Copyright " Jonathan Robert Banks 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Imagine human society in the not too distant future where our technology is artificially alive and intelligent, mimicking the basic processes of nature itself. A technology that self replicates, repairs and evolves ever better designs and functionality all within an ecologically, sustainable and bio-friendly architecture. A technology that is involved in a symbiotic, co-creative, feedback loop with human creativity.
In this world we would have a super sophisticated world wide web or its advanced equivalent, managed by super intelligent AI (artificial intelligence­­nano constructed quantum computers would do the job nicely). Every citizen of this global democracy would be connected to this communications web and their interactions would be managed by personal AI. This system would be used to operate a global democracy with close to 100% participation by the Earth's citizens and practically full transparency of all governments. This is possible due to the power of molecular nano technology to build the advanced computational and communications infrastructure and the staggering power of AI to manage information moving between citizen and citizen and government and citizen.

A major strength of this system would be the distributive creative power of humanity and its intelligent systems. Every individual from any part of the globe would have direct access to an AI, to communicate their concerns, feelings, desires, ideas and any other information. All scientific and government institutions would also have unfetted access to this AI. This intelligent data bank could be seen in essence as an artificial mind of nature, mimicking the creative principle in a simplified and pragmatic form. Paradoxically it could be referred to as an artificial nature mind. This AI has been programmed with the laws and models we have formalised from chaos, complexity and their advanced forms with a new quantum information theory that supercedes our contemporary quantum and relativity theories. These theories seamlessly account for the transformation of non-local, physical and bio-information, into classically real, local information that manifests as self organisation and the trend to complexity, novelty and creativity, in other words the evolution we see in the universe -
especially life and mind.

All of the input from any citizen on the planet is processed by this super intelligence. It selects the best ideas, further refines then creates designs for technologies and strategies that are 100% bio-friendly, life enhancing and sustainable. Everything created only adds to the ennobling spirit of the global democratic, human civilisation, in total harmony with the biosphere.

Scientists know we will not gradually evolve towards this future in a linear manner. To reach this stage we will inevitably go through, what is referred to in physics as a phase transition. This imminent change will be as dramatic as the sudden crystallisation of water into ice. This transformation is also described in physics as a bifurcation, which represents a sudden branching in a systems behaviour and structure. In evolutionary theory it is known as punctuated equilibrium, where entire eco-systems can go through a sudden discontinuous change. Various epochs in life's history on this planet are examples, where entire species vanish and completely new and novel ones take their place­­in what amounts to a blink of an eye in geological time.

Our near future will represent a higher order punctuated equilibrium event, as for the first time in life's history on this planet, we as sentient beings, have the capacity to understand and to steer the course of evolution itself, as its dynamics unfold within our civivlisation and also within its subsystems like economies, political parties, governments, institutions, bureaucracies, corporations, technologies, social structures and ourselves.

This knowledge has come just in time, as it has now become necessary for our survival. If we are to navigate the turbulent waters of this perilous crossing into our future, we must, for dear life, embrace the understanding and application of evolutionary systems dynamics. We need to move swiftly to apply this knowledge with courage and conviction to our sociopolitical, economic and technological systems. We must cooperate like we have never cooperated before to choose the best probable future and build as many bridges as quickly as possible to get there.

If we don't we could be like a rudderless ship, helplessly dashed on the rocks in the treacherous seas of discontinuous change. Just another shipwreck in the vast cosmic voyage!

Futures researcher, Jan Huston of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, 1 points out that a picture of an 'evolutionary systems theory' has come into focus from various fields of science where major systems­­for example, biological, psychoneurobiological, astrophysical, technological and sociopolitical­­have revealed similar patterns of development, organisation and change. The creation of Chaos theory 2 in the sixties has formalised this new way of understanding complex dynamical systems that were so complex they appeared to be totally random in nature like the turbulence of a fast moving river. Chaos theory has brought us new ways of analysing anomalous statistical data previously resigned to the waste bin. New ways of predicting the weather and the stockmarket. New ways of modeling plant growth, brainwave patterns, the spread of disease and the effects of immunisation programs. Most importantly chaos theory has paved the way for understanding systems that evolve in a non-linear fashion. Anyone who has looked at compounding interest understands this phenomena. Take a small amount of capital and leave it to compound. Even at small interest rates it will grow in a steady and what looks like linear way, until it reaches a certain point where it will suddenly start to grow in leaps and bounds with each leap doubling in for our survival. If we are to navigate the turbulent waters of this perilous crossing into our future, we must, for dear life, embrace the understanding and application of evolutionary systems dynamics. We need to move swiftly to apply this knowledge with courage and conviction to our sociopolitical, economic and technological systems. We must cooperate like we have never cooperated before to choose the best probable future and build as many bridges as quickly as possible to get there.

If we don't we could be like a rudderless ship, helplessly dashed on the rocks in the treacherous seas of discontinuous change. Just another shipwreck in the vast cosmic voyage!

Futures researcher, Jan Huston of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, 1 points out that a picture of an 'evolutionary systems theory' has come into focus from various fields of science where major systems­­for example, biological, psychoneurobiological, astrophysical, technological and sociopolitical­­have revealed similar patterns of development, organisation and change. The creation of Chaos theory 2 in the sixties has formalised this new way of understanding complex dynamical systems that were so complex they appeared to be totally random in nature like the turbulence of a fast moving river. Chaos theory has brought us new ways of analysing anomalous statistical data previously resigned to the waste bin. New ways of predicting the weather and the stockmarket. New ways of modeling plant growth, brainwave patterns, the spread of disease and the effects of immunisation programs. Most importantly chaos theory has paved the way for understanding systems that evolve in a non-linear fashion. Anyone who has looked at compounding interest understands this phenomena. Take a small amount of capital and leave it to compound. Even at small interest rates it will grow in a steady and what looks like linear way, until it reaches a certain point where it will suddenly start to grow in leaps and bounds with each leap doubling in Economist Brian Arthur, who developed the idea of increasing returns in economics and contributed to the establishment of a complexity based economics program at the Santa Fe Institute, argues there are definitely recognisable themes repeating in history.4 They are self similar but not exactly the same­­fractal. For example, all revolutions in history have similar dynamics, but different circumstances. Chris Langton, the founding father of the new science of artificial life at the Santa Fe Institute, believes that evolution hasn't stopped Its still going on exhibiting many of the same phenomena as biological evolution except now its taking place on a social and cultural plane.5

This is known as the post biological vision, championed 6 by Hans Moravec, Director of the Mobile Robot Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University. He points out that we no longer simply store information in our genes, but also in our brains and nervous systems. It is being stored outside of ourselves in writing and now in computers as 'bits' of information. We have outstripped evolution. It is our culture, technology and civilisation that are evolving now, but not at the relatively leisurely pace of biological evolution­­but rather accelerating at an exponential rate. Humanity is taking control of its own evolution, concludes Robert Taylor, who quotes Gregory Stock, a bio-physicist and expert on technology and society at the University of California as saying, "Evolution is being superseded by technology, and the time scale will be far more rapid."7

Of course we are part of the evolutionary process unfolding on earth. We are a part of nature, created by nature and bound to be subject to the laws and dynamics of nature. This is clear in the wisdom literature across cultures and time. It is only relatively recently that Western science has lulled us into the false assumption that we are an objective observer of the universe and nature and somehow not part of it. Physicist Erwin Shrodinger, the grandfather of quantum theory, argued 8 that science has literally painted humanity out of the scientific picture. This he regarded as a great weakness, which would lead if unchecked, to dire consequences for humanity.

The science of complexity has emphasised how everything is connected to everything else and how everything is embodied in symbiotic relationships, top-down/bottom-up feedback and co-evolution. Complexity has demonstrated we are not objective, outside observers but co-creators of our civilisation and the biosphere, with each other, all of life and the planet itself.

Huston asserts that there are five stages in the evolution of systems. The fifth stage is a bifurcation­­a non-linear transformation or sudden leap that displays 'strong' creativity. He argues our civilisation is on the edge of the fifth stage and thus a bifurcation or punctuated equilibrium event. Prize winning author Damian Broderick PhD, states 9 that a range of 'perfectly' rational, well informed and 'extremely' smart scientists are predicting there is a technological singularity coming somewhere between 2020 and 2050 that will represent an 'unprecedented upheaval' in the history of humanity. Moravec predicts 10 an evolutionary transition in the next thirty years that would rival the developments that have taken place so far in the period from the lifeless chemistry of the early earth to our present time. His assertion is based purely on advances in artificial intelligence. Broderic defines a singularity as a point where infinities enter a calculation and linear analysis breaks down. This singularity was originally discovered by the US Armed Forces, as a trend of exponential acceleration of a combination of technological developments based on speed of transport and communications, capabilities of computers and costs of manufacturing. This singularity is well on its way with advances in nanotechnology, artificial-life, artificial intelligence, creative physics, genetics, cognitive and neurosciences, quantum computing, neuro and quantum technology. Broderic wrote, that even Arthur C. Clarke the brilliant science advocate and science fiction writer, who successfully predicted the Internet, voice recognition and satellites, 11 argued for the existence of the singularity, accusing disbeliever's of suffering a failure of nerve and imagination.

Eric Drexler, the founding president of the Foresight Institute, which has brought nanotechnology to the attention of scientists, governments and the general public, as well as sponsoring research into the field, argues 12 that the creation of the first fully programmable assembler will represent a boundary that will produce change at a pace and degree of scope, unprecedented in all of human history. Recent predictions suggest the development of an assembler in five years. Nanotechnology is the ability to build anything atom by atom using atomic sized, self replicating, programable machines. It represents the most likely technological catalyst for a punctuated equilibrium event, as described by Huston and others. It also represents the beginning of the acceleration towards the singularity. Drexler predicts a future that could bring wealth, health and prosperity for all on a scale undreamed of in the past. A world where government, business and economics, in fact our entire civilisation will be changed beyond recognition. Donner Professor of Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Marvin Minsky states "nanotechnology could have more effect on our material existence than those two last great inventionsthe replacement of sticks and stones by metals and cements and the harnessing of electricity."13

World famous author and speaker on environmental issues David Suzuki, quoted a petition 14 signed in 1992 by more than sixteen hundred senior scientists, half of whom are Nobel Prize winners, representing seventy two countries. The petition warned that we had only a 'few' decades to implement a 'great' change in our 'stewardship' of the Earth if we are to avoid "vast human misery" from the irretrievable mutilation of our planet. Suzuki also quoted Nobel laureate and chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists Henry Kendall, pointing out the 'unprecedented' degree of consensus among scientists demands serious consideration before attempting to question the validity of the warning.

Without a doubt humanity is on the threshold of a great evolutionary phase transition. This will see extinctions and upheavals on every scale sweeping through our civilisation similar to the artificial-life ecologies in cyberspace, like Ray's 'Tierra.'15 This is all part of the inevitable underlying dynamics of non-linear systems. It is part of the inexorable trend towards complexity. However unlike phase transitions in physical matter, a-life or real life, the human phase transition includes a new variable­­the conscious involvement of humanity in our own evolution!

Huston outlines a plan of action consisting of two stages: (1) An agreement on a common map and language to bridge all scientific disciplines, then to spread the awareness of this model and the implications for our future to the general population. (2) A search for predictive ability in the model and use of it to 'locate' humanity and where the 'forks in the road' will be and the best path to take to begin the construction of 'hypercycle ­like bridges' from the old to the new.
Huston argues that it is up to scientists involved in evolutionary systems theory to simplify and popularise this knowledge if they are confident of its basic validity and reliability. He goes on to point out that if the knowledge was primarily in the hands of political parties and their institutions, there would not be the energy, will and support to transform the system. He describes vested special interest groups fighting for the status quo out of fear and extolling the virtues of their linear models. Attacks upon the theory denying any evidence exists as to its validity and subsequent refusal to fund its application, would be par for the course. He concludes that this blocking of progress would build pressure in the system causing a more dramatic and chaotic bifurcation. In the case of nanotechnology alone, Drexler argues that a 'wait-and-see' policy would be very expensive, could cost many lives and even end life on earth.

Realistically I believe that Huston's description of the political system can be co-mapped onto the university system, which would effectively stifle scientists from promoting and applying the new theory. Physicists George Cowan and Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann initially established the Santa Fe Institute 16 with their own funds because they knew it could take decades to get complexity theory off the ground in the mainstream university system. Cowan was the manager of the team at Los Alamos during the top secret Manhattan Project and was determined this time to be able to spread the news of such an important discovery widely. He realised that a private institute was the only way. However left to their own devices, no matter how motivated they are, advocates of the new theory end up bogged down in detail and technicality as they desperately fight for peer recognition of their work. This in turn slows the progress in widespread agreement among scientists on a common theory and jargon, which as Huston points out, is essential. So even if they had the skills and inclination to popularise the theory among the public, it may be too late before they get that far. It seems that after eleven years even the Santa Fe Institute has not escaped these restrictive factors in the mainstream university system.

I believe a science-art institute is a more appropriate vehicle to successfully implement Huston's plan. The Science Art Research Centre Australia Inc. (SARC) 17 was established in Australia in 1979 by founder and director, artist-philosopher Robert Pope, to promote the concept of an ethical and life enhancing evolutionary theory, based on the classical Greek science for ethical ends. In Greek science there was no split between art and science. Ethics and beauty were part of a seamless body of knowledge. Beauty was seen as a path to wisdom and aesthetics was inextricably linked to the concept of being civilised.

Chaos and Complexity theory have validated these ancient Greek, as well as indigenous and mystical, models of an interconnected holistic reality.

These new theories have given us the potential to operate in the world with a degree gracefulness and creativity that expresses the ethical and artistic nature of humanity. I believe these new scientific models are in the spirit of the Science Art Research Centre's art-science philosophy. These new, organic and holistic scientific models are symbolic of the artistic and aesthetic side of reality. The rich life-affirming aspect of reality has always been championed by our artists, who refused to accept the cold, bleak, classical mechanical, reductionist, scientific picture that has dominated our thinking over the last two hundred years.

It has been the responsibility of art to literally tell the story of humanities past and future. In the past this was sponsored by the church, whose worldview was successfully promoted by the greatest artists of the time, writes 18 visionary and futures author Barbara Marx Hubbard. I believe it has always been the responsibility of art as an institution to shock and confront each generation with the truths it would rather ignore.

Art as an institution has an established validity and authority in our civilisation. The Science Art Research Centre has demonstrated that it is time for the artists of the world to take up the responsibility and to exert their authority to promote the most important idea in human history. Today artists represent a cultural force unequalled in the history of our civilisation. Imagine the power of the most famous musicians, actors, singers and moviemakers alone, to tell the story of complexity and the imminent bifurcation of our society. And of our capacity to steer that bifurcation towards a future we have chosen, using their creative expertise and their universal popularity. Langton firmly believes that artists and philosophers should be fully involved in the debate on artificial life, along with the public as something as important as this can't be left in the hands of scientists alone. He sees this as our only hedge against disaster. Drexler has made it his mission to bring to the people the understanding of nanotechnology, as its enormous power is only safe if distributed among the people of the world and not owned by any one government or corporation. Drexler, Langton, Pope, Hubbard and Huston all see that tapping into the free creative energy and wisdom of the people is our only guarantee of survival.

Humanity desperately needs a unifying vision for our future. People in the industrialised nations of the world are disillusioned with their leaders, accusing them of lacking vision and leadership. Vision drives the evolution of our civilisation. It is an essential and fundamental component of sentient beings. Our intelligence gives us the imagination to envision the future, the rationality to work towards it and the spirit or will to persevere. Our history is full of examples of the amazing capacity of the human spirit to overcome all obstacles when inspired by a powerful vision. At this point in our history it will be the reuniting of art and science that will produce such a vision.
The SARC lead the way for artists when it published an essay last year by their engineer Franz Jacobsen, entitled The Engineering of Global Democracy, to promote this issue. Recently the SARC has continued its commitment with its highly successful Science-Art Festival, where scientists artists and the public came together as a cooperative team in the pursuit of global democracy based on a science of ethics and creative physics. This festival produced scientific papers, as well as art that will go on exhibition to introduce these vital concepts into the cultural awareness. It inspired the public involved, to want to be part of the creation of a global democracy. It has demonstrated that an institute based on science-art is the most appropriate vehicle to attract scientists out of the stifling grip of mainstream universities, where their expertise can be used more effectively, as Huston outlined.

Huston also suggested the use of multi-media presentations for both scientists and the public because of their entertainment value and its superior learning impact. A science art institute is perfectly place to create this type of meadium. It turns out that the leading edge of computer art is being driven by artificial life 19 the entities used to model human and living systems in complexity simulations. Thus the very act of simulating various systems futures and modelling bridges could produce evocative art as a by-product! Computer art is a new endeavour that brings together scientists and artists from many disciplines, as the sciences of complexity and a-life have demonstrated computer simulation as a new, valid form of science sitting between experiment and theory. A science-art institute through computational art becomes a natural meeting place for scientists, artists, philosophers and lay people and a breeding ground for ideas to bridge us into the future.

Huston believes the rates of development and change in complex systems could have a 'predictable' relationship. He believes that if this is the case we could discover the mechanisms of change, the boundaries and direction of evolution of these systems, and this would have staggering implications for academic research and our ability to choose the direction of our civilisation, if the model had predictive ability. Complexity theory does provide the beginnings of predictive ability in a rigorous mathematical format. The Hillis-Lander formula 20 that measures the onset of punctuated equilibrium events in artificial evolutionary systems and the Lamda scale 21 that measures the edge of chaos, the phase transition boundary in artificial environments where the greatest amount of complexity is generated, are excellent examples of this predictive rigor.

Complexity theory has made possible a whole new way of understanding modeling and predicting economics that is revolutionary. M. Mitchell Waldrop wrote 22 how scientists like, Kenneth Arrow, Nobel laureate in economics and Professor of Economics at Stanford, have discovered major assumptions of classical economic theory are flawed. Complexity has demonstrated that the economy is non-linear and behaves more like a living entity or ecology than a machine. Holland believes that economics could have the predictive ability of meteorology. Complexity based simulations have already been created by scientists modeling negotiations, stock markets, the rise and fall of early civilisations 23 etc, with a degree of reality and true predictive ability impossible ten years ago!

Pope believes that if we can discover the basic laws behind the negentropic trend of life to evolve order from chaos, which he refers to as fractal logic, we can use these laws in a computer program. The program could automatically separate the input from human ideas and vast amounts of data into life enhancing solutions for new, relevant, super technologies and human survival strategies. Surely this is what life is doing. Living things take the information overload from the environment that is relentlessly dragging everything into entropic disorder and computer enhances it into strategies and technologies of survival and increasing negentropic complexity. This computer enhancement is controlled by the SARC's fractal logic.

I believe Pope's idea can work and it could be the most effective mechanism to fulfil Huston's plan. Firstly this computer system would represent in itself a bridge to the possible future I described at the beginning of this essay. Secondly it would act as a global focal point for the people of the world from laymen to scientists, men and women from every socio-economic, religious and ethnic background to input their ideas, concerns and information. It would be an independent virtual institution owned by the people for the people­­independent of universities, corporations, political parties, bureaucracies and religions. It has the potential to utilise scientists, politicians, executives, bureaucrats and others whose effort would be stifled by the institutions they work for. With one mechanism we could create the widespread understanding of complexity, as a model of evolutionary systems. The understanding that we are headed for a punctuated equilibrium event and the means to generate ideas and simulate possible futures. With this we could create a powerful vision for our future that everyone can feel a part of and be responsible for. A vision to sustain our spirits, as we prepare for and navigate our way through the transition. With this process we could deliberately work to create a blue print for a preferred future and avoid the ones that clearly lead to undesirable consequences.

Could we create the beginnings of this advanced system today with existing technology and infrastructure? I believe the answer is a resounding YES! We have the world wide web, therefore a website could be constructed that is connected to one AI system or perhaps a networked group of AIs, which receive input from people via their own, their work's or a public computer. Even today vast amounts of people have relatively easy access to a computer. We have any number of AI models that could be used to process the data. We have chaos and complexity theory along with artificial life and many constants and algorithms gleaned from nature, which describe how life creates and evolves. This information would be used as the guiding principles like a rule set to evaluate the human input and refine it to develop the designs and strategies for human survival. We have the understanding and ability to work with AI in an on-line, co-creative, team effort to turn this process into practical outcomes.

Below is a recommendation for a specific type of AI model. I am a generalist who is offering broad possibilities here. I hope these ideas will inspire the experts to develop them into working applications or to put forward more appropriate models and to inspire the non-experts to better understanding. For a little more detail see the notes.

One possibility for an AI model could by based on John Holland's classifier system 24. Holland created the classifier system using genetic algorithms, 25 pure logic, economic theory and computer science. It is a self-contained system for machine learning. Steven Levy explains 26 how a classifier system makes use of evolution and of individual learning. It uses sensors, which gather information from its environment, and then processes this information by posting and matching messages against a rule list. This generates its behaviours and after each time step it evaluates its behaviour and can modify its rules. It is also able to evolve new rules using a genetic algorithm. All these rules continue to compete and the best survive. Thus the system actually learns and becomes more proficient at its task.

Using a modified classifier system we could treat the ideas, concerns and information from people as input from the system's environment. The input is processed by posting and matching messages against a rule list. This generates behaviours, which in the case of this system would be choosing ideas and evolving them in an artificial environment. The expression of its if-then rules as behaviour in the artificial environment could be treated as artificial entities. These a-life entities, which represent ideas for human survival in the form of strategies (bridges) or designs for technologies, are made to live and compete in the artificial environment. This artificial ecology becomes a powerful selection process that ruthlessly challenges ideas to live or die in its virtual landscape.27 This artificial environment could be run on a separate computer system entirely devoted to simulation.

In parallel to the above process another artificial environment is constructed to simulate our civilisation and its possible futures. The environment is created using known concepts, ratios, scales and relationships of chaos and complexity theory along with various constants and algorithms from physics. These known concepts provide the fundamental dynamics of the environment. Artificial life is used to simulate the economic, sociopolitical and corporate structures in our society as well as the biosphere. Initially the simulation is run to expose what possible futures exist for us, within the limitations of soft determinism. The simulated futures are posted on the Internet and a vote is taken for the preferred future. These futures would represent broad outlines or particular forks in the road so to speak.

The AI, ideas, simulations and the people are in a creative feedback loop. Ideas once selected and evolved can be re-posted onto the Internet for the peoples vote, comment and/or modification, then fed back into the system for further refinement. Drexler described how engineers are already involved in a team design effort with AI software. Another example of this team effort is composers and artists using AI and various forms of artificial life to produce art and music. The whole time the classifier system is becoming more and more proficient at selecting and breeding ideas, strategies and designs. It is learning and evolving with the people and the project. All winning designs and strategies are posted and voted on by the people.

Surviving ideas are re-evolved into strategies for sociopolitical, economic bridges and/or designs for technologies. This has already been done using genetic algorithms to design circuit boards.28 Using a different approach utilising design AI software in conjunction with the input of design engineers, all sorts of artifacts have also been designed, tested and built. They are then fed into the simulation of our civilisation and left to compete and adapt in ways that allow the entire ecology to evolve unaided towards an outcome. The designs and strategies that drive the simulation towards a preferred future are the survivors and would be presented to the people. Teams could then self organise to go about actualising the designs and strategies in whatever way is possible. I believe this would be the most effective way of implementing Huston's idea of accessing "a new source of free energy from innovative thinkers."29

This on-line phenomena is already occurring with software design and redesign. Some companies are allowing their software code to become public so that a self organising team of people all over the world finds gliches, repairs them, then downloads the new version to the company who upgrades their customers. This type of activity has Microsoft worried as this megolithic giant, despite its massive resources, can't possibly match this process in terms of speed of change and degree of creativity and innovation. Another example is the Nanocomputer Dream Team.30 This is a group of scientists, engineers and lay people from all over the world connected by the Internet who are attempting to design the first quantum computer. Normally this type of activity could only be contemplated by corporations, government and the military in joint partnership with one or more universities. NASA has involved people all over the world in a project by utilising the down-time in peoples computers. Barbara Marx Hubbard has established the Foundation for Conscious Evolution 31 to help bring together people from all over the world who are working to build bridges towards a preferred future. She has created the Cocreation website 32 as resource for people and organisations to post their projects and network with others. She believes the time is near when all these separate people will come together to form an extended cohesive network to consciously design our future.

This way of utilising the creativity and energy of the people of the world is something completely new in human history, as there has never been the technological means to make it possible. With distributive design and development of life enhancing strategies and technologies using a selection process driven by nature by the people for the people, the survival rate of our ideas would take a dramatic leap forward. The people would represent a new emerging entity in the ecology of our sociopolitical-economic environment that could rival the multinationals, governments and bureaucracies of the world. This emerging new entity could act as a buffer against multinationals, governments or the military taking over the biggest opportunity in the history of humanity to have true freedom and global democracy, based on a life enhancing and totally sustainable technology. More to the point it may be our only guarantee of a safe transition away from extinction or de-humanising control. Complexity has exposed the reality that nature's success stories are those entities that have mastered symbiotic and cooperative relationships with other entities and not the adversarial, predatory relationships so often erroneously exulted in our sociopolitical and corporate structures as natural examples of survival of the fittest.

The intellectual property created by the system could be owned by the people­­for the people of the world. The people would have the right to develop and use the technology. This alone could be worth trillions of dollars. You could imagine that people involved in its development would be very interested to see it developed and even more interested in using it. Imagine how enthusiastic they would be in telling others about this and encouraging others to use the technology and to contribute at any level. I believe a project like this would rapidly build a momentum that would be unstoppable. We could create a bandwagon that eventually almost everyone will want to climb aboard and lend a hand to, the greatest and most critical cooperative venture in the history of humanity.

We are only just beginning to realise the power we have if we are willing to do something about it. Multinationals and political parties can't exist without us. Recently in Seattle at the World Trade Organisation meeting a very significant protest took place. The protestors represented a vast cross section of people demanding greater say in this corporate run, global trade, rule-making body. The effect was so dramatic on politicians that the meeting closed with no decisions being made. In the early nineties Greenpeace mounted a campaign against the Shell oil company who were going to sink a disused rig in the North Sea. When the company did not respond to responsible reason, Greenpeace simply asked the people to stop buying petrol from shell petrol stations in Europe. Within days Shell backed down.

The AI for the people is an advanced form of Huston's proposal for a bottom-up, broad based awareness among the people of the world of an evolutionary systems model and their understanding of their capacity to simulate and design the future. This is one form of the bottom-up surge I discuss, 33 where the collective actions of individuals create emergent behaviour in the system, which in this case is our global, sociopolitical and economic systems. The other form of bottom-up surge, which I repeatedly argue is a necessity if we are to survive the bifurcations and create the best possible future, will be created by a recently emerging class of technologies I call objective neurotechnology.34 This technology, enabled by nanotechnology, genetics, cognitive and neuroscience, robotics and computer science, will literally re-evolve the human mind, within the ancient context of enlightenment. This is natural and inevitable as our minds/brains are also complex adaptive systems on the verge of an evolutionary transition. Robert Taylor writes, most experts believe germ-line genetic engineering, within the next twenty years will change humanity forever, dramatically improving intelligence, emotional constitution, health, fitness, strength and athletic ability. He quotes Stock saying, "Humans are becoming the objects of conscious design."35 Moravec and others describe more dramatic improvements to our minds based on advances in robotics and computation.

Engineer and futures author, Bert Cunnington of Griffith University argues, 36 the human mind has shifted the 'cutting edge' of evolution from the biological to a 'meta-biological' evolution of the mental, cultural and spiritual. The re-evolving of our minds would give every individual a direct connection to the intelligence of the universe, known as the World Soul, Gaia, the Plutonic Realm, spirit, god/s or simply the information vacuum. At our present level of evolution we may experience, this connection, which I call universal top-down feedback, as gut feeling, inspiration, insight, intuition and compassion. With re-evolved minds/brains we will utilise this universal intelligence with an unprecedented degree of practical wisdom, compassion and rationality­­traits that the casual observer will notice are often sadly lacking in our modern society. Such traits humanity has always equated with being truly civilised.

Humanity is rapidly headed for some type of unprecedented punctuated equilibrium event. The evidence seems undeniable considering the broad spectrum of scientists and disciplines that have arrived at similar conclusions. The timing indicates the first bifurcation either technological or ecological could occur within five to ten years. We have precious little time to act. There is a new body of scientific knowledge known as complexity theory we could use to guide us through the transition and beyond. Mainstream governments, universities, corporations and bureaucracies are unlikely to be able to effectively utilise this information in time.

The free energy of the people of the world is probably our only hope. The only institution with the authority, passion and capability to tell the story of our reality and to lead and inspire the effective use of the people's energy is art. A science-art institute seems the most appropriate vehicle for this task. The SARC is such an institute that has already begun this process. The creation of an AI system connected to the people of the world by the Internet to select, evolve and simulate effective strategies and designs in partnership with the people, to steer our civilisation to a desirable future, appears to be both viable and the most effective option we have­­considering the urgency of our current reality.

Perhaps the greatest transition of human evolution is upon us. Will we be successful co-creators in our own evolution? Will we upgrade ourselves to a higher order of humanity or will we slip into oblivion? It is now up to the people of the world to take up this challenge. We must stand up and take responsibility for our freedom and our potential to create an unimaginably, beautiful future. Surely this is what the evolution of intelligence is all about!

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Robert Pope for his original idea to create a computer program to automatically sift out the ideas of people for the betterment of humanity and his ongoing encouragement to write this essay.

Notes
1. in his paper entitled What are the Greatest Challenges of Evolutionary Theory in Our Times?
2. see the book Chaos
3. see the books Complexity and Artificial Life
4. see the book Complexity
5. see the book Complexity
6. in his book Mind children
7. in his article: Superhumans New Scientist, 3rd October 1998, Number 2154, p 29.
8. in his book Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism
9. in his book The Spike
10. in his book Mind Children
11. See New Scientist Number 2148.
12. in his book Engines of Creation The Sacred Balance p5
13. in a Foreword to Drexler's book Engines of Creation (pvii)
14. entitled, World Scientist Warning to Humanity, sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about
The warning went on to list the crisis in the atmosphere, water resources, the oceans, the soils, the forests, biodiversity and human overpopulation Then the words became stark:
No more than a few decades remain for the chance to divert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished. We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated." The Sacred Balance p4
15. see the book Artificial Life 219-230
16. at WWW.santefa.edu
17. at WWW.science-art.com.au
18. at WWW.peaceroom.org special message from Barbara Marx Hubbard
19. Artificial life is a new scientific process and body of knowledge that uses computational processes to mimic aspects of life. The computer virus is a simple form of artificial life. Scientists have created very simple entities from strings of code that learn, adapt and evolve in artificial environments with other entities. They reproduce by swapping their digital code in an analog of sexual reproduction where genetic code is copied from the male and female and put together to create a new entity. These artificial entities range from the relatively simple viral or bacterial level up to the complexity of insect intelligence. Complex adaptive systems, for example, the economy display many life like behaviours and can be modeled in new and more profoundly effective ways using artificial life, which are themselves complex adaptive systems.
20. Computer scientist Danny Hillis with the help of Biologist Eric Lander, "developed an equation that quantified the boundary where the punctuated equilibrium event occurred. The equation is one over e squared (e is a well, established mathematical constant). When the level of the specific genes reached this value, there would be a phase transition and the population would make a dramatic leap to a higher level If we think of civilisation as a whole as Ray's or Hillis's population of a-life entities and we replace genes with memes and enabling technologies, then surely we are close to some massive punctuated equilibrium! Levy described how during periods of stability in Hillis's simulation, analysis revealed 'seething' activity of genes, which were establishing the foundations for the next leap. The world today is characterised by 'seething' activity in philosophies, worldviews, religious and metaphysical ideas, scientific breakthroughs in every field and technological advances from mainstream to alternative." All these new ideas, paradigms, discoveries and inventions are analogous to epistatic genes. "Instead of genetic changes building undetected towards the critical mass, (described by the one over e squared formula) and creating an evolutionary leap, we have memes and enabling technologies leading to the same thing. In a sudden and spectacular leap of evolutionary change­­a total change of our society our civilisation and environment could occur similar to Hillis's and Ray's simulations where punctuated equilibrium emerged." A New Reality p247
21. "Langton developed the Lambda (l ) scale from 0 to 1 which represented the degree of information retention and movement in a system. At the zero end of the scale information is fixed or frozen. Further along it is periodic, moving in endlessly repeating cycles. At the opposite end (one) it is totally chaotic. Langton discovered a 'sweet spot' on this scale where complexity was at its highest and where living systems and artificial life thrived! He called this area the 'edge of chaos.' It is located between the periodic and chaos areas. It is a place where information movement has the right balance of stability and flexibility. It is an abstract window or arena in the information universe, a balance point where complex adaptive systems are at their best. When an a-life environment is tuned to the edge of chaos the most novel, interesting and life like behaviours emerge. Wolfram discovered the same concept studying cellular automata and divided the areas into four classes. Class 4 related to the edge of chaos, at 0.273 on the Lambda scale." A New Reality p110
22. in his book Complexity
23. see the book Artificial Life p184 re. the "work of Forrest and Meyer-Kress, who used genetic algorithms in a simulation of simplified negotiations between three countries. They felt confident that this process would have 'considerable' use in 'quick and dirty' analysis, for instance, in an arms control negotiation where a quick decision was needed. They were optimistic that these sorts of simulations could model international relations, which, as Forrest and Kress pointed out, might help humans 'keep' evolving." A New Reality p220 see the book Complexity p269 Holland and Arthur used a classifier system to model stock market behaviour exhibiting moods and swings as if it had a personality like the real thing. Scientists used artifical-life simulations to determine what caused ancient Indian civilisations to be abandoned and why other civilisations grew in the manner they did.
24. see the books Complexity and Artificial Life Holland began with strings of random numbers, which represented rules, which were the classifiers, writes Levy. These classifiers were interpreted in a condition-action or if-then format. If-then rule tables are very simple forms of AI that use time steps to make decisions. Every second the program looks at its environment or its internal state and it compares this information to its rule table. The rule table tells it how to make decisions, for example a classifier system mimicking a frogs behaviour posts a message saying 'small black object on left side. This information is matched to a rule that says, 'if small black object on left side then move head to left.' The classifiers generated messages relating to information about the environment or the success of a behaviour using detectors and posted them on a message board. If information satisfied conditions of the rules, then a message was posted on the message board in the next time step. This could trigger more messages in the next time steps or activator devices called effectors, which move the system to interact with its environment. Holland perceived each rule as a small business in a market economy, whose product was a message. When a rule appeared it made a bid for its business. When this rule was associated with other rules and won the business it shared the payoff with those other rules that were like sub-contractors or suppliers. For a rule to survive its payoff must exceed the value invested in its bid. Rules can go into business with other rules, which in turn are connected, to other chains of rules. The payoff would be correctly distributed down the line no matter how complicated the network became. Holland himself called this a 'bucket brigade' algorithm based on the old fashioned fire fighting method of passing buckets of water along chains of men. The genetic algorithm was the other important mechanism in the system that was able to breed new and powerful rules by mating successful rules. This increased the efficiency of rules generally by eliminating weak ones and improving strong ones..
25. an algorithm is an efficient formula for describing or producing an output or answer to a problem. Its like a 'recipe' for producing something. The genetic algorithm (GA) is an example of artificial life. GAs have been used to solve all manner of real world problems, model aspects of simple organisms and have been studied as examples of evolution in themselves. The GA utilises the natural 'cross over' procedure, in sexual reproduction by representing a set of chromosomes as a string of 1's and 0's. Two strings come together and swap half their 1s and 0s, creating a new string made up from the parents. The algorithm is literally bred in the womb of the computer. GAs can only work for problems, which have degrees of solution that go all the way to an optimal solution. This is necessary so the steps toward the answer can be rewarded. GAs mimic aspects of adaptation created by genetic evolution from sexual reproduction over generations, in order to create an algorithm that can solve a defined problem.
26. in his book Artificial Life
27. Added to this is a level of unnatural selection based on a list of criteria that the ideas must fulfil. This criteria could be taken from the people and refined down to its very basic and fundamental level. Criteria would include things like the health and well being of humans and the biosphere, the creation of prosperity and sustainable economics etc. The results of rule matches that do well in this environment is feed back into the classifier system and treated as feedback from its environment. In this context we could harness the Darwinian notions of survival of the fittest in a wiser manner than we do in our capitalist society. The key here is the selection criteria we use, which is based on the negentropic trend of nature to create order and the highest values of humanity to create health and sustainable prosperity for all. In this artificial environment as in nature there are no political intrigues­­the artificial entities win or lose in total uninhibited innocence! What survives does so because they fulfil the ability to live in long term harmony with the ecology that spawned them, therefore we would have a totally new way of generating competition. This new way would be far superior to the way we currently use survival of the fittest in our free market economies. This is not hypocrisy it is simply a case of using one's tools appropriately. The unnatural selection could be arranged in a tree or hierarchy that separates ideas and strategies into specific specialities, for example health and economics. Each of these categories would be further split into sub-categories, for example in the case of health there could be human, animal and biosphere, a sub-set of human could be individual and collective, a sub-set of individual could be physical, mental, spiritual and so on. Another major form of category would be the distinction between ideas for technologies and strategies for building bridges. A software program could be developed to rate an entity's performance in the environment against the criteria. The first rating is against the broadest criteria we would want. Some sort of initial pass level is required, say any entity that fulfills any one of the criteria or comes close in any predetermined way of fulfilling the criteria. All entities passing the criteria are selected­­they represent the survivors and so have earned the right to procreate and pass on their genetic information. They are bred in an analogue of sexual recombination using a genetic algorithm. The rest are the losers in the game of evolution and thus in this artificial environment become extinct. The survivors are copied to create the most optimum gene pool size and put back into the simulation. The process is repeated with the standards of selection raised. The next lot of surviving entities are selected and bred. This entire process is repeated until the first entity achieves all the criteria. This entity is the winner of unnatural selection in the game of evolution and represents an optimum idea.28. see the magazine Discover: The World of Science. Evolving a Conscious Machine by Gary Taubes
29. What are the Greatest Challenges of Evolutionary Theory in Our Times? p10
30.. WWW.nanocomputer.org
31. see her book Conscious Evolution
32. at WWW.cocreation.org
33. in my book A New Reality chapters 5 and 6
34. This technology originated in the late sixties in the form of EEG feedback devices that allowed people to train and control brainwave states EEG feedback training is sweeping the therapeutic fields as the most powerful non-invasive process for the rehabilitation of a broad range of psychophisiological problems. The technology is also proving effective for peak performance training. Clinical research in this field is growing steadily. Advances in solid state electronics and computing have enabled the integration of sophisticated graphics used as feedback. Scientisits are researching ways of using chaos to guide the feedback process. Other neurotechnologies include: audio visual stimulation, cranio-electro stimulation and magnetic stimulation.
35. in his article: Superhumans New Scientist, 3rd October 1998, Number 2154, p 29 and 25
36. in Building a Planetary Civilisation cited by Jacobsen in his paper The Engineering of Global Democracy