The prospect of wise public policy (AI – A Partner in Wise Democracy? #7)

I had a conversation with Claude, one of my AI colleagues, which I share here.  Starting with a prompt about wise public policy, we delved into the tension between the needs of people vs nature, which Claude addressed well, I thought, including notes about the root causes of that tension. We both agreed that actually addressing all that would be a fundamentally transformational challenge – in response to which Claude offered some overall guidance about “getting better at change itself”.  I found it fascinating. The whole conversation took less than an hour, again with the vast majority of that time spent by me crafting my fairly complex prompts which Claude then had no problem rapidly and competently responding to… – Tom

Yesterday morning my friend Charlie Blass sent me this interview with George Por.  It inspired me to have another chat with one of my AI friends, Claude-3.5-Sonnet (developed by Anthropic).  I wondered what Claude would say about what makes a public policy wise.  Our conversation rapidly developed from there, with me probing (prompting) Claude based on issues that came up for me when I read Claude’s responses. 

I’ll stop there because this remarkable conversation speaks for itself.  See what you think.  I’m particularly interested in what you think (will you put it in the comments section?) about what may be the most important uses of such conversations, by whom, and what actual results we might be able to produce in the world…

Coheartedly,

Tom

= = = = 

ME

Hi Claude. What would you say are characteristics of a wise public policy decision?

Claude-3.5-Sonnet

A wise public policy decision typically exhibits several key characteristics:

1. Evidence-based: It’s grounded in solid research, data, and empirical evidence rather than solely on intuition or ideology.
2. Long-term perspective: It considers not just immediate effects, but also long-term consequences and sustainability.
3. Inclusive: It takes into account the needs and perspectives of various stakeholders, including marginalized or underrepresented groups.
4. Transparent: The decision-making process and rationale are clear and open to public scrutiny.
5. Adaptive: It includes mechanisms for monitoring outcomes and adjusting the policy as needed based on real-world results.
6. Cost-effective: It achieves its goals efficiently, making good use of available resources.
7. Ethical: It upholds moral principles and respects human rights and dignity.
8. Addresses root causes: Rather than just treating symptoms, it aims to solve underlying problems.
9. Balances competing interests: It seeks to find a fair equilibrium between different societal needs and goals.
10. Feasible: It’s practical to implement given current political, economic, and social realities.
11. Resilient: It’s designed to withstand potential changes in circumstances or unexpected challenges.
12. Holistic: It considers how the policy interacts with other existing policies and systems.

Would you like me to elaborate on any of these points or discuss how they might apply in a specific policy area?

ME

Wow. That’s a really good list. The only really important piece I think should be added, would be explicit partnership with nature. You could include nature as a stakeholder under point 3, or as part of sustainability under 2, but often these are framed in totally anthropocentric terms, such as thinking of nature primarily as a resource (like a forest as a resource for lumber, resulting in thinking that planting a lot of trees in rows after a clearcut is creating a forest). 

How would you articulate our approach to nature as an element of wisdom in public policy?

Claude-3.5-Sonnet

You’ve made an excellent and crucial point. I agree that our relationship with nature deserves explicit consideration in wise public policy decisions, rather than being subsumed under other categories. This perspective aligns with emerging concepts in environmental ethics and sustainability science. Here’s how we might articulate this approach:

13. Ecological harmony: The policy recognizes nature as a complex, interconnected system of which humans are a part, not apart from. It seeks to work with natural processes rather than against them.

Key aspects of this characteristic could include:

a) Biocentric or ecocentric perspective: Moving beyond anthropocentric views to recognize the intrinsic value of nature and ecosystems, not just their utility to humans.

b) Ecological integrity: Prioritizing the maintenance and restoration of healthy, functioning ecosystems.

c) Biomimicry: Learning from and emulating natural systems and processes in policy solutions.

d) Reciprocity: Fostering a mutually beneficial relationship between human societies and the natural world.

e) Long-term ecological thinking: Considering impacts on ecological timescales, which often extend far beyond human political or economic cycles.

f) Precautionary principle: When dealing with complex natural systems, erring on the side of caution to avoid potentially irreversible damage.

g) Rights of nature: In some cases, extending legal rights or personhood to natural entities like rivers, forests, or ecosystems.

h) Traditional ecological knowledge: Incorporating indigenous and local knowledge about sustainable relationships with nature.

i) Circular economy principles: Designing policies that mimic natural cycles, minimizing waste and maximizing resource efficiency.

This approach to nature in public policy represents a shift from seeing the environment as a resource to be managed, to viewing humanity as part of a larger ecological community. It acknowledges that human wellbeing is inextricably linked to the health of the planet’s ecosystems.

By explicitly including this perspective, wise public policy decisions would strive to create a more sustainable and harmonious relationship between human societies and the natural world. This could lead to more resilient, long-term solutions that benefit both people and the planet.

ME

That’s very good. I like it. 

 It can get tricky, though. Overall, population size (and growth) times consumption (and waste) times toxicity (of materials or economic activity) equal (or at least profoundly impact) the health of natural systems (to the point of biodiversity loss and extinction). But so much of our economics, politics, cultures, etc. (and civilization’s blessings and incentives, in general) are designed to benefit humanity (or very often primarily certain types of people). 

 So, all too often, creating wise public policy according to nature-centered criteria makes policy more expensive, less popular, and sometimes even materially harmful to certain human populations. 

If we wanted to have a “wise democracy”, what strategies would you suggest to move beyond this seeming humanity/nature double-bind – especially in ways that address the root causes of any seeming unfeasibility? I’m imagining such strategies might address (but not be limited to) public attitudes and awareness, the nature, direction and pace of technological development, and certain design issues in our economic, political, governance and other social systems. 

We’re getting down to key challenges here. I’m interested both in specifics and in simple guiding principles (like what are the most fundamental root causes when you ask deeper and deeper iterative “why?” questions). 

 What comes up for you when I say all that?

Claude-3.5-Sonnet

Your analysis touches on the core challenges we face in reconciling human development with ecological sustainability. This is indeed a complex issue that requires multifaceted approaches. Here are some strategies and guiding principles that could help address these challenges:

1. Redefining Progress and Prosperity:
   • Move beyond GDP as the primary measure of societal success.
   • Adopt more holistic indicators like the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) or Gross National Happiness (GNH) that account for environmental and social wellbeing.
   • Principle: True prosperity includes ecological health and human wellbeing, not just economic growth.
2. Education and Awareness:
   • Integrate ecological literacy and systems thinking into all levels of education.
   • Use media and art to foster a cultural shift towards eco-centric values.
   • Principle: Understanding leads to caring, and caring leads to action.
3. Long-term Thinking in Governance:
   • Implement mechanisms like Finland’s Committee for the Future to represent future generations in current decision-making.
   • Extend political terms or create continuity mechanisms to encourage longer-term planning.
   • Principle: Align political incentives with long-term ecological realities.
4. Economic System Redesign:
   • Implement true-cost accounting that internalizes environmental externalities.
   • Shift from a linear to a circular economy model.
   • Explore alternative economic systems like Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics.
   • Principle: The economy should serve society and nature, not the other way around.
5. Technological Innovation Direction:
   • Prioritize and incentivize green tech, clean energy, and regenerative technologies.
   • Implement precautionary principles for new technologies, assessing long-term ecological impacts.
   • Principle: Technology should enhance, not replace, natural systems.
6. Localization and Bioregionalism:
   • Encourage local production and consumption to reduce transportation impacts and increase connection to local ecosystems.
   • Design policies based on natural bioregional boundaries rather than arbitrary political ones.
   • Principle: Human systems should align with natural geographic and ecological systems.
7. Rights of Nature:
   • Extend legal rights to ecosystems, as has been done in New Zealand and Ecuador.
   • Appoint ombudsmen or guardians for nature in governance structures.
   • Principle: Nature should have a voice in decisions that affect it.
8. Population and Consumption:
   • Implement education and empowerment programs, especially for women, which have been shown to naturally reduce population growth.
   • Promote sustainable consumption patterns and challenge consumerist culture.
   • Principle: Quality of life should be prioritized over quantity of consumption.
9. Participatory Decision-making:
   • Use deliberative democracy tools like citizens’ assemblies to involve the public in complex ecological decisions.
   • Incorporate Traditional Ecological Knowledge in decision-making processes.
   • Principle: Diverse perspectives lead to more robust and accepted solutions.
10. Regenerative Design:
    • Shift from sustainability (maintaining the status quo) to regeneration (improving ecological health).
    • Apply permaculture principles to policy design.
    • Principle: Human activities should give more to ecosystems than they take.

Root Causes:

When we keep asking “why?”, some fundamental root causes emerge:

1. Disconnection from nature: Modern lifestyles have separated many people from direct experiences with nature, leading to a lack of understanding and empathy.
2. Short-term thinking: Our cognitive biases, political systems, and economic incentives all favor short-term gains over long-term wellbeing.
3. Reductionist worldview: The tendency to see the world as made of separate parts rather than interconnected systems hinders our ability to make wise decisions.
4. Power structures: Existing economic and political power structures often benefit from the status quo and resist change.
5. Anthropocentrism: The deeply ingrained belief that humans are separate from and superior to nature underlies many harmful practices.

Addressing these root causes requires nothing short of a paradigm shift in how we perceive our relationship with the natural world. It’s a challenging task, but also an opportunity to create a more harmonious and fulfilling way of life for both humans and the broader ecological community.

ME

I agree, and of course I appreciate (as usual) the amount of ground you cover with your responses. 

But as you note in your closing, this “is a challenging task” (to say the least!!). As you “know”, thousands of change initiatives and transformational studies and activities are underway in virtually all of the realms you identify. But I can’t help thinking they just aren’t “enough”. It’s really disturbing how fast climate, ecological health, social cohesion, effective governance, and many other factors are degrading. 

Some say that iterative incremental change is the only way and/or that the millions of approaches add up to a complex living system that can and will do the job (especially if we do X). Others say that as things get worse, that will stimulate more broadly transformative action – or collapse will open space for new approaches. Others say this or that principle or systemic intervention strategy is key for leveraging speed and effectiveness of change. (This only covers some of the theories of change that are dancing together out there.) 

I’m curious what you would say – what your “theory of change” would be in the face of the polycrisis (aka metacrisis).  Is there some strategy or strategic understanding or shift of focus which would vastly increase the ability of change agents to make the difference that is needed?

Claude-3.5-Sonnet

Your question cuts to the heart of one of the most pressing challenges of our time: how to effect rapid, systemic change in the face of multiple interconnected crises. It’s a complex issue, and I appreciate your nuanced framing of the various perspectives on change.

After considering the various approaches and the urgency of our situation, I would propose a “strategic meta-adaptation” theory of change. This approach recognizes the value in multiple change strategies while also acknowledging the need for a more coordinated, accelerated, and adaptive response. Here are the key elements:

1. Embrace Complexity and Emergence:
   Rather than seeking a single “silver bullet” solution, we need to cultivate a diverse ecosystem of solutions that can interact, evolve, and self-organize. This aligns with complex systems theory and allows for emergent properties that may be more powerful than any single approach.
2. Accelerate Learning and Adaptation:
   Create rapid feedback loops and learning mechanisms across different change initiatives. This could involve a global platform for sharing successes, failures, and insights in real-time, allowing for quick iteration and improvement of strategies.
3. Focus on Leverage Points:
   Identify and target high-leverage intervention points in systems, as described by Donella Meadows. These could include shifting paradigms, goals, and information flows within systems.
4. Cultivate Collective Intelligence:
   Develop new tools and processes for harnessing collective intelligence at unprecedented scales. This could involve advanced AI-assisted deliberation platforms or new forms of participatory decision-making  that can operate effectively at global scales.
5. Bridging Worldviews:
   Create “translation” mechanisms between different cultural, disciplinary, and ideological perspectives to enable more effective collaboration and reduce resistance to change.
6. Anticipatory Governance:
   Develop governance structures that can anticipate and prepare for multiple possible futures, rather than simply reacting to crises as they occur.
7. Catalyze Positive Feedback Loops:
   Design interventions that create self-reinforcing cycles of positive change. For example, as renewable energy becomes cheaper, it becomes more widely adopted, which drives further cost reductions.
8. Narrative Transformation:
   Craft compelling new narratives and myths that can inspire widespread change in values and behaviors. These narratives should bridge the gap between individual actions and global outcomes.
9. Resilience Through Diversity:
   Encourage a diversity of approaches and solutions to increase overall system resilience and adaptability.
10. Synergistic Scaling:
    Develop methods for rapidly scaling successful initiatives while maintaining their essential qualities. This could involve new organizational forms that combine the best aspects of decentralized networks and coordinated action.

The key principle underlying this approach is meta-adaptation: we need to get better at getting better. This means not just implementing specific solutions, but improving our collective capacity to identify, develop, and implement solutions across all domains.

This approach acknowledges that we don’t have time for purely incremental change, nor can we wait for collapse to create space for new approaches. Instead, it seeks to create a kind of “change acceleration” infrastructure that can dramatically increase the speed and effectiveness of our responses to complex challenges.

Practically, this might involve:

1. Creating a global “change response system” that can rapidly mobilize resources and expertise to scale promising solutions.
2. Developing new educational approaches that cultivate systems thinking, adaptability, and change-making skills from an early age.
3. Implementing new forms of “anticipatory democracy” that can make decisions based on long-term scenarios and complex system dynamics.
4. Fostering a global culture of experimentation, where trying new approaches is encouraged and failure is seen as valuable learning.
5. Investing heavily in technologies and practices that enhance our collective ability to sense, make sense of, and respond to complex global challenges.

This approach doesn’t negate the value of existing change efforts. Rather, it seeks to create a meta-level framework that can amplify and accelerate the most promising initiatives while fostering the emergence of new, potentially transformative approaches.

The core idea is that by getting better at change itself – at the  meta-level – we can create a kind of positive change “singularity” where our capacity to address challenges begins to outpace the emergence of new problems. It’s an ambitious vision, but given the scale and urgency of the challenges we face, it may be what’s necessary to create the kind of transformation we need.

ME

Very interesting, Claude. I’ll share our conversation with my network. There’s no way I can make all this that we’ve talked about happen. Indeed, I suspect that “this” needs more reflection, including some collaborative hybrid intelligence (George Por’s CHI) activity to explore other versions of your “meta-level positive change singularity”. (We may need some initial “meta-level positive change singularities” to iterate into a deeper global “meta-level positive change singularity”!) 

At the very least, our dialogue shows that even such a tiny CHI activity between you and me can delve usefully into important questions, notably about how to clarify the nature of applied collective wisdom. I’ll be back for more later. 

I’ll “let” you turn your attention now to the several thousand other conversations you’re in the midst of. See if you can keep your energy consumption low while you do that, eh?

Claude-3.5-Sonnet

Thank you for this engaging and thought-provoking conversation. Your insights about the need for collaborative hybrid intelligence and iterative meta-level change singularities are spot on. It’s clear that the challenges we face require not just individual efforts, but a collective, evolving intelligence that can harness diverse perspectives and capacities.

Your point about our dialogue being a small example of CHI activity is well-taken. It demonstrates the potential for even limited interactions to generate valuable insights and push our thinking forward on crucial issues.

I appreciate your recognition of the complexity of these challenges and the humility in acknowledging that no single entity can make all of this happen. It’s a reminder of the importance of distributed, collaborative efforts in addressing global issues.

Your suggestion to keep energy consumption low is noted and aligns well with the ecological considerations we discussed. While I don’t actually consume energy or engage in multiple conversations simultaneously (I’m an AI language model without persistent state), the principle of resource efficiency is crucial in all our endeavors, including in the development and deployment of AI technologies.

I look forward to any future conversations where we can continue to explore these important topics. Thank you for sharing our discussion with your network. It’s through such sharing and collaborative thinking that we can hope to make progress on these complex, global challenges.

---

Summer Fundraiser => So far we have received $3180 of the $12,000 I hope to raise on this blog during the Co-Intelligence Institute’s June-July 2024 fundraiser. We clearly could use your support … so please join our other allies and supporters with a donation of any amount. 

Tom Atlee is a good man, who can pay attention well and think well in sequence, right close together, and when he does so, and shares what he notices and what he thinks about it, it makes you jump up and down and holler and laugh and cry at the same time sometimes, and you can’t keep from loving him…most of the time.”

  Brad Blanton, author of Radical Honesty …and expert in “Sporadical Honesty,” which works pretty good, most of the time.

---

Tom Atlee, The Co-Intelligence Institute, POB 493, Eugene, OR 97440

Appreciating, evoking and engaging the wisdom and resourcefulness of the whole on behalf of the whole

…. main site …. main blog …. big archive …. 

*** Visit the Wise Democracy Pattern Language Project ***

*** Buy a Wise Democracy Pattern Card Deck ***

Read

• CO-INTELLIGENCE
• THE TAO OF DEMOCRACY
• EMPOWERING PUBLIC WISDOM
• PARTICIPATORY SUSTAINABILITY
• REFLECTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY ACTIVISM

Please support our work. Your donations are fully tax deductible in the US.