The NS Prize Competition Had A $5 Million Purse

The New Shape Prize

A European millionaire, Laszlo Szombatfalvy, in 2017, promised $5 million in prize monies to the best new ideas for global governance in confronting the many challenges besetting our planet: climate change, large-scale environmental damage, politically motivated violence (war, civil war, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction), extreme poverty and rapid population growth.

I submitted three ideas by the deadline and have been waiting to read about the winners.  Well, here are the finalists, listed in reverse order, as found on the foundation's website (click through and you can read a one paragraph abstract and bio for each, or their entire entry).  The winner or winners will be announced in the next few days (I'll update this writing at that time).  Following each very brief summary, below, I give my own assessment (an upside and a downside); and at the end I describe my own ideas and why I think they didn't make it to the final round.

#14: Sponsored Loans.  Because many development projects in our world can't be funded due to risk (of war, corruption, etc), but are obvious ways forward, enlist billionaires and other wealthy actors to guarantee these loans.  Upside: Could have a big impact.  Downside: Risk is risk, and nobody wants to lose money.
#13: Social Conditionality in Patents.  Make the granting of patents dependent on their being used for social good.  Upside: Would reform patents.  Downside: Implementation would likely involve grandfathering existing patents, so, small potatoes?
#12: Planetary Condominium.  Legal framework for protecting the earth.  Upside: Law can be a wronged party's best friend.  Downside: Is this practical when half the world lives in societies without a strong legal foundation?
#11: Insurance-based Global Governance.  Use the insurance model to confront global catastrophic risk.  Countries would pay a premium and be advised on how to avoid risk.  Upside: This might actually work.  Downside: Either premiums would be massive, or claims would be tightly limited.  For example: a $100 billion hurricane that is thought to be aggravated by climate change.
#10: Global Governance by Cooperative Communities.  Local communities join together to form a worldwide political entity that votes on initiatives.  Upside: The beginning of global government that would spread good ideas, if not take over from nation states.  Downside: All but the rich haven't the time for anything but making ends meet.
#9: UN Charter revision.  Upside: These are good reforms.  Downside: Very unlikely that the powers that be would give up their control.
#8: Evolutionary Organisation.  Start a group of local, self-organized people in different parts of the globe that apply for grants to solve local problems, and are guided and assessed by each other and experts.  Upside: Encourages local initiative.  Downside: Funding would be minimal at outset.
#7: EDGE (Emergent Dynamic Governance Ecosystems) is a many-party coalition of those with proven efforts at well-being that, together, achieve common goals and hold governments and corporations to account.  Upside: Good guys get together and force change.  Downside: Buzzword salad, anyone?
#6: Tiny Universal Basic Income disbursements, invested. We all get a cut of our taxes to invest in private/public enterprises that return profits to the system.   Upside: Popular.  Downside: Where does funding come from in all but the richest countries?  And what profitable, low-risk investments are not already being met with private funding?
#5: AI -supported bottom up governance and implementation.  Upside: Use blockchain and AI to facilitate global governance that takes over from nation-states.  Downside: Theoretically, this might work; practically, this might just be a hodge-podge of emerging technologies and concepts.
#4: Outsource UN developmental work.  Upside: The UN should stick to policy, not implementation.  Downside: Not significant enough, in terms of problem solving.
#3: League of Cities.  Upside: Cooperation across boundaries.  Downside: Wouldn't this just be a second-best model that compounds the problems of the nation-state with added growing pains?
#2: Club-based model for governance among cities.  Upside/Downside: see #3, above.
#1: Blockchain for Global Governance.  Blockchain contracts that address global challenges would appear, receive proposals in response, be voted on, and then financed.  Upside: A world-wide bulletin board system for identifying and addressing problems.  Downside: "Financing by cryptocurrency" isn't how financing is had, it's how it's delivered.

The above is a very brief, skimming description of the finalists based on their one-paragraph abstracts.  One can click through and read each of these 14 entries in their entirety (I chose just one to click on).  I'm not doing these justice, but I'm not judging.  Instead, I'm giving the reader a feel for what passes for new ideas.

Which brings us to my ideas.  I'll provide a summary for each that's similar to the above 14, then I'll discuss why I think I didn't make even the semi-final cut, let alone the final grouping:

#1: Rewarding Developing Nation-State Progress.  Each year award Nobel Prize-like recognition to a developing country that has done right.  Partner with the UN and in-country NGOs to provide advice to all participating nation-states on how they might win.  Prize money and recognition would steer governments to do good, while attracting additional, private investment as an imminent economic lift-off for the winner is anticipated.  Upside: Immediate and effective in combating global problems.  Downside: See discussion below.

#2a: Approximate Democracy.  Actual, realistic, direct democracy, that removes petty influence-peddling from politics while giving everyone a voice in shaping policy.
#2b: Experts For Hire.  Making facts, truth and expertise central to shaping society.  Anyone can take a test, or just follow the discussion in any field.  Self-governed expert panels in specific and general fields would be consulted by government, corporations, etc., to provide guidance in each panel's area of expertise.
Upside: Together, 2a and 2b enhance both the promise of self-governance, and the assurance of enlightened expertise, creating a new, integrated model for modern societies: profound people power that has access to the best advice.  Downside: see discussion below.

#3: Dramatically Increasing Productivity.  My own work experience, being paid an evaluated salary and going home each day once I finish my work, showed me that harnessing efficiencies in one's work life, and splitting the resulting payoff between management and employee, could, I estimate, add  5-10% to the world's economy if the system I enjoy were used around the world.  This has only become possible, for the majority of jobs, in the wake of our digital economy, as an objective record of transactions in the workplace is now possible.  Strong unions are necessary to make this idea work, but once investors and corporations realize the huge potential jump in productivity (plus improvements in employee morale/health), the changeover would be quick, and there would be no turning back.  Upside: An immediate financial boost to the world economy of about 5%, plus increased happiness as participants control their own workflow and can go home early.  Downside: see discussion below.

Obviously, I think these are great ideas.  They're all comprehensive and practicable.  So, why didn't I at least make the semi-finals?  Here are the likely reasons, listed in order of probability, with the most likely first:

1. My ideas just weren't that great a fit for this contest.  It's hard to admit that one is ill-suited to being the victor.  But sometimes that is simply reality.  The downside to my first idea, for example, is that the judge might have thought it required annual fundraising by the sponsoring foundation (no fundraising would be required, but this would mean having a lesser impact; note: I promised to donate $100,000 from any prize money to the first year's purse).  The second idea's downside is that it is so revolutionary that nobody could be expected to adequately assess it--certainly not a judge with perhaps 5-10 minutes to look into the matter.  And my third idea's downside is that, as with the second, it's too "outside the envelope"--as I admitted in the abstract I wrote for each.  Only someone like me, who has actually benefitted from a job that encourages efficient work, would understand the potential.

2. My ideas deserve acclaim, but were overlooked.  The New Shape contest had 2,702 entries from over 100 countries.  All those entries were considered by the contest's panel of regional judges.  If I were a judge, the first thing I'd have done would have been to reduce my number of entries from several hundred to perhaps fifty.

A. I'd use an app to scan each entry for educational level (does this writing indicate a lower than high school level submission?).
B. Though I wouldn't do it, a judge could then check footnotes and references (another indication of a highly educated entrant).
C. And, though again I wouldn't do it, easiest of all, a judge could check for credentials (is this someone who's likely to have something important to say?)

In my case, I'd easily pass the first test, as I've checked my own writing level, and it's been college level plus.  The second and third possibilities could have been where I tripped up.  I used few footnotes and references, as my ideas were mainly based on my own thinking.  And though I believe the contest rules suggested anonymity--that is, a separation between entries and biographies--I see that the finalists' bios are available prior to winners being announced (For example: my opinion of the "buzzword salad" entry rose dramatically, once I read the author's bio).  If biographical data were looked at in winnowing each judge's workload (perhaps this was necessary, as time ran out), I'd have been one of the first jettisoned, as I don't hail from a prominent think tank, or have a post at a university.

3.  My ideas were old school.  I'm selective in what I see as promising new technology.  While AI, Blockchain, and Cryptocurrencies may prove transformative, I'm not sure enough about them to incorporate their use into my prescriptive thinking.  So, since an easy way to winnow ideas would be to look for the latest trends, or at least new ideas that use the latest technology, I probably wouldn't have gotten through that door.

4.  My ideas didn't speak to the regional judge for North America.  As a first-step winnower, the judge who 'passed' on my ideas may have been looking for more familiar concepts, rather than completely new idas.  Thus, areas outside my judge's expertise would have been at a disadvantage; and as I've noted, my second and third ideas, especially, are outside the box.

5.  I actually didn't want to win and made my ideas hard to understand.  We started out with the likelihood that my ideas just weren't that good a fit.  We're ending with the least likely possibility.

And finally, there're some good things about not winning.  The ideas themselves, I believe, deserve to be heard.  But, I don't need the recognition or extra income that winning would involve.  I'm happy with my life, and compared to other contestants who also didn't win, I have no problem with that, personally.

......................................
Update: June 3rd, 2018.  We now know the winning entries: #s 9, 5, and 4, above.

Two of these,  #9 and #4, address reforms at the UN.  #9 suggests a complete overhaul, which would include replacing the Security Council.  #4 suggests the UN turn over implementation of various functions to businesses and NGOs, and concentrate on decision-making.  Neither has much of a chance of happening in the immediate future, though long-shot advocacy is always welcome; there's always a small chance that a big change could happen in a surprisingly short time.

Our third winner suggests using AI, Blockchain and decentralized decision-making to rewire the world.  Like UN reform, the odds are very long that much would happen in the next few years.

Perhaps most interesting is how much of the $5 million purse was awarded.  Each of our three winners received a mere $600,000, well below expectations.  This has raised eyebrows, in that a minimum $1 million was promised the winner, IIRC, though by having three winners, it could be argued that 'winnings' totaled $1.8  In any case, the generosity of the donor should outweigh any second-guessing.  It could be said, however, that the failure to award all $5 million may indicate the jury's general disappointment with the winning ideas (I believe there was a panel of judges to pick winners from among the finalists; if this jury was different from the regional judges who selected semi-finalists and then finalists (I believe they were), any 'disappointment' would be understandable.)

The Global Challenges Foundation has kept the momentum from the contest going by suggesting that those who came to Stockholm for the May 27-29 conference, final deliberations, and announcement, will continue their discussions in preparation for the Paris Peace Conference in 2019.  So, perhaps the remaining monies will be disbursed in due time.

Additional tidbits gleaned from perusing the Foundation's Twitter and Facebook:
  * Diversity was championed, with the winners, the jury, and the regional judges system, all contributing.
  * Congratulations poured in for the winners and the competition.  The UN employs a lot of people, so these were perhaps colleagues within the UN community and its circle of friends.
  * Outreach to participants was minimal.  Perhaps this was best, in that nobody enjoys receiving a dreaded rejection letter.  But, one could tell from posts to the Foundation's feeds that not having any feedback on ideas so important to entrants was frustrating, especially for those who put a lot into their ideas.

The Obama Years -- Big Picture

My Look Back At Our 44th President

1. First, a note about Hawaii, where President Obama was born.  I lived on the Hawaiian islands for about five years, long enough to have a sense of what being born there would've meant for someone like Obama.

The Hawaiian people are, ethnically, some of the most mixed in the world.  Caucasians make up only about a third of the population, which was also the case in the 1960s, when Obama was a child.

The largest ethnic group was and is Asian (Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, Korean).  But, this dividing up of the population by country of ancestor origin distorts reality; just about every Hawaiian is a mix of different races.  So, the fact that Obama was bi-racial was relatively insignificant, to a degree that anyone living on the mainland can't imagine.

2. And second, another note about Obama's racial impact.
The insignificance of his ancestry is what makes Obama a natural for the ambitious role of becoming our first black president.  Not only was he as unselfconscious as possible of being black (it was almost as if he was a future American, traveling back in time to show us how it's done), but his identity wasn't, at least to a degree, concerned with overcoming the tragedy of slavery (though, admittedly, as a Kenyan, his father would have known colonialism).

3. And third, a note about what the president's unique personality meant for the country.  Here's an interview that discusses Obama's origins and personality.  In the interview, Ta-Nehisi Coates makes the point that any overt racism Obama encountered during his time in office wouldn't have inflicted the kind of wound that other black politicians would have likely experienced, because for Obama, as a child, racism was all but absent.

So, with that background in mind, let's list a few things that Obama, in historical 20/20 hindsight, will be credited with accomplishing (In March of last year I looked back at President Obama's legislative legacy.  This retrospective is, instead, the big picture.)  I'll offer a comment about each one.

 *  Inclusion, the great promise that is America.  What could be more important than addressing America's original sin--the subjugation of one race by another?  Comment: racism cripples the perpetrator, too, though only in terms of potential self-respect.

 * A Real Relationship between president and first lady.  Their loving each other makes perfect sense.  Every other relationship in the history of the presidency can be seen as a lesser version of what the Obamas conveyed.  Comment: befuddlement, philandering, bullying, all take their toll on honest love.

 * A template for a Conscientious and Effective administration.  There were very few hiccups in the Obama White House, let alone serious disruptions.  Comment: Obama's was a cautious, centrist approach, dealing in the realm of the politically possible.

 *  The Consolidation of pride in Progressivism.  What had been the all but lost thread of 20th century progressivism (FDR, Truman through Johnson) became, once again, the establishment.  Comment: Presidents Carter and Clinton can be seen as steps along this path.

 *  Charisma.  The brilliant smile, the polite graciousness, the sleek athleticism, the un-paralelled humor (one can re-visit White House Correspondents' Dinners to experience this).  Comment: Obama's pizzazz is likely to be recognized, in hindsight, to a greater and greater degree--as was the case with presidents like FDR, Reagan and Clinton.

 * An Upward Bound Economy.  Halving the unemployment rate, rescuing the cash-starved economy,  lowering annual deficits, overseeing a long bull market.  Comment: To the extent that not enough was done to rescue the economy in Obama's early years, the Republican party is to blame, as additional stimulus was voted down, time and again.

 *  Legislation.  Progressive laws, like ObamaCare, were enacted to the greatest extent possible.  Comment: Again, Republicans and conservative Democrats stood in the way of even greater change.

 *  World.  Obama's biggest accomplishments on the world stage, seen in several decades' hindsight, will likely be returning the US to the ranks of the liked and respected.  The fight against the Islamic state, the Iran Nuclear Deal, standing up to Russian belligerence, and pursuing trade, are lesser highlights.  Comment: his Nobel Peace Prize.

But, you ask, what about the Trump administration's undermining activities?  Will there be anything left of the Obama legacy?   As I've hinted, above, the Obama era reclaimed the establishment for progressivism.  Rather than a return to a Republican-centric establishment (like that of the Reagan-Bush era), Trump's misadventures are driving the Republican party to ruin.

This can be seen in the abject personification of authority, instead of what pass for standard orthodoxies of Republican leadership: free trade, infrastructure spending, and fiscal discipline.  And what would Ronald Reagan say about a party that no longer followed his prohibition against speaking ill of another Republican?

All of which suggest that either today's toadies and grifters are ejected from the Republican party (likely after an electoral disaster or two), or a new, centrist party forms, and a rump Republican force gradually withers away.

Guessing: Social Media - Next Big Idea

Platform Algorithm That's Transparent and Interactive

What'll the next Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat look like?

Here's my guess, Choosing, and how it might work:

1. In addition to accessing content, once per day, the user can 'choose' from among three Twitter-length posts provided by an algorithm (a simple character-reading test would all but eliminate non-human bots).

2. This process of choosing would provide the site with data to rank users.  And, this choosing/ranking process would propel especially worthy content towards a wider audience.

3. Ranking would not only be based on:
    * Choosing what are proven to be the most popular posts,
but also, on
    * Multiplying a user's choosing prowess by that user's own ranking as a poster.

So far, we haven't strayed all that much from the Twitter/Facebook model of 'liking' other peoples' posts.  What would make Choosing especially exciting, and addictive, is that the algorithmic process would pay the chooser at least one status point per visit/day, which could be spent, or invested in mining additional status points.

Additional awarded points, beyond one per day, would be paid at a higher rate for choosing a popular post during its initial emergence, and lower, if that post had already gained momentum.  And, prowess in choosing posts would amplify all of a user's choices within the algorithm.

Mining For Status: In addition to, once per day, selecting a choice from among three posts, a user could spend points to engage in further choosing.  Each point spent would allow a ranking of five posts, with the spent point--as well as additional points, if desired--placed on the user's #1 choice.

Spending Status: Points placed on a given choice would provide that favored post with a greater chance to succeed; that is, would instruct the algorithm to provide the post with greater exposure.  Success in choosing a popular post would mean even more points to spend--thus the mining metaphor.

A User's Status Account: Any earnings, including the one point per day, would immediately appear as status points in a user's account.  And, one's account could be accessed privately to view which posts earned the investor what amount of status, etc.

Published Status: All users could access overall rankings for:

1.  Velocity.  On average, the speed of a given user's posts (tending to go viral, or not).

2.  Judgement.  On average, a user's return on status point investment.

3.  Acclaim.  A user's Velocity times Judgement.

Topicality: Choosing would allow access by subject matter.  This would also be true for Acclaim.   So, if one were interested in Music, for example, the highest ranked posters in the musical field could be found quickly.  Likewise, mining could be focused on a given topic (or on 'underdog's, who, if successful, would pay out points at an especially high rate).  For example, a request for posts involving Music, written by low-Acclaim posters.

Most likely, topicality would be handled much the way we google.

Defining 'Posts': Posts would likely begin in a tweet-length format.  Users would then click to view somewhat longer summaries, where appropriate, and click yet again for long posts.

Choosing's structure would likely encourage:
  * a focus on current events / common culture, as opposed to more narrow specialization (because earning status points would be easier with a wider audience)
  * an attempt to earn respect, and thus avoid common irritants (for the same reason) that can plague other platforms
  * a balanced approach that included both Velocity and Judgement (one without the other would be the equivalent of multiplying a number by '1' when determining Acclaim)
While also discouraging:
  * campaigns to advance one agenda or another (spending points for a 'cause' would likely retard one's Acclaim--unless particularly apt)

Would it allow self-promotion?  Perhaps, since those who would so empty their pockets would lose Acclaim, and thus have less and less of a say within the system.  Again, unless they were successful!

Summary

Essentially we've taken a typical social media platform, and made its algorithm much more transparent and interactive.

This allows an exponential increase in the desire to participate, while at the same time dramatically increasing the likelihood that the brightest posters would be recognized for their aptitude and social skills.