Throughout history, we see how priorities have changed. First, I suppose, it was about getting through the next call, and from there, things moved forward: securing shelter, protecting the next generation, surviving the winter, a drought, a neighboring tribe... In any case, thinking went a little further than just the immediate future.
Times have changed, the dangers and risks have changed, but one thing never has..
survival.
As societies developed, those initial attempts of just “tomorrow” or “just the next winter”
began to shift towards longer periods, looking a little further into the future.
to lay a foundation on which that ‘tomorrow’ could socially rest.
Perhaps as the first serious competitor, we have Confucius,
who in the sixth century BC tried to devise a moral and social code
that focuses on education and family hierarchy as the foundation of the state.
The Analects of Confucius - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3330
His contemporary, Lao Zi, offered a completely different concept – Taoism, where order is achieved by the state interfering as little as possible in people's lives. Here is a quote from chapter 80 of his work:
Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching (Chapter 80)
"If a country is governed wisely, its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy their labor and don't waste time inventing labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes, they aren't interested in travel.
There may be boats and carriages, but no one uses them.
There may be weapons and armor, but no one ever displays them"
we travel a bit through time and to the other side of the world where Plato, in the 4th century BC, tried to conceptualize his ideal State
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497
and after him Aristotle, the student who criticizes the teacher. what we need today more than ever.
who lived from 384–322 B.C. his most famous teaching, the theory of the four causes
and the idea that the state is a natural community created for the purpose of achieving virtue and the good life.
as time went on, attempts intensified and the need for a system grew exponentially.
Ideas and concepts came and went, but the need remained or grew.
Thomas More-Utopia 1516.
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan 1651.
John Locke - Two Treatises on Government 1689.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract 1762.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto 1848.
John Rawls-A Theory of Justice 1971 and his “veil of ignorance” –– society should be organized in such a way that you would find it acceptable, even if you don't know whether you will be born into it as a rich person, a poor person, sick, or healthy
we have come to the present day, when in my opinion the need for a new social system is greater than ever.
the harsh realities of today, in which we see a world in a global crisis
rampant consumption of resources source:https://www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-2025
percentage of the population living below the existential minimum source:https://hdr.undp.org/content/ 2025-global-multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi#/indicies/MPI
degradation of moral values source:https://www.edelman.com/trust/2026/trust-barometer
I could keep citing sources, but it won't change the situation or the question in the title.
Do we have the capacity to devise and accept something new, a new system, because that initial premise about survival hasn't changed? The danger is just greater, globally. Are we as a society ready for radical changes?
Each of the ones proposed so far has had potential dangers: authoritarianism, lack of technical capabilities, etc. The question is, what dangers would this new system have?
Could we come up with a solution that is ethical, logical, and technically feasible?
Alright. Let's try to find a solution. I'll lay out my take on the situation, and feel free to jump in with criticism and additions.
Essentially, every existing model has faltered under more serious challenges.
So let's make sure the next one doesn't suffer the same fate.
The goal will remain the same: survival. But I'm going to add a few more layers of difficulty.
Let the goal be the survival of the species, the evolution of consciousness, and expansion beyond our home planet.
The goal as an axiom. My logic sees no greater one.
I'll take ethics as a foundation. Because it's not just about where we're going, but also how we're going to get there.
The system will have to start from scratch because the current one definitely isn't leading us in that direction. With our current trajectory, we might survive, but either as genetically modified beings or in some symbiotic relationship with a machine.
and that contradicts the goal I set as an axiom.
I'm not dismissing the possibility, I'm just saying that's not what this is about right now. But so I don't get off-topic, let's get back to the system.
So, procedural ethics as a foundation. It is a mandatory pre-filter for every decision and action. Ethics is no longer instrumental, but an independent criterion.
“That which we can verify, test, and accept as necessary for the survival of the species, regardless of current culture, ego, or short-term interest.”
I will even run the goal through the filter. The goal must pass a pre-mortem analysis: “Would we accept this goal even if it could not be achieved ethically?” If not, the goal is redefined.
Since I'm building the system from scratch, that means there are no borders or governments. At least not in the sense of the governments that exist today. I'll put an ethical council in charge and give them a mandate, say, for a year.
I'll also remove capital from the equation because, realistically, it only brings problems with it.
Next item, focus. A lot of previous systems failed the test because they lacked focus. Now, since there are no borders or capital, I can direct the people where they're needed. Plus, that way I'll get free gene mixing.
We'll just speed up the process a bit. What did I gain from this? I directed people where they were needed and achieved genetic diversity.
We'll adopt a passive stance. No attacking or taking what belongs to others. That means existing weapons are for defensive purposes only.
I'll take the AI as a protocol guardian; we'll add a red line and a kill switch. We'll change its parameters to encourage skepticism. Different basic logics, for example, one is utilitarian, the other deontological.
Add an ethical AI to each branch of the system, a human guardian of doubt, and a human overseer of the guardians. Roles should be rotational and for a period no longer than 90 days. The duration can be adjusted to avoid psychological fatigue.
Introduce a mandatory annual system evaluation for additional calibration to avoid rigidity. I will introduce three items to avoid the shifting of responsibility: 1. Traceable Contributions: we identify exactly which filter or which person failed in their specific duty.
2. Rotational responsibility. and collective contribution.
The society is divided into three groups: All members of the society periodically take on the roles of Executor, Supervisor, and Guardian of Doubt.
Since we are building on the ashes of the previous system, the new one must undergo reconstruction, decentralization, and diversification.
We must introduce a curriculum that, from the very beginning, fosters critical thinking and the attainment of an individual’s maximum cognitive capacity, with an emphasis on developing empathy. The active participation of parents and society is mandatory.
I believe this will be the strongest pillar of the system’s sustainability, as we will have generations trained to think and understand that they are not the center of the system but merely a part of it.
We are working on suppressing the individual ego as the fundamental obstacle to any successful system.
I repeat.. Every key decision must pass through a series of rigorous filters: ethical, objective-based, AI analysis, the Guardian of Doubt, and the Guardian of Guardians
The next point: system transparency. Everyone can see what is being done and why. There are no favorites.
Energy: Focus on solar, hydro, and nuclear until something better emerges. Introduce small modular reactors and affordable solar systems with thermal storage for a stable power supply for AI infrastructure
Development vector. Focus on the development of a space program with a guarantee of dignified satisfaction of the basic needs of all residents and infrastructure improvements
Selection is based on diversity. Mandatory genetic, cultural, and epistemological diversity as an explicit criterion.
All of this undergoes periodic evaluation. Selection must not be accelerated except under the threat of immediate and unavoidable danger.
We must also resolve the issue of those who do not want or are unwilling to participate. We must ensure them a dignified existence and protection as long as they are alive and do not consciously act against the system. They serve as proof of the system’s moral strength.
For we will not cast anyone aside. The system is for everyone, not just for the majority, and certainly not just for the individual.
The development of a system of honor and shame; the point is that we all have enough—no one has everything—and those who err have an inalienable right to defense and rehabilitation. Shame does not follow the individual but the act itself, i.e., the deed. Honor is accessible to all.
Constructive criticism is welcome; mistakes are not condemned.
Preservation and development of cultural differences, folklore, and games. Encouraging the development of art and individual expression as long as it does not directly threaten the system.
I can add a few more things that, in my opinion, should not be called into question. The right to free choice, the right to life and bodily integrity: No decision has the right to deprive or irreversibly harm an individual’s life or body. That is a red line.
Zero tolerance for torture and coercion: No one may use physical or psychological torture, forced medical procedures, or blackmail.