An open letter to Bryan Johnson: philosophy - not technology - is the core operating system to improve if you want to change the world

* editorial posted by c_prompt in philosophy

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 United States License

Bryan Johnson is an entrepreneur extraordinaire. To put it mildly, he's brilliant and an inspiration in so many ways. I recently read his Rewrite the OS, Change the World: A challenge worthy of the greatest hearts and minds of our generation, with its purpose:

Bryan Johnson, founder of the OS Fund and Braintree, an online and mobile payments provider which he sold to eBay in 2013 for $800 million in cash

Today I am announcing the OS Fund - $100 million of my personal capital dedicated to investing in inventors and scientists who aim to benefit humanity through quantum leap discoveries at the operating system, or OS, level.

He goes on:

In order to affect real change for humanity at a global scale, we need to think and operate on a fundamental level: the operating system.

Indeed. As a technologist, I think that's a terrific way of looking at the problems humanity faces. However, I'd like to suggest to Bryan (may I call you Bryan?) a slightly different, and more fundamental, view - an operating system not focused on technology but, instead, humanity. What is the operating system of humanity?

Philosophy.

Bryan, I applaud your efforts and agree with so much you wrote. For example:

In the same way that computers have operating systems at their core — dictating the way a computer works and serving as a foundation upon which all applications are built — everything in life has an operating system (OS). It is at the OS level that we most frequently experience a quantum leap in progress.

Agreed. Everything in life - including a person - has an operating system. At the core, physical operating level of humans, we have the brain, responsible for all life enabling and sustaining functions. What is at the core of a person's brain? What drives the non-autonomous decisions it makes?

Philosophy.

Sure, what a person experiences and learns, their abilities and resources, the environment and technologies within it, etc. all contribute to the decision-making process in relation to their desires. But it is a person's chosen philosophy - the fundamental view of reality and a person's relation to it - that integrates and drives how all those components are used and applied. As your venture is around the operating system, let's talk in programming terms.

Consider how your basic programming function works: you have a defined function that takes in arguments and, based on some underlying logic within the function, comes back with a result. Let's look at the pseudo-code of an example (modeled using PHP):

function helpAnother($experiences = false, $environment = "hard", $abilities = false, $resources = false, $philosophy = false)
{
  /*
    if we lack:
      a core philosophy OR
      abilities and resources OR
      experience
    we can't help
  */
  if (!$philosophy || (!$abilities && !$resources) || !$experiences) { return "no"; }

  $possible_actions = array();

  foreach ($abilities as $ability)
  {
    foreach ($resources as $resource)
    {
      // check if we can use a resource consistent with our core philosophy
      $consistent_with_philosophy = $this->validateConsistency($resource, $philosophy);

      // check if we have experience using a resource
      $can_use_resource = $this->testExperienceUsing($resource, $ability, $experiences);

      /*
        if using a resource is consistent with our
        core philosophy AND we have experience
        using that resource, we can possibly use
        it to help someone; otherwise, if using the
        resource is at least consistent with our
        core philosophy (but we don't have
        experience using it), we can try it
      */
      if ($consistent_with_philosophy && $can_use_resource)
      { $possible_actions[] = array("use_resource" => $resource); }
      elseif ($consistent_with_philosophy)
      { $possible_actions[] = array("try_resource" => $resource); }
    }
  }

  if (empty($possible_actions)) { return "no"; }

  $action_most_likely_to_help = array();
  $last_probability = 0;

  /*
    given an array of all possible actions we can
    use to help someone, determine which has
    the highest probability of helping that person
    (taking into account our experience
    level, environment, abilities, resources,
    and philosophy)
  */
  foreach ($possible_actions as $attempt)
  {
    $probability = $this->calculateProbability($attempt, $experiences, $environment, $abilities, $resources, $philosophy);

    if ($probability > $last_probability)
    {
       $action_most_likely_to_help = array("best_action" => $attempt, "probability" => $probability);
       $last_probability = $probability;
    }
  }

  if (empty($action_most_likely_to_help) { return "no"; }

  return $action_most_likely_to_help;
}

Imagine what would happen if philosophy weren't one of the arguments passed to our function:

$take_action = $this->helpAnother(array(...), "hard", array(...), array(...));

The code is clear: the result is "no." Even scarier, imagine if an immoral philosophy is sent as one of the arguments. I hate to bring up Godwin's law, but can you imagine if we passed Hitler's philosophy as one of our function's arguments?

$take_action = $this->helpAnother(array(...), "hard", array(...), array(...), "Hitler's philosophy");

What would happen? Well, of course, we already know. Saying the code would bomb is a literal truth. You don't need a degree in computer science to understand what happens if you identify the defect in your code too late. Thus, I think what you wrote needs some clarification: we don't "have the power to build the kind of world we could previously only dream of" without philosophy (or with a "false"/immoral philosophy). Building a world without philosophy or with a poor philosophy leads to nightmares. Only with a "true"/moral philosophy can we build a world worthy of our dreams.

I agree with you: we do have "new tools such as 3D printing, genomics, machine intelligence, software, synthetic biology and others," and we have the ability now to "make in days, weeks or months things that previous innovators couldn't possibly create in a lifetime." But if we have a "false" philosophy, that only means we're much more likely to build things quicker that are bad for mankind. Do you even care to imagine the additional horrors Hitler could have wrought with today's technologies?

And yet, there are still so many problems that we haven't begun to solve, so many rich opportunities that lie in wait. The stakes have never been higher.

I really enjoy agreeing with you on these kinds of statements. But if you'll pardon the slightly dramatic downplay of effort required, don't you think technology is the easy part? It's one of the key abilities that makes humans so great - we are constantly improving our technologies to better our station in life. Maybe that's why we put more emphasis on technology rather than philosophy. It's so much easier to improve. Although I'm not sure why, people find philosophy really hard and, in my experience, seek to evade or avoid it.

In the race toward profits, easy money and incremental gains, we have lost sight of what really matters to the future of mankind. It is time for a fresh reckoning of our unique time in history, the tools at our disposal and the real opportunity at hand.

Science and technology can help us tackle many of our most pressing challenges and opportunities, but the most ambitious inventors have few sources of capital or support to help them realize their vision. Many traditional venture capital firms and government organizations resist investing in high risk, long-term plays that promise a quantum leap in progress.

It saddens me to do so, as you know how much I like agreeing with you Bryan. But here, we'll have to agree to disagree. Not knowing you personally, I don't know why you consider profits negative (at least, that's the impression I get), but I generally understand why some people consider money as the root of all evil. Profit is one of the essentials for all improvement in humanity, and you don't need much more than a mere comic book for kids (HTML version) to explain the economic basics and reasons. In fact, did you know that, in "the most fundamental sense we are all, with each of our actions, always and invariably profit-seeking entrepreneurs?"

Additionally, you're not forgetting where the "$100 million of my personal capital" you're donating to this worthwhile project came from, are you? Did the Federal Reserve just print it for you like they do when the government needs free money? Of course not. You earned that capital because you made a profit.

As you believe governments resist investing in high-risk, long-term plays, let me disagree by asking you a question. Which strategy do you think is the higher risk, long-term play:

Coercively taking taxpayer money to invest in war (and all the technologies and infrastructures that go with it) in regions like the Middle East in order to force "American democracy" (which, I'll assume you define as an environment where everyone is treated equally and has equal rights, though even a cursory look at American democracy would prove it encompasses anything but), or;
Leaving people alone and letting them decide for themselves what to do with their money (sometimes referred to as a free market)?

This isn't a trick question; it's sincere. Not since the American Revolution has this high-risk, long-term war strategy worked. (Some would argue that, even then, it didn't work.) And the government has been at it for many decades. Besides, we all know you personally chose the second high-risk, long-term strategy. How'd that work out for you?

So I don't believe your claim about government resistance to progress is accurate. The real problem is the philosophy used to define "progress." For those who set policy in government, progress is about wider user of force, getting away with bigger lies, the ends justifying the means, and totalitarianism like Orwell's 1984. Their philosophy is to use force to get what they want. For voters who support those policymakers, their philosophy is the same.

Quantum Leaps

At the OS fund, we want to support those who see what others cannot, who chart their own course toward the future and who have the courage and determination to pursue their vision.

We want to help them turn their most audacious ideas into real, sustainable businesses that scale by providing capital, support, advice and an interdisciplinary network of like-minded people who are there to help each other.

If you are working on a quantum-leap discovery that promises to rewrite the operating systems of life, we hope to hear from you.

man entering door that says career in politics while passing garbage to throw away ethics

Effectively, there are five disciplines or branches in philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. As far as politics go (i.e., the proper/moral use of force), I think we should question the morality of spreading democracy (recommended by Harvard University!), imperialism, and colonialism as proper. As far as ethics go, I think we should question why so few moral people are elected to political office. As you said, for such "important endeavors," I agree we need "the leadership of bold thinkers" searching for answers to these incredibly hard questions. Minimizing those who promote such false and harmful philosophies could "affect real change for humanity at a global scale," just like you desire. But I get it: while I try to teach philosophy to my fourteen-year old daughter, the rocket scientists in your invested companies probably have it easier.

Although I doubt it Bryan, it's possible I see something that you do not. One of my discoveries is this: too many believe that force should be used to take what they want, and if we could change that idea, we could change the world by a quantum leap. I'm not sure if they've lost an appreciation for exchanging values as a means to getting what they want or if they never had such an appreciation. I think a contributing factor is most people ignore (or never learned) philosophy. I'm not a scientist nor engineer nor mathematician, so I don't expect your fund would invest in the vision I'm pursuing. Granted, I understand my vision of a world where people don't force each other and, instead, exchange values, will be harder to achieve than cold fusion technology. But, to use your words and if we're talking quantum leaps, I don't believe there's anything more promising to enabling life than rewriting "the operating system of life" - philosophy.

Bryan, you're devoting your life to "building a better world." I envy you. Like is said in your video, "some people are OK with the way things are." You are clearly not. Neither am I. To me, and as your video also notes, "it's not a job, it's a calling." I don't expect I'll alter the course of humanity like you, but I won't live with the regret that I didn't try "to improve the lives of millions of people for generations to come."

Your areas of interest and involvement include aerospace and physics, health and life sciences, infrastructure, and machine intelligence. All are very exciting technology areas, but did you notice that none are related to the most important function of the human operating system? I wish you well and, of course, I don't hold it against you for wanting to take the easier path. Achieving revolutions in technology is so much easier than in philosophy. Besides, it is your hard-earned money. You should be able to do what you want with it, and I should never be allowed to force you otherwise.

Wouldn't you agree?

This work, excluding any content linked via another source/website, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 United States License. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given and references the URL: http://valme.io/c/philosophy/ntqqs/an-open-letter-to-bryan-johnson-philosophy-not-technology-is-the-core-operating-system-to-improve-if-you-want-to-change-the-world

technology,

venture capital,

Quantum Leaps

Latest Activity