Civilisation Efficiency Ìndex or Ìndex of a Civilization’s Strength. Opinions are welcome.

[Bloop E0]

I'm working on an independent research of social technology “civilisation efficiency index” and “index of a civilisation’s development”.

Interesting to hear opinions on the issues:
- What can/should be present in this index? (ex. integration of the algorithm which is making it difficult for politicians to use the “demagogy of pessimism” (regulatory function in relation to accessibility heuristics) or finally start teaching quantum physics from the first grade of primary school)
-How do you see the algorithm for the Index? General recommendations.

Proceed on the basis of the following assumptions

Main aim is not only to create and calculate the Civilisation Efficiency index, but also through multi-stage, varied and decentralised social and financial mechanisms to allow billions of people to influence the Index.
Let's call it a "self-regulating social mechanism".  The aim of the self-regulating social mechanism is to convert the Index into tangible action and measurable progress. A self-regulating social mechanism is a people’s (and humanity as a whole) against a potentially dangerous imbalance in institutions and the political structure that can threaten not only an individual state but the whole world. It's like a stabilisation system in a car to reduce the possibility of driving into a ditch.  Or a kernel protection system in computer and or decentralisation in blockchain. 
And of course is the development of resilient societies, as well as mechanisms for these societies to transition into a group of active creators (evolution of "inertial progress" societies)

I have some material and thoughts on the subject. But first I would like to hear outside opinions.

[Pairing Prasad]

I thought Civilisation Efficiency Ìndex is the better choice 🙄

[exchemist]

 

39 minutes ago, Bloop E0 said:

I'm working on an independent research of social technology “civilisation efficiency index” and “index of a civilisation’s development”.

Interesting to hear opinions on the issues:
- What can/should be present in this index? (ex. integration of the algorithm which is making it difficult for politicians to use the “demagogy of pessimism” (regulatory function in relation to accessibility heuristics) or finally start teaching quantum physics from the first grade of primary school)
-How do you see the algorithm for the Index? General recommendations.

Proceed on the basis of the following assumptions

Main aim is not only to create and calculate the Civilisation Efficiency index, but also through multi-stage, varied and decentralised social and financial mechanisms to allow billions of people to influence the Index.
Let's call it a "self-regulating social mechanism".  The aim of the self-regulating social mechanism is to convert the Index into tangible action and measurable progress. A self-regulating social mechanism is a people’s (and humanity as a whole) against a potentially dangerous imbalance in institutions and the political structure that can threaten not only an individual state but the whole world. It's like a stabilisation system in a car to reduce the possibility of driving into a ditch.  Or a kernel protection system in computer and or decentralisation in blockchain. 
And of course is the development of resilient societies, as well as mechanisms for these societies to transition into a group of active creators (evolution of "inertial progress" societies)

I have some material and thoughts on the subject. But first I would like to hear outside opinions.

I think trying to reduce the host of factors that comprise a desirable civilisation into a single index is not likely to be successful. I am not convinced all the peoples of the world want or expect the same things from their civilisation or society and I don't think publicising a single index with periodic rankings will capture their imagination. I think people are more interested in indices that reflect specific aspects of a desirable society, for instance an index on press freedom, or on the opportunities available to women. Such things have a clear meaning, whereas a single index putting everything into one pot will not.

I also think the term "civilisation" is not the best to use in the context of social development. "Civilisation" encompasses a huge mass of factors: history, language, traditions, religions, moral codes, as well as modes of social organisation, institutions, political systems etc. If, as it appears, you are trying to create an index to rank some form of social progress, you are not talking about a lot of this and indeed a lot of it cannot be ranked in an index at all. So if I were you I would talk of "society" and not "civilisation. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by exchemist

[Genady]

Any such index will be soon obsolete if it doesn't take in consideration that civilization evolves.

It cannot take the evolution in consideration because evolution is unpredictable.

Ergo, any such index will become useless soon.

[Peterkin]

I don't see a any definitions of 'civilization' and 'efficiency'. 

Is there a performance standard or benchmarks for efficiency? Is civilization as whole, globally, from 6000BCE to the present, the entity under consideration, or some sub-units, such as nations or regimes? Over what period of time? Are there criteria to be included and excluded? Is there a unit of measurement?

A host of problems. But my biggest one is with 'efficiency'. The word suggests that the system being assessed has a specific function to perform, and there is some absolute known standard of product quality, cost/gain ratio and production time to meet. 

The most efficient social organizations are those depicted in Brave New World and  Kazohinia where no progress or evolution is possible, because maximum efficiency has already been achieved. You can probably set up criteria for work/hours per citizen, energy usage, food consumed, waste generated, allocation of resources to productive vs non-productive activities. But how will such an index 

3 hours ago, Bloop E0 said:

transition into a group of active creators

? I just can't picture how this would work.    

[Bloop E0]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

"Civilisation" encompasses a huge mass of factors: history, language, traditions, religions, moral codes, as well as modes of social organisation, institutions, political systems etc.

One component of the index takes into account regional discrepancies and constitutes a two-tier system. 
1) A system that uses UN as a reference point
2) A system that uses regional conventions as a reference point, such as 
•    Council of Europe (represented by European Court of Human Rights) 
•    Organisation of American States (represented by the inter-American system for the protection of human rights)
•    African Union (represented by African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the recently-established African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights)

Self-regulating mechanism itself is not attempting to impose international order or human rights standards. Based on the minimal permissible level of implementation of human rights, it allows each country individually to adapt the standards to its national context influenced by socio-cultural, economic and other characteristics. 
All of these issues have already been taken into account.

 

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

 

I don't think publicising a single index with periodic rankings will capture their imagination

Of course it will capture their imagination 🤨

We're not talking about the Index, we're talking about turning the Index into action.
The basic (grassroots) condition for self-regulation is not only in the field of preserving rights, freedoms and environment, but also lies in the financial interest of billions of people (ex. algorithm: “basic income” in exchange for civil engagement, education, self-enlightenment, participation in the network of independent scientists, etc.). We all know that the human brain needs to be motivated : ) … offer your options for motivation. 

Human of the Future – a human who is a researcher, who is motivated by education and enlightenment, who daily creates influence by his actions, research, self-enlightenment and self-education on the formation of the civilization efficiency index and the civilization development index, and ultimately directly affecting the socio-economic mechanism and progress. 

The point is that every state must participate in civilisational progress. And all the more reason not to prevent its citizens from participating in this process
These were very good recommendations in the "it's not possible" format. Now it would be nice to move on to "maybe this is how" recommendations 🙃
 

[joigus]

You haven't specified if this index is to be applied to ancient civilisations or modern ones. I concur with doubts expressed by @exchemist @Genady, and @Peterkin. Any definition you come up with is bound to meet criticism from almost any direction conceivable.

You could try to formulate some kind of multi-index that takes into account factors such as,

 

• technological/scientific (functionality)
• artistic/spiritual/religious (symbolism)
• altruistic collaboration (solidarity)
• profit-focused collaboration (trade)

 

If you think in terms of aspects that have played a role in defining 'civilisation' by anthropologists, historians, etc, you'll probably see that they're somehow or other included there. Examples: writing, accounting (technology), monumental architecture (symbolism and technology), etc. But there's plenty of room for ambiguity --eg, are old cosmogonies science or religion? This is where @Genady's comment on societies evolving becomes very relevant indeed.

Or,

I'm more inclined to try to work out a ratio very much inspired in biological definitions --like, eg, primary productivity-- that gives you an overall idea of what's going on in that direction, and to which a concept that most would agree underlies any reasonable definition of 'civilisation.' Such an index could go something like,

#_C:=(spare time)/(individual)x(day)

Spare time being the time per day left over after having subtracted the time necessary for survival

IOW, if a society has amazing technological capabilitites, but not enough time is left for people to dedicate to other activities than those essential for survival, then it's not civilised. Not enough, according to my index.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Bloop E0 said:

One component of the index takes into account regional discrepancies and constitutes a two-tier system. 
1) A system that uses UN as a reference point
2) A system that uses regional conventions as a reference point, such as 
•    Council of Europe (represented by European Court of Human Rights) 
•    Organisation of American States (represented by the inter-American system for the protection of human rights)
•    African Union (represented by African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the recently-established African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights)

Self-regulating mechanism itself is not attempting to impose international order or human rights standards. Based on the minimal permissible level of implementation of human rights, it allows each country individually to adapt the standards to its national context influenced by socio-cultural, economic and other characteristics. 
All of these issues have already been taken into account.

 

Of course it will capture their imagination 🤨

We're not talking about the Index, we're talking about turning the Index into action.
The basic (grassroots) condition for self-regulation is not only in the field of preserving rights, freedoms and environment, but also lies in the financial interest of billions of people (ex. algorithm: “basic income” in exchange for civil engagement, education, self-enlightenment, participation in the network of independent scientists, etc.). We all know that the human brain needs to be motivated : ) … offer your options for motivation. 

Human of the Future – a human who is a researcher, who is motivated by education and enlightenment, who daily creates influence by his actions, research, self-enlightenment and self-education on the formation of the civilization efficiency index and the civilization development index, and ultimately directly affecting the socio-economic mechanism and progress. 

The point is that every state must participate in civilisational progress. And all the more reason not to prevent its citizens from participating in this process
These were very good recommendations in the "it's not possible" format. Now it would be nice to move on to "maybe this is how" recommendations 🙃
 

How would your proposed index be an improvement on this?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Progress_Index 

[Bloop E0]

@joigus of course, we're talking about today. We don't need to rank everything at all. It is enough to rank the main areas. There is definitely something in your formula

Your list is very good and very similar to mine. 

I adhere to a possibly unattainable interdisciplinarity. Thousands of scientists and researchers have unique competencies in extremely disparate areas. Aim is to make this knowledge part of the Index.  But again, the ultimate goal is not the Index itself. Through self-regulating mechanism, their specialist skills will need have a direct impact both on the global agenda and local changes in countries.

[Bloop E0]

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

How would your proposed index be an improvement on this?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Progress_Index 

The basic meaning of the index and the mechanism behind it: One Planet – One Team. It takes into account not only the internal situation. E.g. ìndex of a civilisation’s strength - global index; worldwide. The index is calculated annually. The sum of all states' progress (UN – 193). A universal, long term parameter, which participates in the formation of the main body of the Decade Index.
index of a civilisation’s development - local index; the impact of an individual state on global progress. The index is calculated [monthly (?)]

The technical part is standard and trivial: Index is the product of numerous evaluations and reports, and compliance with international conventions. 
The data and indexes of international organisations that have been refining their methods for many years, together with the ICS algorithm (i mentioned briefly above about the two-tier system), allow us to create a universal interdisciplinary index. Why reinvent the wheel?

But further on, for example, a decentralised financial system guarantees financial support for the social mechanism using issuances in the form of a global unconditional basic income which is  based on a “index of a civilisation’s development” that has been calculated for each country and not in the form of bank credit or investments in the stock market like the central banks are currently doing. 
For the first time in history (?), the monetary unit will not be tied to economic wealth but will be supplied by indicators of the attitude towards persons, dignity, progress, etc. Thanks to the start of mass implementation of automatised processes of artificial intelligence, we can take the non-manufactured indicators as a benchmark. Why not?
Even the Taliban will bring women back to universities. Because it is a manifestation of progress. And the manifestation of progress is reflected in the pockets of every Afghan. Today, here and now. Every underdeveloped state becomes an instrument of global progress. @Peterkin maybe this is what the transition looks like into a group of active creators? 😐 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Bloop E0

[TheVat]

29 minutes ago, Bloop E0 said:

But further on, for example, a decentralised financial system guarantees financial support for the social mechanism using issuances in the form of a global unconditional basic income which is  based on a “index of a civilisation’s development” that has been calculated for each country and not in the form of bank credit or investments in the stock market like the central banks are currently doing. 

While I can see value in defining social development with metrics other than capital, this then opens up the larger question of what cultural factors there are in "development" and how they should be weighted.  A society built on Buddhist principles would look quite different from one built on Consumerism.  Deep Ecologists imagine an optimal human society quite different from Rand Libertarians.  Collectivists and Anarchic Individualists see very different goals.

Is it possible your Index is imposing strong biases on the world, and focused on a narrow value system?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Bloop E0 said:

One Planet – One Team

When does that take effect? So far, all we've had was warring and competing factions.

I get the UN index. They have a theory of how humans ought to live, they set that standard as a goal to achieve, and they can measure progress toward, or I assume away from, that goal. That's what progress means: motion in a given direction toward a specified destination. This goal was not identified in the OP. Nor was "efficiency" defined.

So, OK, you adopt the UN's aspiration as an absolute goal. That's fine; it's a pretty good standard. And you want to make an index like the UN's?

What for?  

[Markus Hanke]

19 hours ago, Bloop E0 said:

But first I would like to hear outside opinions.

Absolutely not my area of expertise, but my amateur-ish opinion on this is that you will never be able to come up with any kind of objective measure of a civilisation’s development, simply because it relies on values that are not universal, but contextual. 

In my opinion, the best measure of a civilisation’s development is in fact one that is explicitly subjective - people’s self-reported general sense of well-being. Note that this is not the same as happiness, wealth, or even “feeling good” - someone might be living in a democratic state of affluence and plenty, and yet not be well in themselves (this is in fact depressingly common). Conversely, someone may live in simple and basic conditions, yet still have a strong sense of general well-being in their circumstance. Being well is the culmination of all the many factors that contribute to your basic needs being met, and you still having time to pursue other things in life as well - it is the coming-together of material, intellectual, environmental, and spiritual balance. All the traditional concerns such as economy, politics, healthcare, education etc etc contribute to this, but not in ways that are easily measured and broken down.

So if you want to know how a civilisation is doing, ask its citizens if they are well - not happy, rich, healthy etc. If you make their governing body explicitly responsible for the overall sense of well-being experienced by the people, then I think this would be much more conducive to a more balanced world overall.

[Bloop E0]

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

objective measure of a civilisation’s development, simply because it relies on values that are not universal, but contextual.

Thanks to that phrase, I realised that there must be a "doomsday clock" in the Index formula. If someone detonates an atomic bomb, that is a problem for civilisation.  The question is the coefficient of influence. Reducing the likelihood of a negative event = development

Let us ask ourselves: what good does Somalia, Afghanistan or Bolivia now do for civilisation? I do not believe that Somalis do not want to live in a Germany-like economy. They can have whatever mythology in their heads, but if the Somali economy overtakes the Chinese economy, we will all take it into account and feel it. This is a basic, albeit trivial, indicator of progress.
You may not like the Chinese worldview, but you have no right not to consider China's influence on humanity. You may not like the Russians.  But energy from Russia has powered the most advanced part of the planet... all these processes are now collapsing.  Tell me - is our overall civilizational effectiveness suffering from this? Perhaps the efficiency of civilisation should be calculated using the formula: how much have we lost? We have all reduced our effectiveness. We have reduced the effectiveness of civilisation. Everyone has been made worse off. Planet Earth is the only home for us in this huge universe, no one should ignore the global challenges.  This is an absolutely universal value.

 

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

In my opinion, the best measure of a civilisation’s development is in fact one that is explicitly subjective - people’s self-reported general sense of well-being

The World Happiness Report can be included in our interdisciplinary index! This definitely requires reflection. The thoughts in the last paragraph are priceless. Seriously.

 

13 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So, OK, you adopt the UN's aspiration as an absolute goal. That's fine; it's a pretty good standard. And you want to make an index like the UN's?

What for?  

It's an interdisciplinary index from the beginning. The beta version of the index years ago looked like this: 
1) Gender inequality index: 0.922 (max-1.000) or [92.2%/100%] = 92.2% 
Info: United Nations Development Programme - Human Development Reports
2) Human Rights: 86 (max-100) or [86%/100%] = 86% 
Info: Freedom House - Freedom in the World 
3) Press Freedom: 23.73 (max-1) or [№1_Norway: 7.63/32.15%) = 32.15%
Info: Reporters Without Borders - World Press Freedom Index
4) Poverty/inequality: 41 (max-1) or [№1_Azerbaijan: 16.6/40.49%) = 40.49% 
Info: World Bank – poverty data the GINI index
5) Civic engagement: 6.8 (max-10) or [68%/100%] = 68% 
Info: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - Better Life Index

Index = 63.77. Who can name a country? 63 out of 100. Is that a lot or a little? But it is very primitive and simple. That's why a lot of opinions are important to me.

Yes, about the U.N. One of the most important goals of ‘Index’ is to reflect the level of progress made with regards to recommendations and decisions made by international and regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, including committees of the UN Treaty bodies, as well as reports and recommendations made by UN Special Rapporteurs.

The mechanism for implementing research is very simple:
For example, if your research into gender or global inequality exerts corrective action on the algorithm, it will certainly be noticeable in the Human Development Reports.
Therefore, the majority of your research results can be used to formulate conventions within the "subsystem Index" framework:
- international treaties at the universal level
- international treaties at the regional level
- national application of ‘Soft Law’ instruments
Aim: use data confirmed by research, implementing these results more quickly and applying them to practical areas.

 

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

Is it possible your Index is imposing strong biases on the world, and focused on a narrow value system?

 

On 3/10/2023 at 5:01 PM, Bloop E0 said:

Self-regulating mechanism itself is not attempting to impose international order or human rights standards. Based on the minimal permissible level of implementation of human rights, it allows each country individually to adapt the standards to its national context influenced by socio-cultural, economic and other characteristics. 
All of these issues have already been taken into account.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses” – Henry Ford : ) . We can also be guided by the creation/destruction ratio (a very effective but very creepy mechanism).  And go crazy : )
In this area, the Index is institutionalised as follows:  we should welcome the achievement of social impact not only through new treaties, but also through the adoption of ‘soft law’ instruments. Since revealing the content of certain provisions of international treaty articles, those instruments provide concrete arguments for: progression of Human Rights during the course of various actions performed by individuals and the state.  Moreover, a number of instruments of ‘soft law’ include standards of those rights and freedoms, without which the formation and development of democratic legal systems would be impossible. The national application of soft law instruments is an effective transitional step towards making these instruments legally binding (opinio juris)
In the first post I wrote about accessibility heuristics. Don't try to legislate against it. Only soft law that speeds up the evolution of ethics and morality.
 

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, Bloop E0 said:

Aim: use data confirmed by research, implementing these results more quickly and applying them to practical areas.

Who does the implementing?

[joigus]

23 hours ago, Bloop E0 said:

Your list is very good and very similar to mine. 

Thank you. I think yours is much more detailed than mine, and more vulnerable to subjectively-driven manipulation, IMHO. Not necessarily by you, but certainly by vested interests.

Remember I also said,

On 3/10/2023 at 3:17 PM, joigus said:

I'm more inclined to try to work out a ratio very much inspired in biological definitions --like, eg, primary productivity-- that gives you an overall idea of what's going on in that direction, and to which a concept that most would agree underlies any reasonable definition of 'civilisation.' Such an index could go something like,

#_C:=(spare time)/(individual)x(day)

The reason why I like something like this better is that every factor that contributes to what --to me-- is of paramount importance, is more impervious to number fiddling.

Give you an example: You included NGOs in your index. Are all NGOs created equal? Do all NGOs evolve equally? I don't think so. There have been consistent claims that some NGOs can grow so big --perhaps even start so big-- that they end up becoming multinational enterprises, to the point of stiffling any progress in particularly weak countries. And there is a very transparent reason why this could be so: The last thing a very big enterprise with gargantuan financial needs would want is for their particular area of work eventually disappears. IOW, not to be needed anymore.

I'm not saying that's a general rule, and I'm not naming names. I'm saying it's a reasonable concern. What I'm saying, IOW, is: Give me a parameter that directly tells me things are going better for the average individual, and I will believe your society is better off. That's why I took my cue from biology with the example of primary productivity. Does it come from plancton? Does it come from trees? It doesn't matter.

Biology I trust, macroeconomics --and theoretical frameworks blatantly inspired by it--, I don't. 

I don't even totally, wholeheartedly, trust my own proposed index.

And that's my two cents. As Markus, I'm no expert either.

 

 

[Genady]

I didn't see Arts in the index. OTOH, there is Blockchain & Crypto. Weird choices. 

[TheVat]

It's possible that arts are a significant barometer.  Once people have free time, and there are options to pursue other paths besides getting food and shelter and not getting killed,  then arts will flourish (provided human rights are well secured).  Several of the metrics presented - civic engagement, freedom of press, poverty eradication, peace treaties, etc - will tend to foster also a thriving artistic life and public engagement with artistic works.  

Also think @joigus makes a point about autonomy.  Small "weak" countries may benefit from doing their own problem solving, without the over-involvement of World Bank, NGOs, multinationals et al.  Or crushing debt loads to rich nations.  

[joigus]

33 minutes ago, Genady said:

I didn't see Arts in the index.

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It's possible that arts are a significant barometer.  Once people have free time, and there are options to pursue other paths besides getting food and shelter and not getting killed,  then arts will flourish (provided human rights are well secured). 

Yes, it is for reasons like this that I think they would be a better barometer. It doesn't rule out the possibility that minorities are being left out. That's why the general idea on which I suggested my rough definition of well-being of a society is based on a per-individual index.

If individuals don't have to be spending every waking hour on trying to survive, I don't really care that much what they want to do with their time. For all I care they could all be philosophers. Does that make sense?

Doesn't it stand to reason that societies where NGOs proliferate are necessarily societies where they are needed, and thereby unequal societies? Sounds like a truism to me.

 

[Genady]

Let's assume there is a suggestion for an index. How it can be tested? What is a criterion to check if this is a good suggestion or not?

[Bloop E0]

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Who does the implementing?

17 hours ago, Genady said:

I didn't see Arts in the index. OTOH, there is Blockchain & Crypto. Weird choices. 

Do you know what the original definition of project/research was? It is a decentralised social mechanism of motivational influence with direct action against challenges in the areas of rights and liberties around the world. Therefore, it is easy to see the dominance of the human rights theme. Later on, the idea grew.  I completely agree that art should be added.  

In order to implement a comprehensive idea, I have identified three main areas:
•    Self-regulating social mechanism in the area of human rights and environment
•    Global support system for citizen and professional science
•    International Emission Centre for Digital Currency
The algorithm for this vicious circle is not fully worked out. There is only an outline of the organisational structure.  The structure includes a blockchain platform. 
The important thing is to follow this idea: Project is a widely available mechanism that does not have a private management centre or a decision-making centre.  This project does not have an owner or a small group of people who make all the decisions on behalf of everyone. This is why the project is so ramified. Ultimately I see an orchestra of billions of people, and the conductor is a self-regulation which is adjusted by the Index. I have no idea what it will sound like : ) But you help set up the tools.
 

18 hours ago, joigus said:

I think yours is much more detailed than mine, and more vulnerable to subjectively-driven manipulation, IMHO.

Absolutely. The system of self-regulatory checks and balances is a separate topic.

 

18 hours ago, joigus said:

#C:=(spare time)/(individual)x(day)

This is a very academic approach. The formula is worth including in the overall algorithm.

 

18 hours ago, joigus said:

...Are all NGOs created equal? Do all NGOs evolve equally?...

The data we take from NGOs is the most vulnerable part now. It is a compromise solution.  But there has to be a start.  In the initial stages we are using the data from universally recognised organisations that are experts within their field. Each organisation presents comprehensive information for deciphering the indicator. Quite a good start.

What next? There are two approaches. 
1) When international organisations that have a direct impact on Index receive the funding from [International Emission Centre for Digital Currency?], the relevant committees of the UN Treaty and Charter bodies will monitor this process to maintain impartiality and to avoid conflict of interests.
2) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written 70 years ago. Ìndex of a Civilisation’s Strength is about developing the most important document in the history of mankind using technologies that did not exist at the time of its writing. Personally, I think it is the self-regulatory mechanism (public money) that should fund the UN, global medicine, etc. (but this is a huge topic, let's leave it out for now). We make the interest of civilisation an absolute. There is no room for narrow lobbyism there. Maybe it's the UN 2.0.

 

17 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's possible that arts are a significant barometer.  Once people have free time, and there are options to pursue other paths besides getting food and shelter and not getting killed,  then arts will flourish (provided human rights are well secured).  Several of the metrics presented - civic engagement, freedom of press, poverty eradication, peace treaties, etc - will tend to foster also a thriving artistic life and public engagement with artistic works. 

I once tried to formulate thoughts on the subject of: “By being a part of the “self-regulating mechanism”, you are indirectly helping a huge number of things”. Among many other things there was this:
•     As a result of mechanism developing with your help, there will be financing of global medical programs. This not only relates to health of people you have never met and are unlikely to meet, for example, a 47-year-old citizen of Lao or a 5-year-old girl from Chili, but it also directly relates to the health of your loved ones; 
•    This is a fundamental solution to the problem of forced and illegal migration directly in the source countries, and protection from populism. We must remember that people leave their homeland not because their life is good, but because they are fleeing from inequality, poverty, lack of rights, and more importantly because they do not feel optimistic that things will change for the better; 
•    This is an increase of trust towards the main social entities and reduction of concerns for your future; 
•    This means access to relevant education at any age and an opportunity to dedicate more of your time towards sciences, spirituality and creativity; 
•    Lastly, you are eradicating the fear of job loss from yourself and millions of other people and get an opportunity to plan a family without fear of having means of income to support it; 

I see that we are thinking in the same direction : )

 

17 hours ago, TheVat said:

Also think @joigus makes a point about autonomy.  Small "weak" countries may benefit from doing their own problem solving, without the over-involvement of World Bank, NGOs, multinationals et al.  Or crushing debt loads to rich nations.  

There's a big block: “The State’s Interests in the Official Recognition of Efficiency Civilisation Index. This paragraph already describes the basic postulates.  While creating self-regulating mechanism, i could not ignore the interests of the states, since we are not countering governmental institutions with the it but rather, we are striving to do everything so that every state becomes our ally.

 

16 hours ago, Genady said:

Let's assume there is a suggestion for an index. How it can be tested? What is a criterion to check if this is a good suggestion or not?

I am not the final truth. You can make a suggestion and everyone will discuss it. You can even propose a criterion for checking: which offer can be considered good and which can't. I wrote above about the fact that no one has the right to appropriate the Efficiency Civilisation Index. We'll see what happens in the end.

And yes, I am no expert either. No more than an amateur researcher 😶

[Genady]

It seems to me that there are many areas where the expected effects of the project rely on believes about human psychology. This is an extremely weak point, I think. It didn't work out well in previous attempts.

For an historical example, there was an assumption that equal gender rights will eliminate prostitution. Needless to say, it didn't happen. There also was an assumption that if working people are the owners of production means and products, they will not steal, cheat, etc., but will rather be involved in increasing the effectiveness of their work. The large-scale result was quite opposite. There was an assumption that people will be driven by a common good if they know that they are equal part of that common. Didn't work. Etc.

OTOH, negative aspects of human psychology were used historically very effectively. Fear, hate, belonging, etc.

28 minutes ago, Bloop E0 said:

You can even propose a criterion for checking: which offer can be considered good and which can't.

This is a problematic approach: how this proposition can be tested?

There is no objective test? This is not scientific.

PS. Trial-end-error is kind of test, too. But in this case the error might be very painful.

[Peterkin]

It sounds more like a computer game world than the one I'm living in. 

[TheVat]

Still need a clear definition of the "self-regulating mechanism" that is referred to here.  And what social science data supports that billions of people can self regulate.  Or curb the power of a dominating oligarchy.  

[Bloop E0]

On 3/12/2023 at 2:15 PM, Genady said:

For an historical example, there was an assumption that equal gender rights will eliminate prostitution. Needless to say, it didn't happen. There also was an assumption that if working people are the owners of production means and products, they will not steal, cheat, etc., but will rather be involved in increasing the effectiveness of their work. The large-scale result was quite opposite. There was an assumption that people will be driven by a common good if they know that they are equal part of that common. Didn't work. Etc.

Stephen Pinker, in his book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, refuted much of this. He also described why and how this happens. Alas, I tend to trust him : )

 

On 3/12/2023 at 2:15 PM, Genady said:

OTOH, negative aspects of human psychology were used historically very effectively. Fear, hate, belonging, etc.

I modelled the following model a long time ago: 

 

The local price of "Index of a Civilization’s Development" directly affects the pricing of "Ìndex of a Civilization’s Strength" at a national level. Therefore, a significant fall in the index invariably captures the attention of the whole community for local events in other regions and cities. Here's what this looks like in practice:
     Wengerberg is home to 2 million people, living across four districts (10 towns). In general, Wengerberg is more or less a free state. However, bad things do occasionally happen.

     In the city of N, a journalist writes an article in the local newspaper, about the mayor of the city stealing a significant sum through shell companies and transferring it to an offshore account. N is one of the most depressed towns in the country, adherence to human rights is poor and, before the emergence of Index of a Civilization’s Development, the population behaved very passively. Therefore, the mayor is able to teach this journalist a lesson and imprison him on false charges. But, in this case the entire local community sticks up for the journalist because people see that the index of their region has become significantly smaller and, consequently, their income payment from Index of a Civilization’s Development is be much less than the tremendous amount that are used to and rely on.

     Moreover, disgruntled citizens of the capital of the country and other cities also openly express their dissatisfaction with the events taking place in the city of N. In order to prevent a fall in their ratings, the governing authority comes up with a solution: free the journalist and start an investigation into the mayor.
     The journalist, understanding that he is now protected by society's shield and that the authorities will no longer be able to encroach on his freedom, will continue his work eradicating government corruption, which will lead to the normalization of all processes: from the economy to the observance of rights and liberties.
And that's how it would work in every city of every country on the planet.

 

On 3/12/2023 at 2:15 PM, Genady said:

This is a problematic approach: how this proposition can be tested?

There is no objective test? This is not scientific.

PS. Trial-end-error is kind of test, too. But in this case the error might be very painful.

Yes. You have correctly identified the problem. This is something to think about.

On 3/12/2023 at 5:52 PM, TheVat said:

Still need a clear definition of the "self-regulating mechanism" that is referred to here.  And what social science data supports that billions of people can self regulate.  Or curb the power of a dominating oligarchy.  

I've always had a problem with brevity. But I will work on it. Also, everyone can write their own terminological definition.

On 3/12/2023 at 5:52 PM, TheVat said:

 

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Bloop E0