As long as the surrounding environment, such as nature and technology, changes, entities existing within that environment cannot continue to exist unless they adapt to these changes.
Therefore, to adapt to changes, it is sometimes necessary to change.
However, saying that there is a need to change does not mean that every aspect must be altered.
Certainly, having parts that can change flexibly increases adaptability. But if the fundamental or core aspects change easily, instead of adapting to environmental changes, they might self-destruct due to these changes.
It’s better to keep superficial aspects flexible and changeable. In contrast, it’s important to make the fundamental or core aspects less prone to change to prevent self-destruction.
Examples of Software and DNA
For instance, in computer systems, the kernel at the heart of the OS cannot be easily modified by general programmers, but application programs can be freely developed. Also, settings parameters and configuration files can be changed by users who are not programmers.
DNA, which stores the genetic information of living organisms, is understood to be capable of adapting to environmental changes.
Even so, the fundamental parts crucial for maintaining life are likely made resistant to change. Genetic information that forms the foundation and has been utilized since the early stages of evolution likely acquired functions for duplication and error correction, making it more resistant to change than newly acquired parts.
Preservation of Fundamental Values
Thus, these fundamental functions hold high value for their respective systems or organisms. Having mechanisms to protect and maintain these highly valuable functions is important for adapting to environmental changes.
Adapting to environmental changes requires not only the ability to change oneself but also the capability to preserve fundamental values.
Preservation of Social Values
Just as society changes to adapt to technological advancements, even within these changes, it’s desirable to preserve fundamental and core social values unchanged.
In society, academic knowledge, technology, industry, and economic values directly produce practical benefits. Such practically beneficial elements tend to be robust and easily preserved.
On the other hand, cultural and ideological elements are fragile and easily lost, risking disappearance at any moment. Therefore, significant effort is needed to maintain and protect these values.
Significant examples include world peace, awareness of environmental issues, human rights, and SDGs.
Thus, it’s important to have mechanisms that reduce the effort needed to preserve these values while also minimizing the risk of their loss.
If such mechanisms are not developed and the status quo remains, cultural and ideological values might easily change, influenced by technological advancements and directly beneficial values. This easy alteration of values might lead to the self-destruction of society.
Scale of Society and Complexity of Problems
When it comes to maintaining cultural and ideological values within the fundamental values of society, people often mistakenly attribute the difficulty to human nature or unethical individuals and groups. However, the real cause lies in the mismatch between the scale and complexity of societal issues and human capabilities.
Imagine being adrift in the open sea in a small boat with one other person.
In such a scenario, would you remove parts of the boat to make toys for the sake of enriching your life, or dismantle it out of intellectual curiosity to reshape it differently?
In a situation where two people are able to cooperate to secure food and water, even if there are disagreements or past grudges leading to arguments or fights, would they go so far as to completely exclude or throw each other into the sea?
Of course, a few people might do such things, but I don’t believe the majority would.
Even if not on a boat, in a small group, would activities, research, or conflicts that endanger the maintenance of the group inevitably occur in any group, as long as the group’s needs for water and food are met? I think such occurrences would be unlikely.
Even if there are a few unethical individuals or groups, the majority within the group should be able to limit their actions.
However, I am not optimistic about global environmental issues, technological advancements, or international conflicts. I believe these issues pose a high risk of endangering our entire society.
What is unlikely to happen in a two-person boat or small group becomes more likely on a global scale, indicating a gap.
If there is an explanation for this gap, it lies in the difference in the scale of the group and the complexity of the problems. As scale and complexity increase, it becomes difficult for humans to manage problems effectively, exceeding their capabilities.
Human Capabilities
The capabilities of an individual human, while limited, can be extended to a certain extent through education and training. The capabilities of a group also have limits, but can be significantly expanded through the construction of effective organizational systems. Furthermore, the advancement of tools and technology can also dramatically enhance the abilities of individuals and groups.
The ability to manage problems effectively can also be greatly improved through education and training, organizational systems, and the use of tools and technology.
It’s a misunderstanding and unconstructive to think that maintaining fundamental values such as world peace, environmental awareness, human rights, and SDGs is difficult due to human nature or to blame it on some evil entities. Instead, we should focus on improving our capacity to manage these problems effectively.
Let’s return to the small boat example. What if the two people on the boat have communication barriers? Suppose they don’t speak the same language, have different cultural understandings of gestures, some of which mean the exact opposite, and can’t see each other’s facial expressions due to masks.
Under such communication difficulties, the likelihood of falling into suspicion and mistrust increases when trouble arises. Various speculations might come to mind, such as whether the other person simply made a mistake, is intentionally trying to steal resources, or isn’t very keen on surviving.
If life on this boat is prolonged and they have overcome several troubles, even with communication difficulties, a trust relationship can develop, dispelling such speculations. However, without such experience, speculations might lead to increased fear or the rational conclusion that eliminating the other person might increase one’s own survival chances.
From this, it becomes clear that communication methods like facial expressions, gestures, and language are crucial tools for cooperation between the two people on the boat.
Furthermore, understanding each other’s cultures to bridge differences in gesture meanings is also important. Accumulating trust through experiences is equally, if not more, important for communication.
Therefore, communication skills, mutual understanding, and the accumulation of trust enhance the ability to maintain cooperative relationships and handle problems effectively. This applies to larger groups as well. Even on a global scale, enhancing these abilities should make it possible to address problems that are currently considered difficult to solve.
Accumulation of Trust
The potential for a dramatic increase in global communication capabilities and mutual understanding is evident with the development of information and communication technology through the internet and recent advancements in conversational AI that understand natural language.
Regarding the accumulation of trust, I have high hopes for decentralized mechanisms enabled by blockchain technology. Decentralization is not about negating existing governments or large corporations but rather about complementing what they cannot achieve. It’s a technology that can empower non-governmental and non-profit organizations, such as NGOs and NPOs, with equal or greater influence than governments and large corporations.
Governments and large corporations might seem trustworthy to those who sympathize with their ideologies or who can influence them to some extent through voting rights or shareholding. However, for others, or when one does not have voting rights or shares, these entities can appear ominous and untrustworthy.
This perception arises because governments and large corporations are centralized, seemingly operated at the whims of a few individuals. If these individuals are perceived as malevolent or dismissive towards us, their significant influence becomes a threat.
Decentralization through blockchain is transparent in its operational principles and decision-making processes. We can verify how decisions are made. The fundamental principles are written in programs that are not easily changed and do not behave differently on a whim. The essence of decentralization is that such power is not concentrated in the hands of a few.
For example, Bitcoin cannot be arbitrarily increased by anyone, nor can its issuance rules be altered. This grants Bitcoin an incredible level of trust, resulting in it being treated as a high-value economic asset like physical gold or government-issued currencies.
Beyond economic value and trust, blockchain’s potential for decentralization is high for social values and trust. If systems that lend trust to organizations like NGOs and NPOs, akin to Bitcoin, can be established through decentralization, it guarantees that no one can change them, leading to universal trust. We might be able to accumulate such trustworthy entities globally.
In Conclusion
The possibility of globally accumulating universally trustworthy entities through blockchain decentralization is a great hope.
Recalling the small boat example, accumulating trust, along with communication skills and mutual understanding, can significantly enhance our ability to manage problems effectively.
Moreover, the accumulation of trust in society strongly ties back to the preservation of fundamental values discussed earlier in this article.
Rapid technological advancements leading to societal changes that individuals can’t keep up with is not a future most people desire. Yet, halting the rapid progress of technology is fraught with difficulties.
Preserving fundamental values means defining and maintaining what should not change in our society to mitigate or prevent such situations. It’s challenging for governments and large corporations to shoulder this responsibility, as they are exposed to competition with other governments and corporations. Thus, we find it difficult to rely on them for preserving fundamental values.
Here, trust accumulation through decentralization may offer a solution. Enhanced communication capabilities and mutual understanding, coupled with the accumulation of trust, might enable us to effectively address global-scale problems previously deemed challenging.
If achieved, this could create a virtuous cycle, potentially regulating competition between governments and corporations. By adeptly managing what should be preserved and what should flexibly change, we could see a path to sustainable development of society without self-destructing due to technological advancements.
