Signposts Towards a Human Noosphere
Having become a father last year, I was walking home today carrying my toddler son who had fallen asleep against my shoulder. I reflected a what kind of world I would like for him to live in come 2030 and that triggered thoughts about the idea of a human ‘noosphere’.
Specifically, the idea of a human noosphere — a global collective consciousness on the planet or interconnected ‘mind space’ — arose with the second decade of the 20th century. The idea arose first from geologists, who suggested there were three phases of life on Earth, starting first with inanimate matter (the geosphere), then the arrival of animated life (the biosphere), and an ultimate phase where humans transcend their individual thoughts of self, internal motivations, and thought to achieve a collective consciousness that surpasses ourselves (the noosphere). Some philosophers, notably Teilhard de Chardin, suggested that evolution’s natural selection tended towards increasing complexity of lifeforms and consciousness among lifeforms.
With my own work roles, I’ve spoken with Vint Cerf and other Internet pioneers who shared during the latter part of the 20th century there were online chat room discussions expressing hopes that the World Wide Web could help achieve such a vision of global consciousness or noosphere. A lot of the idealism for the Web included this hope for the future. Yet looking back at the last few recent decades we now see some of the signposts along the way that include some cautionary signs towards such an ideal. In attempting to work towards greater human, global consciousness we’ve discovered that our human natures, both as individuals and as collective organizations, introduce speed bumps to such a vision. We also have seen recent cases where the Internet and related technologies may be creating more of a homogeneity of thought — producing echo chambers online or (worse) surveillance states with either direct or indirect pressures for the conforming of thought, behavior, and public shaming of those who act or see differently. In considering either potential future, neither highly polarized world full of acrimonious thoughts on the Internet or a homogeneous, highly restrictive world only containing conforming thoughts sounds like hopeful aspirations for 2030.
I’ve written a lot over the years about the importance of positive #ChangeAgents — individuals (to include anyone of us willing to do so) who “illuminate the way” and manage friction of stepping outside the status quo. More recently I’ve written thoughts wondering if the current increasing polarization in the world that we’re witnessing is a temporary or more long-term phenomena tied to the current nature of the Internet and the different services, including apps, web, and social media, that operate on it.
As I walked home this morning carrying my sleeping son on my shoulder, I puzzled over what might be ways to overcome elements of human nature — including the fact that we each see the world differently as a result of our experiences, training, and more — a work towards a more beneficial and benevolent for all ‘noosphere’ future should such an event ever actually occur.
The OARS Framework
The last year has seen Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) go into effect. In several developed nations, concerns are arising about the terms and conditions associated with online services which for the most part come with voluminous “terms and conditions” full of legalize that most people don’t read through fully before they click accept. Even for those who do read through them fully, individuals receive only a binary proposition of “accept or reject” what the conditions offer.
As alternative or to the current voluminous “terms and conditions” provided for online services, I’d like to suggest is a simple 2x2 table. This simple table is intended to take up no more than half-a-page, where entities — to include corporations, startups, communities, NGOs, and more — that provide services in the world can provide short bullets of four important elements; namely:
- Top-left: Obligations in this Context — what principles the entity believes about its relationship with its stakeholders
- Top-right: Acknowledgements in this Context — what “known unknowns” may exist tied to transactions and relationships
- Bottom-left: Responses to Obligations — what the entity will based on expressed Obligations
- Bottom-right: Safeguards to Acknowledgements — what the entity will do based on expressed Acknowledgements
Imagine if the public started to expect it could find a short, concise 2x2 table showing this for every website and app? The table for this framework is something that has evolved out of talks I’ve given associated with both “The Future of Work” and “The Future of Governance” including a case exercise where I ask the participants to think about their obligations, perceived biases or blind spots, proactive steps they’ll do, and safeguards they’ll put in place with a new initiative.
This updated OARS framework takes that question of “perceived biases” and asks any entity to acknowledge some of the biases exist for any human endeavor because of our experiences, training, background, and more. For example, an organization sponsored by a certain group may receive subtle nudges by that sponsor and should acknowledge that sponsor. an engineering firm will probably be great at engineer efforts yet may not necessarily see other perspectives outside their expertise. There may also simply be acknowledging that the organization will “do their best” when it comes to an endeavor, yet for several endeavors there will still be unknown factors that impact its delivery.
Thoughts Towards the Future
As the last few decades have shown, for almost any tool or technology, there will be unintended uses both helpful and harmful. In an increasingly connected world, we need more rapid mechanisms to identify third-order or fourth-order unintended uses and adjust appropriately. As such, this updated OARS framework asks any entity to think about what safeguards it might do should a well-intended service being provided started to be used in third-order or fourth-order unintended ways not intended. For example, an organization might perceive an unintended use of their services would be use of online advertisements to trigger violent radicalization of certain groups to harm others. In this example, a potential safeguard that could listed is an “ombuds” group where early identification of such concerns can be shared and the organization rapidly can learn, adjust, and respond accordingly.
I want to emphasize this OARS framework is both draft and probably only one part of a large puzzle of how we resolve current challenges of biases, echo chambers, distrust, privacy concerns, and unintended uses of technologies tied to our increasingly connected world. I propose it as just one possible signpost that might allow us to more readily identify that corporations, startups, communities, and organizations are all compromised of people with different thoughts, views, and experiences.
A significant amount of the polarization occurring in the world seems to be reinforcing existing biases in individuals, communities, and organizations — instead of triggering conversations about how we might find ways to co-exist in a plurality of different perspectives on the world (note: barring hateful or injurious biases, which do need to be remedied). Also, when considering the arrival of AI, machine learning and other algorithms that influence human activities, we should also be mindful that such algorithms will only be as good as the diversity, representativeness, and robustness of data fed to them — further underscoring the need to apply a similar OARS framework to AI, machine learning, and algorithmic endeavors as well.
If 2030 is to be a more benevolent future, vs. either an acrimonious or conforming future, then recognizing we may need new signposts to steer us towards more people-centered endeavors represents an important next step.
Thoughts from the still-nascent noosphere welcomed.
