Project Schedule Project Schedule

Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF version

Note: The given timeframes are realistic if (and only if) we try to work and proceed as fast as possible. The most important reason to do so is because the state leaders legally representing our countries have pledged to reach certain aims known as the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. By any convential means we will not be able to fulfill these made promises, especially regarding the poorest regions of our planet. It is very likely that the only way to achieve even the minimum goals (access to enough food, fresh water and sanitation) by 2015 is a radical change not only at the topmost levels within national governments but at the core of our global society.

Phase #0 (completed):

initialize project:

Phase #1 (current):

open up for outside participation

  • invite skilled and motivated people for the collaberative work on a future proof world order such as
    • scientists and engineers researching solutions of todays problems
    • authors of books about human future
    • academics concerned with the inner workings of human societies
    • artists and musicians with sociocritical texts and artwork
    • people from public life presumably open to the idea of a from-scratch system redesign
  • start working on (wiki) a manifest (continuous text, easily comprehensible, with facts and figures)

Phase #2 (~2009Q1 +):

design a sane, simple and complete society/governance system through a transcultural community process

  • once tools and regulations are set up, fully open up platform for participation
  • invite more experts and professionals (on topics like education, infrastructure, human social interaction et cetera) to contribute their experience (regarding patterns of failure, best practice), visions and proposals
  • optimize new world order draft until sufficiently detailed and functional

Phase #3 (~2011Q1 +):

maturity phase

  • finalize legislative and algorithmic governance structures
  • implement the software needed for logistics and infrastructure
  • prepare alternative work flows/action plans for incident scenarios like natural disasters, structural/infrastructure failures, unknown threats
  • integrate with United Nations framework

Phase #4 (~2012Q1 +):

prove and explain feasibility of a system switch to the public

  • aggressively test and refine the software parts
  • bug crushing: invite anyone (again) to find flaws and shortcomings in system design
  • demonstrate superiority by virtual benchmarking of current / new world order
  • campaign the media (sticking to facts, explaining advantages and circumvented shit-hits-fan scenarios), ignite global public discussion on all levels

Phase #5 (~2013Q1 +):


  • set up global referendum (replace system, yes or no?)
  • z-1-day (~2014Q1): democratic mandate for system switch by holding elections in every country on this planet
  • prepare switch: background convert production/logistic chains parallel to continuing operations, install sensors/networks/software for infrastructure management
  • assimilating Google: prepare their data vaults and infrastructure for public takeover
  • pervasive stress testing: virtual dry-runs with fuzzed input
  • z-day = z-1-day + 6 months: switch (and party!)

Phase #6 (~2014Q3 +):

running and maintaining the new world order

  • t > z-day: optimize and flexibly adapt to situational necessities



what are these Q1 and Q3 under the year numbers? e.g. Phase #6 (~2014Q3 +)


1st quarter, 2nd quarter, 3rd quarter… The tilde means ‘approximately’, so ~2014Q3+ means approximately third quarter of 2014 and after.


For real change to occur we need a global political change. The leaders of the G8 have to deliver on their promises, and when have you ever know a politician keep a promise?

World leaders need to stand and fight for the poor now and in the future, and not just walk on by and leave it to someone else yet to be born.


I think phpbb is easier for spreading HFOPI. Everyone have used a phpbb forum once. People will feel comfortble. Don't you think so?

THIS is not only a discussion forum.

This is not just another forum to discuss the present problems; very soon this will become a true ‘web 2.0’ platform for collaborative work on a future proof governance framework, built from the ground piece by piece. The work that is yet to be done mainly consists of leveraging the Drupal CCK (Content Construction Kit) to create state/action objects which can be interlinked and adminstered to allow public contribution aswell as integrating a web forum / mailing list gateway for better communication. Starting from phase #1 will be ready for real interaction, loaded with an initial set of vision and the tools to improve upon that.

phase #0

Have we finished phase #0 ??


Is it christmas yet? No-. Just keep your fingers crossed for our GSOC application… and write down any ideas you come up with in the mean time ;)

What's so great about English.

You write about transcultural contributions to this project; By selecting the medium (the internet) and the language (english) you have, in effect, halted contributions from those that don't have internet access or the ability to speak (or learn) english.

Your idea of going about the formation of the future in a methodical way is admirable. I'm concerned that other have started off with similar ideals but ended in disaster and harm.

To avoid the mistakes of others your phase #0 should perhaps include an evaluation of previous attempts to manipulate human development. Indeed you do list learning from past mistakes as a tenant of your proposed system. Perhaps this tenant should be emphasized earlier in your development process.

You also propose that reason be the basis of your system of human development. Please proceed with caution. One can produce a rational and valid argument for genocide, however that dose not seem right. Perhaps compassion and empathy should be the starting point from which reason can draw its axioms.

I doubt I know what I'm talking about. I am not a “hacker” but I might be one of those people whose future you are working to change.

XoXo Majkul


By selecting the medium (the internet) and the language (english) you have, in effect, halted contributions from those that don't have internet access or the ability to speak (or learn) english.

Regarding the current status you are of course right; however as soon as the behind-the-scenes work is finished this is going to change. Besides, english is already fairly international, isn't it? And people who know Esperanto are very very welcome to join at any time!

To avoid the mistakes of others your phase #0 should perhaps include an evaluation of previous attempts to manipulate human development. Indeed you do list learning from past mistakes as a tenant of your proposed system. Perhaps this tenant should be emphasized earlier in your development process.

Phase #0 is primarily about constructing the technical infrastructure, then filling it with a conceptual starting seed. After that any public discussion or participation is highly encouraged.

You also propose that reason be the basis of your system of human development. Please proceed with caution. One can produce a rational and valid argument for genocide, however that dose not seem right.

That definitly does not seem right. Please give an example.

Perhaps compassion and empathy should be the starting point from which reason can draw its axioms.

Of course. Consider following definition of reason/rationality:

  • respect for human rights/dignity
  • (resource) efficiency
  • sustainability
  • maximization of felicific calculus

I doubt I know what I'm talking about.

..even though your points are highly valid.. mhh. to0 humble.

I am not a “hacker” but I might be one of those people whose future you are working to change.

You (as everyone else is) are very invited to take part in this process, this is not supposed to be a one way street. And anyone using thinking to break mental bounderies is in fact a ‘h4cK3R’!

Felicific calculas?

Why, exactly, is it that you're choosing such a flawed political philosophy as utilitarianism to guide your choices? Pleasure and pain are merely epiphenomena. You're going to fail unless you base your efforts on a sound philosophy.


Felicific calculus is just one part of rationality. The more important maxims are of course respect for human rights/dignity, resource efficiency and sustainability. But a political system should not just care about the material side of the game. A good decision is one that is right not only factually but makes people happy aswell.

some thoughts...

//on the issue of ethics


There's much talk about human rights. I can see how that comes, us being human and with the projects goal about human societies. That said, what seems to be more rational is to not resort to _speciesism_, as it's apparently at leas as wrong as, say, racism or sexism. I believe that professor Peter Singer, amongst others, has shown the world already why ethics (in particular utilitarian) suggest that we should focus on sentient beings who have the ability to suffer are given ethical consideration and taken into the equation. [This, and environmental arguments, several UN reports and a lot of science more or less suggest that we all go vegans and do a lot of other stuff 99% of the global population doesn't give a shit about and won't give a shit about in decades to come.]

My suggestion here is simply that you re-phrase the wording and focus on animal rights: The human is, first and foremost, an animal. From that, it follows that sexism, and racism etc are all bad things. The problem with the current speciesist wording on this site would be apparent if, for the sake of argument, the new world order would be in place within 100 years from now. You have then achieved something amazing, but, it would still be speciesist since a “human like” alien landing on earth would actually not be more protected by our new world order than the cow / pig / rat is in a McDonalds burger ; ) Hence, I again strongly suggest that you don't really make such a big deal of the human-factor here. Clearly as there are several strong, and to my knowledge irrefutable academic accounts for why it's an irrational thing to do from an ethical (academic ethics) point of view.

In other words: Ethics is the only science we have that tries to answer questions about how we _should_ or _should not_ act, among other things. They're the key for the whole project: If people agree on them, the greatest obstacle would be eliminated right away and the rest is just a work of interpreting the data from classical sciences and abiding.


This brings me to the second issue that is related to ethics as well: There are a lot of _values_ involved in this project already. Even if we were all to agree on them, it would still be a problem because different theoretical ethical frameworks lead to different conclusions about what the goals should be, why we should value x more than y, what is good or bad, and so on. All this is within the realms of philosophy, the sub-genre ethics, to be more specific.

Summarized I'm trying to express a deep worry for who actually picks the ethical framework for the system and on what grounds it is chosen. There is no way you can ever get anything done without actually having ethical values in a bunch of these questions. The problem is that most people don't even know what ethics are or even confuse them with a religious notion of them.

Clearly, at least from my own perspective as a student of philosophy, what you end up with in “the end” of this project will very much be the result of many ethical decisions along the way. That is why I now must ask exactly which ethical system you'd base the project on, especially as mixing several of them would guarantee a major failure of reasons that probably are apparent by now. Also, how do you come to the conclusion that the system x is the one to go with?

//notion of rationality


I'm not sure if I've understood the whole point of the project, so please correct me if I'm wrong:

The notion of rationality can only be understood within a set _paradigm_. If so, it means that you, when you talk about rationality, have _already_ chosen the paradigm for it. That also leads us to what is seen as an evidence, argument, axiom, the view on development, theoretical methodology, and so on and so forth. [Trying to keep it short.] It seems to me as if you have chosen some kind of general scientific paradigm of “our time”, one which resembles the general spirit of the universities throughout Europe for example.

Again, I'd be forced to point out that whatever paradigm of knowledge you choose, it will greatly affect the end result. Readings like the classical works of Karl Popper (as an example) would be a key for anyone even aspiring to understand what that part of the discussion is all about and how complicated it is.


In most common thoughts about rationality the word “probability” is also of value. Why is self-evident. You can't conclude that a course of action is more or less rational unless you can estimate a number of probabilities along the way. By this definition, it would in most cases be irrational to play the Lottery, especially if you were poor already.


As an anarchist (now most will instantly associate me with hooligans and what not, if you do, it's however a sign of you lacking a political education ; ), or as a thinking being at any level, I fail to see the theoretical advantages one world system would have over, say, a million independent but co-working simultaneous systems like for example the political states of ancient Greece (while clearly having a lot of issues, they were still in many respects more efficient and democratic institutions than USA or Europe (or any other nation/continent) combined).

Here it's important to understand that this is first and foremost a critique towards _any_ unilateral or monoistic/hetero system, and not a suggestion to implement x amount of systems. It's already evident enough from history that people are and will remain different due to various reasons (religion, culture, political beliefs and so on) and that a pluralist view could actually prove to be of a way greater _intellectual_ value for the human and other kind(s).

This is most easily understood in terms of _an example_ of theoretical development: If you have just 2 theoretical systems, say capitalism and communism, you'd have just those 2 test cases. Just those two arenas and cores of thought. Isn't it clear that having 3 would benefit “humanity” more, since 3 would tell us more about building societies? About what options we have, about how things can be done or are working when they are done? Again, every time you add yet another theoretical framework, you get a new sandbox where new theories can grow. The main point is that from an intellectual point of view it's _devastating_ to work towards only having _one_ framework/paradigm.


Finally, I get the feeling that much of this endevour relies on democracy. That, in itself, is totally unrational from more or less any scientific account I know of: What is accepted through votes, be it a dictator president or a suggestion, has no relation whatsoever to what is rational to choose in the very same case. This means that even if 100% of the worlds population vote on x, that alone doesn't make implementing x a good idea, unless of course, all the voters were rational and were so in the way and in an extent that would result in x being rational in a scientific sense – which they're not and never will be.

Point here being: _If_ you accept a scientifical paradigm for truth, evidence, and value, it follows that science alone is enough to decide what should go or not. Scheme looks something like this: Hard Science (data bout the world) ↔ Ethical evaluation ↔ Action (again, through science) Democracy is just a way to generate errors from that perspective, much like Plato suggested just a while ago. ; ) [yes, right about now I'm loved…]

//nature of the criticism

I hope I haven't discouraged anyone from participating in this project, because I think it's a great initiative and wish the people engaged in it all the best. It's admirable to actually see people take action instead of just complain or pretend (or be?) braindead about all the shit that's going down all over the world.

My intent was to chip in with some thoughts that struck me while visiting in haste. Hopefully I have done so in a creative enough manner which has actually contributed with something of use.

Keep on fighting people – the guys in charge sure as hell won't ; )

Man will never be able to

Man will never be able to rule man peacefully. Look around you. Unfortunately, there are already hate groups that would love to rip something like this apart.

My challenge to you would be to come up with a system for anything, even for something as simple as how you dress, that could be placed in front of every generalized group of people (even within the limits of your community) that would not in some way incite hate.

I think your effort is well placed and admirable, and I don't mean to discourage you, I only mean to encourage you to see the truth. The only way this could happen is if it is forced. Eventually a system such as this will be forced upon us. I personally believe it will be headed by the anti-Christ, and will seem quite peaceful, for a short time.

The Millennium Development Goals

The Millennium Development Goals was completely unknown for me until I read this. A lot of interesting info on the Wikipedia link.

Nice post!! :-)

Like Hund, I had no idea

Like Hund, I had no idea about this but find it quite fascinating. I will follow this with interest, thanks for the info.

Re: Project Schedule

That points and the phases are quite good and the first phase is quite impressive that we need to collaborate with the best scientists and the researchers.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This will not be shown except in your profile (if you signed up) which is excluded from search engine indexes, so don't waste our time spamming, pretty please.
To confirm that you are not an automated spambot please answer the following question. All comments get screened before publishing so if you are a human spambot, please waste your time elsewhere.
Enter the characters shown in the image.