[ 30/10/20 ]
Wrong question. Not possible.
It is not a matter of forgetting differences.
It is a matter of accepting and valuing both our similarities and our differences, of accepting novelty and diversity, while respecting (but not necessarily adhering to) tradition (all levels).
It is also a matter of accepting the real boundaries that are present in reality (and there are eternal uncertainties in those).
One of the hard ones is limiting reproduction. The technical side of that is trivial compared to the social dimensions. We could expand to perhaps 10 times our current population, provided most people are happy to live in cities, with space based solar collectors sending power to large rectennae on earth (and that has some serious dimensions of complexity to it, and is entirely achievable on a 15 year timescale if we decide to do it – but that sort of technology is not survivable in a competitive context).
We can supply what all would consider a reasonable standard of living to everyone currently on the planet, but there are limits on the amount of energy we can deploy on this planet, and that does impose limits on population size.
We also need to get serious about recycling. “Mine and dispose” is not a stable long term strategy. That is all easy enough to do technically, but not when we value all things in markets.
Using markets to generate a value measure is, in the presence of advanced automation, no longer a reasonable proxy for human value more generally.
And all of this gets really important once we deploy indefinite life extension. The mechanisms for that are now fairly well characterised, we just need to develop the technology to deploy it at scale.
The big issue is really the strategic foundation of social systems.
Competitive foundations are not survivable. We are just too inventive. At some point we end up competing ourselves out of existence with automated systems.
The only strategic environment that can survive long term is one based in cooperation between multiple levels of diverse self aware agents.
Freedom in such a system must be balanced by displayed levels of awareness and responsibility.
Looked at in a deep evolutionary strategic context, all new levels of complexity and freedom are necessarily based upon new levels of cooperation.
Competition tends to destroy complexity, and drive systems to some set of minima on the available complexity landscape.
So the real question is:
How do we get multiple levels of complex and diverse agents to accept the strategic reality that the long term survival of any and all is dependent on developing stable systems of cooperation between all levels and classes of agents?
This answer is an attempt to answer that question!
In essence it boils down to two alternatives:
Global cooperation between diverse agents (not control, genuine cooperation); or
There do not seem to be any other outcomes with reasonable probabilities.
The existing monetary and political systems cannot get us there. Fundamental reform is required.