Rethinking World Governance: A Problem Solving Society

Some friends suggested I write an entry to the Global Challenges Foundation’s “Global Challenges Prize 2017 – A New Shape”.  as it asked for a rethinking of our system of global governance.  It didn’t win the $5 million prize as it abolished the UN instead of reforming it.  Here it is.

A Problem Solving Society

by Paul Bristow

 

Abstract

The model presented here is based on redesigning society totally around Problem Solving.  Such a society is distributed, open source, good at solving problems, resilient, locally self sufficient, and globally connected.  We make extensive use of the internet to disseminate information, create and collate solutions at local, regional and global levels.

This model is designed to facilitate the exponential innovation needed to solve the huge problems that we have facing us.  It essentially reorganises society around problem solving using co-creation methodologies, and applies evidence based feedback to rapidly discover what solutions work in the real world, and spread them as appropriate.  It uses open source methodologies to ensure that practical solutions to problems are shared widely, and come with the explicit permission to improve them and share those improvements.

We have a set of common resources shared between everyone in the world on an open source basis.  i.e. You are free to use the knowledge, on the condition that you share your modifications or improvements with the world.

Global Problem database

The problem database is a collection of problems or challenges, proposed by citizens or organisations.  A problem can be global in scope or hyper-local.  It in general, is something that solving would make human society better.  The Sustainable Development Goals are a good example set of global problems requiring local solutions. but a simpler local one might be e.g. not having enough car parking spaces on market day.

Global Solution database

The Solution database includes all solutions that have worked for a given problem anywhere in the world.  It includes the evidence for the solution working.  For a new idea, there will not be much evidence and marketing skills will be in huge demand for selling new ideas.  The formats needed for the solution database will vary depending on the problem being solved.  Engineering problems are likely to have very different solutions to social ones, for example.  Consider the solution database as analogous to GitHub – which is itself an ever-evolving set of engineering solutions to problems. 

Solutions will vary around the world – the best solution for a cold windy country is very likely to be different from a warm, sunny one.

Funding

The funding model for this takes the power of monetary creation away from banks and hands it to society in general.  When the problems are defined by society and the rewards are attributed by society in a transparent, open manner, the perverse incentives for destructive behaviour go away.  

We could even use different currencies for different reasons.  As the transaction costs of switching currencies tend towards zero, and we remove the economic profit side of the equation, there is no reason not to try different systems.     

Evidence based open solutions.  

A society based on solution sharing will only work if there is trust in the solutions.  Problems from the global problem database shall be linked to shared, open source, solutions to those problems, along with the evidence that shows how they worked in their specific environment.  There is no assumption that there is one, and only one solution to a given problem.  Indeed, competing solutions to global problems should be encouraged.

A responsive, resilient society

Monocultures are just as dangerous in society as in agriculture.  There is no attempt to define the optimum way to solve problems, or discuss them at a local level.  This is a problem, just like any other.  We’re aiming at multiple societal models – ever evolving and shared for imitation or improvement.  

The aim of this model is to encourage a virtuous spiral of friendly co-opetition, between different groups.  The “that’s a great idea, and I could improve it by adding…” thought process writ large. 

As people exercise their problem solving “muscles”, they will become better at it.   The “somebody should” statement will disappear, to be replaced by “what if we tried…?”.  

Regulations

Regulations build on what exists, but in general the regulations should be for circular design and continuous improvement.  

Decision making paths

Decision making makes checks and balances explicit, and prevents actions from being taken for which there is no evidence.  The decision making process itself becomes part of the problem/solution space.    

A unique aspect of this problem solving model is that it does not claim to have the “one true way” nor that it is the final word in decision making.  Indeed, the model specifically encourages experimentation between different decision making methodologies along with evaluation of the results and global sharing.  Instead of the market-based competition between ideas that exists today, a friendly co-opetition forms between different sets of best practises that are shared.

Control mechanisms

There are two key control mechanisms: 

The first is a form of liquid democracy used to delegate authority from individuals to people they trust.  I propose a multilevel approach, which delegates decision authority dynamically on a topic basis, with individuals having the absolute right to change their mind, withdrawing or reassigning their decision authority at will.  This provides a real-time control over who is authorised to decide on solutions.  For collaboration between regions, governance is managed at the lowest geographical level that makes sense for the topic.  Decision authority for collaborations can also be allocated dynamically.

The second is the funding mechanism.  Funding is also directly allocated by individuals, based on how they believe in the solutions proposed.  The funding mechanism provides direct transparent and democratic control over exactly which solutions are invested in on behalf of the society.