Sapient Governance II -- Coordination Level, Part B

Tactical Coordination

Prior articles:

1. SG I, Part A - What would an operational level governance look like?
2. SG I, Part B - Operational level for human society
3. SG II, Part A - Coordination level (logistical) for human society

If you haven't read these you may not be able to follow the current posting.

Now in this installment:
SG II, Part B - Tactical Coordination

Coordination level control consist of two cooperating sub-systems, the logistical controls needed to coordinate internal operations where competition might otherwise disrupt smooth overall operations, and tactical controls. The latter are simply the control mechanisms that are used by an entity to coordinate its behavior with that of other agents in the environment and, indeed with the physical nature of the environment. Since too often agents are in a competing mode, tactics has to consider both behaviors for cooperation and those for protection. Following the same formula as the prior installments I attempt to show the nature of tactical control in natural systems. I then turn to existing human organizations/entities at all scales and show how elements of tactical mechanisms are already to be found, having arisen in the course of natural cultural evolution. I also attempt a brief review of how tactical and logistical mechanisms coordinate their activities, most often through a resource needs/allocation budget process.

I then observe what a sapient governance, global tactical approach would look like. The biggest single aspect of the human economy is balanced interactions with the whole rest of the Ecos — the ecology of Earth. Our tactical problem is how much natural capital can we obtain from the Ecos without robbing it of its regenerative powers. How much waste product can we emit into the Ecos, again without overwhelming its regenerative capacity? I argue that we are already starting to set mechanisms in place to try to answer these questions. The UN IPCC process is a model for doing so. But it is an insufficient mechanism given the rate and magnitude of the problems associated with global warming. Still the scientific eyes and ears (sensory and preliminary interpretation) and the attempt at collaboration to set policies represents a first approximation at a tactical mechanism with respect to our relationship with the Ecos.

One of the important issues I note is that ultimately coordination depends on there being strategic-set objectives. This is why a strategic level mechanism for the whole human race and its economy is so important. I point out that the UN is not really set up to fill this role. Yet strategic level decisions are going to need to be made in order to make our planet a workable framework for both mankind and the rest of the natural world. As an example of a strategic level consideration, I mention the exploration of space as a strategic objective for mankind. Another aspect of this would be setting tactical level goals for scanning for and eliminating celestial bodies (comets and meteors) that might harm our world. We would need to develop tactical mechanisms for executing that goal (the objective being to keep our planet from being destroyed by an impact), but the setting of the goal comes from a strategic objective.

The last installment will cover strategic control. In terms of a sapient governance for humanity this is the most cogent aspect of the argument for sapience in governance. As I have argued sapience involves strategic thinking. As a species we have yet to achieve such thinking for all of humanity. We have given voice to the moral imperative. Most people in the world want peace and sufficient prosperity that we are not in battle with nature for survival. We want to live in harmony with our environment and other peoples. We just haven't quite figured out how to envision it, plan for it, and execute the plan. But I suspect rather strongly that we will have to do so if we want to continue as a presence on this planet.

Comments

[Wayne Hamilton]

test

[Wayne Hamilton]

In Sapient Governance II — Coordination Level, Part A
Logistical Coordination
Natural Coordination in Living Systems ...
The first figure 'caption' mentions "open arrows". I see only thin, curving arrows and thick straight arrows. I'll try enlarging the image and see if that resolves this issue.
Second, I recommend using figure numbers and actual captions to make internal referencing and comments easier.
Last point: The terseness coefficient and difficulty level of your writing is significantly higher than that of instructions on IRS forms. I would benefit from fuller discussion that uses examples I can understand.

[George Mobus]

Open arrows meant the points were open --->. The other arrows also curve but are thicker and have closed points (solid). The thin arrows represent information flow while the thicker ones represents the flow of stuff and energy.

There are captions under each figure (bold, but tiny print).

When the book comes out(!) I will follow more traditional practices with figure numbering, etc.

Well, all I can say about terseness is, well, that's just me! The blog format isn't the best for this kind of material. And I am trying to get thoughts down. As indicated above, I anticipate turning this material into a book form some day. Right now I'm just getting a mind dump out.

What would be helpful to me is if you have a particular point that is unclear, to provide a comment/question, as you did here. Or send me an e-mail. The comment section here is ideal for clarifications that might help other readers too.

George