la fois encouragent la commercialisation de l’espace en tant que nouveau moteur économique et renforcent la nouvelle dynamique durable des activités spatiales. Par exemple, des politiques d’innovation verte visant à aider les petites et moyennes entreprises ayant des technologies à faible impact environnemental. En outre, il convient d’aligner ces politiques sur les 17 Objectifs de développement durable (ODD) établis les Nations unies.

Il est encore temps pour résoudre les deux principaux problèmes qui empêchent un espace durable : les débris spatiaux et l’impact écologique des activités spatiales. Cependant, les gouvernements, le monde universitaire et l’industrie ne doivent pas attendre, au risque d’alimenter un dénigrement des activités spatiales comparable à la honte de prendre l’avion qui se développe depuis les années 2010. Un manque d’action pourrait ainsi compromettre le soutien de la société civile qui a toujours été indispensable aux développements des activités spatiales.

Remark: This article is from The Conversation “En Anglais” written by Victor DOS SANTOS PAULINO & Nonthapat PULSIRI (V&N) — Experts from Toulouse Business School and The SIRIUS Chair (France)

When talking about space, one might think about the stars one sees at night or a good sci-fi film. But space is also crowded with satellites, spacecrafts and astronauts, whose missions can last anywhere from several days to months. Meanwhile, 8,216 unmanned satellites revolve around Earth’s orbits to improve our daily lives. Communication satellites contribute to enhancing Internet access in regions deprived of infrastructure (so-called “white areas”); meteorology satellites have become essential for weather forecasts, while navigation satellites (including GPS) are crucial for current and future transportation needs such as automatic driving vehicles.

Technological advances in the sector have unlocked many new business opportunities. The industry can now launch constellations of thousand satellites to reach corners of the earth as it had never before (e.g., Starlink), while new markets such as space mining and space tourism are steadily growing. National champions (including the United States and France) have also framed the space sector as a top economic priority. It is thought the technological benefits accrued by companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin or OneWeb, launched by billionaires such as Elon Musk, will also be able to trickle down to non-space sectors such as the energy or freight industries.

Issues for sustainable space

For all these benefits, civil society appears increasingly concerned about the sector’s ecological footprint.

The first main issue to tackle is space debris which are defunct human-made objects in Earth orbit that no longer serve a useful function. These objects include non-operating satellites, abandoned parts of launch vehicles, which carry satellites or spacecraft into space, decommissioned satellites, and even debris resulting from the collision between space objects. In practice, this means more than 30,000 harmful space debris and 3,364 non-operating satellites could collide into an estimated 4,859 active operating satellites, with catastrophic implications for our daily lives in sectors spanning transport and security to finance.

Some space activities could also impact the Earth’s environment, including air, water and soil pollution, and outer-space contaminations. Take, for example, the rising popularity of space tourism. Given soot from spacecrafts currently warms up the Earth at a rate that is 500 times greater than that released by planes, there is growing anxiety over the sector’s associated greenhouse gas emissions and toxic substances. As a result, the debate over space activities cannot be the prerogative of the space community alone.

In an attempt to resolve these issues, our recent research has identified three promising working avenues:

• Collaboration
• Green space technology
• Policies aiming at sustainable development

Tailor solutions for sustainable space

The collaboration needs to be carried out between five key parties: governments, academia, the industry, civil society, and environmental players such as NGOs. Nevertheless, while the industry has already developed an awareness of the issues at stake, the input of academic institutions has yet to be clarified. In particular, academia could provide new ideas in the areas of debris identification and removal, space traffic management, space situational awareness, and in-orbit servicing.

The second solution consists in developing green space technology that would emit less greenhouse gas emissions and other hazardous chemical substances. According to the European Space Agency, these green technologies could minimise the energy consumption throughout the entire life-cycle of a space mission, save up on resources, while also minimising toxic substances to protect human well-being and biodiversity.

Green space solutions to investigate include space traffic management, in-orbit servicing and active debris removal on the one hand. When it comes to the spacecrafts themselves, scientists should also start to imagine greener propulsion, cleaner fuels, and alternatives to toxic material. For example, following the path of SpaceX, all launch vehicle manufacturers are also considering reusable launchers that will reduce CO₂ gas emission in a life cycle.

The final solution consists in developing policies that can at once encourage space commercialisation and enhance sustainable policy regime. One instance of this are green innovation policies assisting low-carbon small and medium enterprises. It will be important to align these policies with the 17 pillars of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations. To achieve this agenda, some indicators are emerging such as space sustainability rating and ESG (environment, social and governance).

We think that we are still on time to solve the two main issues in sustainable space: space debris and the sector’s overall ecological impact on Earth. However, space organisations cannot remain idle awaiting that “space shame” – a space version of flight shame (from the original Swedish concept of flygskam) in the aviation sector – propels them into action.

Ad-Astra! To the stars! In peace for all mankind!

V&N

It is our duty to get this job done. “[N]othing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independance.” The Declaration of Independence was written after Common Sense, mainly by Thomas Jefferson. A life extension version of it might look something like this:

Declaration of Independence from Death

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by life with certain unalienable rights, that chief among them is life itself, that is, freedom from incurring the injustice of a defined lifespan. To secure this right, science is practiced among people, deriving its just power from the purest form of the pursuit for answers, for the lifting of the veils of ignorance that hold us back from true freedom. Whenever anything becomes destructive of this end, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new practices, laying its foundation on principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their survival. The history of death is a history of repeated horrors and atrocities. Let the facts be submitted to a candid world.

Every person who dies misses out on what very well may be an infinity of incredible wonders and opportunities. This is stiflingly enormous opportunity cost. People lose their freedom, memories, goals, thoughts, themselves; others lose them; all of humanity and the universe loses them, and nothing in the universe compares to a human. The all-around suffering that death causes to the individuals it kills and the people around them is staggering and endlessly traumatic, causing stress and damage on countless levels of every part of life and society. The death process is degrading and undignified, humiliating people for decades as it reduces them to feebleness, senility and dust. Death deprives people of the ability to know what is going on in this mysterious dimension we all find ourselves in here, what we ultimately are and why we are here. It steals away our chance to know what marvels and wonders exist in the expanses of the great unknown, our ability to experience pleasures we haven’t yet, our ability to know what it’s like to experience the fulfillment of all of our goals, and the chance to work for and live in an existence of negligible or perhaps even non-existent fallacy.

We, the freedom loving members of humanity, from all around the globe, of all cultures and creeds, solemnly declare, that we are, and of right ought to be free from death in the form of defined lifespans. To this end we mutually pledge to each other our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The customs of conventions, our current mainstream traditions, are against us, and will be so, until, by a thorough awakening for independence from death, our oldest and most sacred right, takes its rightful and long overdue place among the ranks of other indispensable rights. “The custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independance, we take rank with other nations.”

“Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for Independance.” People do not need to want to live for thousands of years in order to want independence from death, they need only want their own freedom to choose what course they may, and the same for their friends and families. Some people don’t want to be forced to live for thousands of years, and some people don’t want to be forced to die before the age of 125. Currently, however, only the people who might choose to die at the age of 50 have the freedom to make that choice. With unlimited lifespans, we can all be free. This is about eradicating deaths tyranny, not death, in the same way that the American revolutionaries worked to break the stranglehold of tyranny that Great Britain held over them, not stop every slight and fight they might have post-independence.

“We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; […] we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder.” Our war is even more dignified. It is removal of a tyranny and the installation of one of the greatest freedoms of all, all without a shedding of blood.

“[L]et a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The ‘law as King’ is superior to ‘humans as Kings’ because people collectively form laws with some amount of oversight of each other’s input. “Law” as the foundation, however, can still tend to be quite arbitrary. Life is what rules us, living, the chance to do people things in a universe of endless opportunities. Let life wear the crown and guide us along our path to true freedom. “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.” The cause of expanding our frontiers and abilities, of expanding life, is in great measure the greatest cause of them all.

Please review the event details here, or here.

Some more related resources:

Archives of previous online shows

***** New: short film on impact of covid9

Read my take on the covid19 crisis

new resource hub on PostCorona Futures

The Future of Work — the Great Transformation. Free online conference with Futurists Ross Dawson, Shara Evans, Gerd Leonhard

The world ‘after Corona’ will be dramatically different (read Gerd’s take here: gerd.io/gr8transformation), and the way we work, when, where & why is changing forever.

Join 3 of the world’s top futurists to discuss the Future of Work: Ross Dawson (Sydney), Shara Evans (AUS/USA), Gerd Leonhard (Zurich)

Sydney 5pm

Auckland 7pm

Singapore 3pm

Mumbai 12:30pm

Dubai 11am

Zurich 9am

Themes: economic impact of the crisis, remote/distributed work, the changing role of offices, skills and capabilities soon required, how to tap into our unique human capabilities, well-being and working remotely +++

Gerd Leonhard 

Watch the full length presentation at Victor V. Motti YouTube Channel  

Economists, mathematicians, and to some degree, engineers have contributed to the development of game theory. In neoclassic economics, it is assumed that each economic agent has a rational behavior. According to the prediction model based on such an assumption, decision makers, if they sell goods and services, tend to maximize profit and if they buy tend to maximize utility. In other words, people naturally seek the best and the most. Moreover, decision making is based on the principle of “predict then act”. The individual first predicts the likely consequences of choices and attribute to them utilities. In the next step, an alternative is chosen that has the best consequence or the most utility. This camp or school is often called the normative decision analysis.

Nonetheless, empirical studies on the behavior of real decision makers demonstrate that despite the prediction of rational models of choice, the individuals or economic agents, do not always follow the principle of the best and the most. In 1950s, for instance, Herbert Simon showed that when faced with uncertainty and due to lack of information about the future, there are cognitive limits to rationality such that contrary to the neoclassic economic theory, people do not make decisions rationally and logically in search of the optimal alternative. Instead they seek a combination of satisfaction and sufficing levels of utility which is also called “satisficing”. This camp or school is often called the behavioral or descriptive decision analysis. To further explain, no one can claim that in a certain decision the best alternative has been chosen, regardless of the choice criteria or the ideal level of utility. Because there is always a better alternative than the best alternative known to us now. That better alternative either exists now beyond our awareness or will appear in the future. But we never can choose it if we do not know about it. In brief, we can possibly choose from a subset of the best, the best element.

In light of the flaws of the actual decision making by humans, we tend to recognize both the pros and cons of normative and descriptive decision analysis. Pioneers of decision analysis therefore have attempted to work on a new integral school that is wise enough and take into account the natural cognitive limits. This camp or school is often called the “prescriptive” decision analysis. The aim is to educate and train better decision makers, both individually and collectively. Our approach here to the question of anticipation is also integral and prescriptive.

Use of games in military planning, strategic thinking, and modern futures studies has a long tradition. Yet the approach is often experimental which means you need to play the game to learn and to capture the complexity and to encourage creativity in search of new deep insights. Another approach is analytical and you need to calculate to obtain and to develop some not trivial and not intuitive insights.

When more than one decision maker in a competitive or cooperative involve in decision situations, game theory is used to do decision analysis. Game theory is an analytical-mathematical framework to investigate the space of decision in strategic situations that involve conflicts of interests or conflict of preferred futures. A conflict of interest situation arises if two or multiple decision makers pursue different and opposing goals and there cannot be win-win situations. For example, in international futures, a rising and more assertive China will conflict with the hegemonic USA. Or in the case of personal futures, when several persons like to marry one person and therefore have to compete with each other.

The aim of game theory is to find the optimal strategy for each of the so-called players. Five key assumptions in the theory are:

1. Each player (decision maker) has at least two well defined alternatives or options of choice. Alternatives are indeed the plays by the players.
2. Each play ends in a well-defined outcome (win, lose, tie) when the game is over.
3. Each player attributes to each outcome a specific payoff or utility.
4. Each player knows the rules of the game and knows also the scores or utilities for other players per each outcome.
5. Each player plays rational. That is faced with at least two alternatives, the alternative with more payoff is chosen.

However, the assumptions number 4 and 5 are violated in the real world decision making. In particular, the rationality is challenged in the descriptive school as mentioned above

Now, after this brief introduction, we can address the question: “is anticipation a good strategy?”

We first introduce a game with simple rules and then explore the mathematical solution.

The game of rug or carpet is introduced like this:

Two persons are in bazaar. Someone who has two Oriental rugs comes close and offers them this: I want to give you these two rugs. If both of you accept the offer I will leave and never return. But if one of you do not accept the offer, tomorrow I will visit you again and bring a package with me. In that package there is either a rug or a carpet with a fifty-fifty chance. The carpet will value four times the rug. If both of you decline my today offer in anticipation of a carpet tomorrow, then one of you will receive nothing. If one of you decline my today offer in anticipation of tomorrow, then at least one rug will be the gain. If one accepts and the other one declines, the one who does not wait for tomorrow’s package can take both of the rugs. But whoever accepts today’s offer cannot anticipate anything in tomorrow’s prospect.

If the game of rug or carpet just described played in complete competition and both of the players express their choices simultaneously without knowing the choice of the other player, then it is reasonable to ask a challenging question that “is anticipation a good strategy” which has no trivial answer and needs an analytic investigation.

If players care about their own interests, then what they should do now. Is it better to anticipate a better offer tomorrow under any conditions? More specifically, if your competitor chooses anticipation with a 50% probability then what is the good strategy for you?

In the game of rug or carpet several factors such as patience, anticipation, risk, and competition are important. Descriptive school of decision science indicates that people are often risk averse with respect to gains and risk prone with respect to losses. In other words, humans would prefer the sure gain to the likely gain. This cognitive insight reveals that, our players will likely accept their one rugs and the game will be over. Therefore, no offer a package on tomorrow and no need for anticipation.

But a normative approach uncovers some points. Taking into account such points will be helpful in a prescriptive approach which aims to bridge the gap between rationality and reality of choice. First, note that if we assume that the players do not chose simultaneously, then the second player’s optimal choice will be to choose the opposite choice of the first player. This means that if the first player does not prefer to anticipate then the second player should anticipate the offer of tomorrow and vice versa. Clearly if the first player does not anticipate and accepts the offer then the second player in the case of not anticipation obtains a rug and in the case of anticipation obtains at least a rug. But given the likelihood of a carpet on tomorrow then anticipation is better.

In the case of simultaneous play, the strategy of opposite choice with “some considerations” is also good. By some considerations we mean the conjecture about the competitor’s choice. As a matter of fact, a player should guess either anticipation or not by the other player.

Suppose that these players have played this game many times in the past and player I has noted that player II often never anticipates. Player I is almost sure that that this time again Player II will not wait in anticipation of the package of tomorrow. Almost sure is a qualitative description for a probability distribution. Absolutely sure, very sure, almost sure, do not know, almost unlikely, very unlikely, and absolutely unlikely might be interpreted with quantitative estimates such 100%, 80–99%, 50–80%, 50%, 20–50%, 1–20%, and 0% respectively.

Either player should make a conjecture about the other player’s choice. There is a specific threshold, that can be calculated, which establishes the probability about the opponent’s choice such that the utility of anticipation versus not anticipation will be equal for either of players. That probability shows that when anticipation and not are indifferent.

To analyze and calculate that threshold probability we order the pairs of utilities like this: (a, a), (a, n), (n, a), and  (n, n) where a is anticipation and n is not anticipation. For example, the ordered pair of (a, n) says that player I anticipates and player II does not anticipate.

Now to calculate the gains for each player we should compute the expected payoffs of all these pairs. If none anticipates, (n, n), then both will have one rug and therefore (n, n) = (1, 1). If player I does not anticipate and player II anticipates, (n, a), then player I will have two rugs, and player II will have a 50% chance of a rug, and a 50% chance of a carpet which values 4 times the rug. The expected gain for player II will be: 0.5*1+ 0.5*4= 2.5. Hence we have (n, a) = (2, 2.5). Similarly, we have (a, n) = (2.5, 2). For the case of that both players anticipate, one of them will have nothing. The expected gain for either of players will be: 0.5*2.5+ 0.5*0 = 1.25 and we have (a, a) = (1.25, 1.25).

Now suppose that player I guesses that player II will anticipate with probability P. If player I also anticipates the package of tomorrow then the expected gain will be a mix of (a, a) and (a, n) in this way: E(I_a) = (1.25) * P + (2.5) * (1-P). If player I does not anticipate then the expected gain will be a mix of (n, a) and (n, n) in this way: E (I_n) = (2) * P + (1) * (1-P).  Depending on whether E(I_a) is larger or smaller or smaller than E (I_n) the player I will have a clear choice between either anticipation or not anticipation. But if they are equal for a specific probability of anticipation by player II, the player I will be indifferent between either choice. Let’s calculate that threshold probability.

E (I_a) = E (I_n)

(1.25) * P + (2.5) * (1-P) = (2) * P + (1) * (1-P)

1.5 = 2.25 P

P = 2/3=0.7

This probability says that if player I thinks that player II will anticipate the package of tomorrow with a probability of 70% then player I will remain indifferent to prefer either anticipation or not anticipation. Any change to that estimate will give player I a clear choice. Consider that for instance that player I is very sure that player II will anticipate, i.e. P = 90 %, then E (I_a) will be less than E (I_n). Therefore, not anticipation for player I is the preferred choice.

Obviously, the threshold calculated above depends on the relative value of carpet to rug which we assumed to be 4. The deeper insight that is uncovered using this game is that for another threshold, this time involving the relative value of carpet (the potential reward of tomorrow for which anticipation is necessary) to the rug (the current reward of today without the need for anticipation). Such a threshold demonstrates that for a specific relative value of carpet to rug, the anticipation is the better choice, “regardless of our conjecture about the opponent’s probability of choosing either anticipation or not anticipation.”  If we use the relative value of carpet to rug in the above calculation as an unknown parameter, X, it can be shown as noted below that the threshold of relative value is 7.

E (I_a) = E (I_n)

P*0.5*(0.5+0.5X) +0.5*(1+X) *(1-P) =2P+(1-P)

P = (0.5X-0.5)/(.25X+1.25) < =1

X<=7

In other words, if the relative value of carpet to rug in this game is more than 7 then the anticipation is a good strategy without any need to make a conjecture about the other player’s choice.

We usually face circumstances similar to the game of rug or carpet. Rug might be an acceptable alternative but not ideal or excellent yet better than nothing. Carpet might be a wonderful and top alternative which demands anticipation on our side. A job seeker who has to compete with other candidates figures out that if the current job or position offer is declined it is likely that in the future a far better offer could be found. Or consider someone who is looking to buy or rent a house. In case of more diligent search a far better house could be found in the market with the same price. Or if you refuse to marry your partner now in anticipation of a better ideal match in the future. Although, the conditions of such key decisions, in particular their emotional aspect, could not perfectly match the game of rug or carpet, the insights obtained from this analytical view, will be helpful for a better and reflective thinking about decisions.

In addition to the conjecture about the opponent’s choice, which was our focus, other factors are also relevant in a more realistic world of decision making such as time constraint, nature of the need or want, access to information, active search and supply and demand. Time is critical on two dimensions. One the distance between the first offer of rug and the second offer of a probable carpet. For instance, how long a job seeker can sustain the hardship associated with unemployment. Also, how much time pressure is upon us. For instance, someone looking for a best deal in the house market in anticipation of a yet better alternative will wait forever. Therefore, having a clear deadline and time schedule for anticipation is important. On the other hand, the nature of the need impacts the anticipation strategy. If it is a critical and elementary need then anticipation might not be justifiable. The more secondary and luxury our need the more reasonable to anticipate a far better future. We assumed that in the game of rug or carpet that players have information symmetry. In the real world, that is not the case always. Using my connections to professional networks, I might have been informed that soon in the future a highly respected employer will have vacant positions. But you do not have such an information advantage as my opponent. As a result, I will not be hesitant to anticipate. Active search while anticipating a far better future highlights the importance of a proactive attitude instead of inactive wait and see. If you wait for a 50% chance of carpet, the better future, you should be more active to change that likelihood up to 70% or 80%. Finally, the old rule of supply and demand applies. If you are in a highly competitive market in which peers attempt to obtain an average alternative and you are almost sure that the peers will not anticipate then it is wise to anticipate a far better alternative in the future in a market that is going to be less competitive because of less demand.

Another note involves the case of cooperation or sharing between players. Clearly they should coordinate to choose opposite alternatives because they will gain as a group either three rugs or two rugs plus a carpet. If both anticipate or both not anticipate they will gain as a group either a rug or carpet in one case and two rugs in the other case, respectively. Another assumption could be that each player not only wants to win a gain but also to make sure that the opponent will lose with less gains. Here the calculations should be revisited. In other words, each player needs to do exactly what the other player will do. If player I is very sure that player II will not anticipate then player I should also not anticipate to avoid giving two rugs to the gains of the opponent. And if player I is very sure that player II will anticipate then player I should also anticipate in order to have a 50% chance of keeping player II empty handed in the end.

About the Author: Victor V. Motti, a Lifeboat Foundation Advisory Board member, is a Middle East based senior adviser of strategic foresight and anticipation. He is also the Director of the World Futures Studies Federation. His new book A Transformation Journey to Creative and Alternative Planetary Futures was published in early 2019 in the UK.

The recent efforts to remove Net Neutrality have given many a sense of impending doom we are soon to face. What happens to an Internet without Net Neutrality? Advocates have a vision of the possible results — and it is quite the nightmare! In this segment of Future A to Z, The Galactic Public Archives takes a cheeky, yet compelling perspective on the issue.

Part 1 / Part 2

Follow us on social media:
Twitter / Facebook / Instagram

In June, Istvan and I debated this matter at Brain Bar Budapest. Let me say, for the record, that I think that we are sufficiently close to this prospect that it is not too early to discuss its political and economic implications.

Two months before my encounter with Istvan, I was on a panel at the Edinburgh Science Festival with the great theorist of radical life extension Aubrey de Grey, where he declared that people who live indefinitely will seem like renovated vintage cars. Whatever else, he is suggesting that they would be frozen in time. He may actually be right about this. But is such a state desirable, given that throughout history radical change has been facilitated generational change? Specifically, two simple facts make the young open to doing things differently: The young have no memory of past practices working to anyone else’s benefit, and they have not had the time to invest in those practices to reap their benefits. Whatever good is to be found in the past is hearsay, as far as the young are concerned, which they are being asked to trust as they enter a world that they know is bound to change.

Questions have been already raised about whether tomorrow’s Methuselahs will wish to procreate at all, given the time available to them to realize dreams that in the past would have been transferred to their offspring. After all, as human life expectancy has increased 50% over the past century, the birth rate has correspondingly dropped. One can only imagine what will happen once ageing can be arrested, if not outright reversed!

So, where will the new ideas of the future come from? The worry here is that society may end up being ruled by people with overlong memories who value stability over change: Think China and Japan. But perhaps the old Soviet Union is the most telling example, as its self-consciously revolutionary image gradually morphed into a ritualistic veneration of the original 1917 revolutionary moment. To these gerontocratic indicators, the recent UK vote to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’) adds a new twist. There were some clear age-related patterns in the outcome: The older the voter, the more likely to vote to leave – and the more likely to vote at all. To be sure, given the closeness of the vote (52% to leave vs. 48% to remain), had the young voted in comparable numbers to their elders, Brexit would have lost.

One might think that the simple solution is to encourage, if not force, the young to vote in larger numbers. However, this does not take into account the liabilities of their elders when it comes to dictating the terms for living in the future. Whatever benefits might accrue to people living longer, the clarity of the memories of such people may not be an unmitigated good, as it might incline them to perpetuate what they regard as the best of their own pasts. One way around this situation is to weight votes inversely to age. In other words, the youngest voters would effectively get the most votes and the oldest voters the least. This would continually force the elders to make their case in terms that their juniors can appreciate. The exercise would serve to destabilize any sense of nostalgia that members of the same generation might experience simply by virtue of having experienced the same events at the same age.

However, two technologically based solutions also come to mind. One is for the elderly to be subject to the strategic memory loss procedure described in the film, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which might be understood as a the cognitive correlate of an inheritance tax – or even a high-class lobotomy! In other words, the elders would lose their personal attachment to events which would nevertheless remain available in the historical record for more detached scrutiny vis-à-vis their lessons for the future. The other, more drastic solution involves incentivizing the elders to exchange biological for digital immortality. This would enable them to enjoy a virtual existence in perpetuity. They might be resurrected (‘downloaded’) on a regular or simply a need-to-remember basis, depending on prior contractual arrangements. The former might be seen as more ‘religious’, as in a Roman Catholic feast day, and the latter more ‘secular’, as in an ‘on tap’ consultant. But in either virtual form, the elders could retain their attachment to certain past events with impunity while at the same time not inflicting their memories needlessly on present generations.

David Wood, the head of the main UK transhumanist organization, London Futurists, has recently published a summa of anti-ageing arguments, which makes a cumulatively persuasive case for indefinite life extension being within our grasp. But most assuredly, this would create as many social problems as it solves biological ones. Under most direct threat would be the sorts of values historically associated with generational change, namely, those related to new thinking and fresh starts. Of course, as I have suggested, there are ways around this, but they will invariably revive in a new high-tech key classic debates concerning the desirability of brainwashing and suicide.