Key conditions for a successful political system:-
(* ‘Good’, definition – for known information at that time, the most useful, achievable paths, actions and planning to enable the society as a whole to improve).
This doesn’t look to difficult to achieve does it? Yet below there is a simple analysis of current systems, and it seems that none meet these conditions.
Dictatorship: (Benign, otherwise too extreme to warrant discussion), current example China? It could be argued that this meets conditions (2) & (3) reasonably well accepting 'openess to the results' is not good.
Communism: Meets many of the requirements of (2), but clearly not (1), or, historically (3), in most countries that have tried it. Cuba could be cited as an example of a more benign model and it would be argued by many that it has attained (2) & (3) quite effectively.
Socialism: Where this has been stable for some period (eg Scandinavia?), it does seem that it can be reasonably effective at meeting (2) & (3).
Capitalism: Meets none of the conditions. Its effectiveness comes from very natural but uncontrollable ‘market forces’ along with human abilities that are honed (over thousands of years) to achieve results for themselves and their families. This provides a very narrow view of success for (2) & (3). Historically, it seems that this system concentrates power, so that over time (1) becomes more extreme.
We generally refer to some of the above as ‘democratic systems’ but, clearly as none meet (1), this is untrue in overall terms. For both socialism and capitalism within the standard western model of political processes, the inbuilt stop-start process for regular elections, with the emphasis on re-election, inevitably leads to short term decision making. This means that neither (2) & (3) are likely to be met.
Lets consider some options for trying to improve on the current systems.
Question: How can a society achieve a distributed power structure, while still effectively providing for (2) & (3)?
New Structure for improving democracy
Consider a ‘selected’ rather than elected system of governance. Decision makers are derived from local people invited join a selection process for a local planning team. The initial invitations can be driven by some level of (life) experience but would cover the whole community. A detailed selection process would review the candidates potential for ‘good decision making’. The ratio of candidates to team members would be enough to ensure a quality team. These selected candidates then undergo significant training in their fields of interest (eg education), and in the decision making processes. Team members are monitored throughout their tenure and the best performing and are invited to seek a position on a central planning group.
This moves away from ‘election’ based choice, where by definition the society ends up with self-selected people whom lean towards political control with its attendant power concentration.
All of these posts would rotate, with an overlap, so that there were always some people with longer experience within the group but none whom out-stayed a tenure that would enable power politics.
Scrutiny of the decision making and planning can be made by the ‘media’ and by an independent public body (within the UK the BBC which has unique abilities here and a model that could be used world-wide), along with commercial bodies who are briefed to review the processes independently.
A Co-ordination group is selected by an elected Presidential figure. Their selection must be from within the central planning groups. The elected President holds responsibility for specific emergency response such as acts of war, major crisis or natural disasters, he/she would be required within a short period to get ratification from the co-ordination group. Any longer term planning or act of war would require ratification by the central planning groups.
Heads of major public institutions (such as police, fire, armed services, Judiciary, BBC etc) would be chosen by the central planning groups and would be scrutinized by the co-ordination group who would have the power to call them to account and if necessary suspend them.
Any reforms that changed the basic nature of the system or of Britain’s basic structure or place in the International community would require a referendum. (For instance membership of the EU or monetary union).
A key challenge to any group of people is to arrive at a decision that is the ‘best’ decision and not just a consensus. These decisions are the key to long term success. The conditions of (3) cannot be met unless this decision making is both long term and as good as we can make it at that point in time. How can we help a group attain this end?
There are a range of well understood and effective tools that can be used here (but which are not normally used by many political decision making).
1) Everyone is asked for their input
2) Each separate issue is noted once
3) Everyone is then asked to rank all resulting issue for importance
Overseeing of this group by an independent small team that is focused on ensuring that the ‘decision making process’ and the individuals are capable of achieving the best decision. If they believe that the overall decisions are being compromised they have a statutory duty to call time on the process until it is fixed.
Meeting condition (3) is far from easy. (This has caused the demise of many well intentioned goals – eg Blair’s drive to improve education within the UK which failed due directly to the lack of detailed planning and inept implementation).
We know that many commercial and public organisations working in the same conditions have hugely different results at achieving this.
So we must start from the position that is it not easy. How can we help ensure effectiveness?
Here, perhaps we can borrow the most effective bit from our capitalist system, where we divide the implementation into competing groups which are ‘rewarded’ by their effectiveness for medium and long term success.
This will be easier for some areas of change than others. For instance in education this is not simple to achieve (but not impossible). For others such as developing new nuclear energy facilities this is easier. Either way it is overall more costly. However this additional cost can be seen as an insurance policy against poor implementation.
The other main issue to attain condition (3) is that of wide, accurate feedback to the society as a whole. We have within the UK a unique organisation to help achieve this – the BBC. By statute an independent BBC could be empowered to do this using their renown abilities for creating high quality evaluation in clear, interesting media for all ages and groups.
Within 100 Years Capitalism will be long gone.
This is a prediction that CST is completely comfortable with... And Capitalism will be replaced by 'Resourcism'.
This is the natural progression for the human race as we move into the next major technological revolution.
The logic of his change is clearly set out and is predicated by he arrival of the machine revolution - See right Capitalism is dead...
Hello .. anyone there?
Humans have always been a little self-centred. Copernicus had a bit of bother suggesting that the earth was not the centre of the universe – and perhaps we still expect our time-line to be the centre of sentient life. Life started on earth about 3.5 billion years ago and the universe (we think) is about 14 billion years old. So if we are not alone, then there are very likely to be many sentient species. Some of these must be, (statistically), many millions of years more advanced than ourselves.
One of the key questions for such developing species must be “how do we conceive and thus deal with other sentient beings”. In some parts of our universe this has probably been asked many times, and perhaps the answer may have been hard-won. We know that even humans have the scientific ability to wipe out our own species, it is likely that advanced species will have advanced capabilities enabling annihilation of other species. Perhaps very advanced species have already spent a long time in attempting to do just this. Hopefully then, the answer to this question has already been worked through.
It is possible to conceive of an answer to this, and perhaps Confucius had a pretty good go at it in 550 BC…. “Do not do unto others what you would have them do unto you”.
So the general answer within the very advanced species group may be something along the lines of…. “respect all other free expression beings as you respect yourselves” (because the alternative is - “Or they will annihilate you”).
Therefore, if you are ever lucky enough to meet a super sentient, you will not be threatened or unwelcome. They will come and go in peace and understanding, seeing us as children of the universe. Welcome them with the same enthusiasm and moral understanding, to show that humans can someday also be like them.
Sentience - but what is the question?
We can ask simple questions - such as where does the universe end? – with seemingly no possible solution – so what does that tell us about philosophy and human’s ability to understand our universe? We can apply logic to provide possible answers, but for most of us the simplest of questions seem to defy our sentience.
We are amazing creatures simply because we can ask why? When does a complex creature become truly sentient? Perhaps it is a natural progression of language? As we developed more complex communication and language structures that allowed us to think within that structure, we were able to question. Imagine the first sentient thought, a person arrives unexpectedly, the other makes a slight grammatical error saying “where did we come from?” The first person misunderstands this remark and say’s “... “now that’s an interesting question”….
Information vs maths : DNA vs brain structure?
We can measure the complexity/information within DNA structure.
Therefore, we must ‘know’ the theoretical maximum initial complexity of the brain, (at conception).
It follows - we can infer that our initial ‘complex’ cognitive abilities (eg syntax, visual abilities, pre-defined / instinctive processes) must be limited to this known complexity.
If so – this defines the limit of nature (over nurture or learning), and so should also tell us something about the way the brain works – in the sense that it cannot be ‘pre-defined’ in a more complex way – as this complexity cannot exist initially.
So the initial building blocks and 'operating system' of the brain must also be within this known complexity.
Our search for AI – is therefore flawed – the brain must work in a ‘less complex’ manner than we have assumed. It is more likely to be derived from more simple building blocks and a clever learning system.
If we could create such a learning system that is also replicable – then we have the holy grail – a true AI system that is ‘cheap’ and also very effective and learns.
The first step, therefore, must be to establish the initial building blocks (that we have defined as not immensely complex), and then developed a learning process.
We may then go a step further - duplicate the fully developed system - to create clones of thinking systems that are 'cheap' and available for everyone.
Taking the ‘Politics out of Politics’
What have Britain’s politics & policies achieved during the last 50 years?
Answer – absolutely nothing!
In fact, all of us can think of many, many decisions that have damaged Britain.
We hear the cry “what about Thatcher’. Yes there was a realignment of the power of the unions (which in our opinion was correct since 'any' body that has power should be truely democratic), but the way this was achieved has had an awful legacy – the creation of an underclass that is now endemic within British society.
So, with ‘50 Years of Failure’ and faced with increasing future economic failure of Britain’s position within the world, we have nothing to lose by choosing a new political process that will improve short, medium and long term decision making. Currently, Britain’s future success is unattainable.
A vote for CST is a vote for
What it is NOT a vote for
Join us in a new generation of success. We must change radically or our children will face a very bleak future. every man and woman within Britain feels it.
CST is convinced that our proposed new political structures will not just attain a good future for Britain, but we shall lead the world (again) in every area of political thinking, societal improvement and world wide success.
Vote CST! Vote for the (currently) unattainable future!
(Please note – Britain gets one chance now in this election for this momentous change, a change that ensures a better future, CST is not a political party, it is a group for change and then we shall be gone forever).
Man is unique due to his ability to harness and modify his environment. As we are soon to enter the 23rd century this is a good moment to reflect upon the historical context leading up to the era in which we now live. Having mastered most aspects of the solar system we humans are now beginning to reach out in earnest beyond this boundary into new unknown habitats.
Today, man’s next great achievement is to find where he stands against other sentient creatures (biological, machine and hybrid) within our own galaxy, perhaps to harness their knowledge to further enhance our biological and machine cultures. This challenge seems to us today far greater, far more dangerous than anything gone before.
This is certainly a great watershed in man’s ascent. We now face the stars and beyond and their potential threats. However, the last paradigm shift just over one hundred years ago - the change from a political way of life to our now well established Egalitarian Social System (ESS), was a little too close to call. This shift was, arguably, the greatest ever threat to man's continuing existence to date.
This change was made possible due to the advancement of our biological and machine based technologies. Two hundred years ago, in the 'Old Civilisation', as man entered the new millennium, these technologies were starting to be developed. There was, however, a relatively long pause of over Ninety Years before their existing political systems changed to accommodate the true potential of these new technologies.
Quite why this change took so long will become apparent, but first let us remind ourselves of the squalid conditions that faced the human race just two hundred years ago. The world was a very unequal place, not just in terms of political power, but in real terms of personal resources and even, in the most disadvantaged areas, for personal survival. Hard to believe now, but at that time the world still had whole regions which were using mid 19th century production methods for food and production. The overriding political system (Capitalism) held change back, magnifying these inequalities. How did this endure for so long? Why was the now obvious change to ESS (Egalitarian Social System) not perceived even though the enabling technologies were well established by 2045?
Lets consider how far advanced these technologies were by 2045. Most food production could already be processed from basic (local) raw materials using mobile bio-active systems machine intelligence was already harnessing simple neural networks available in small mass produced units. The zoned Q-net was already established for high-speed, (mostly terabit), communication, information transfer and education provision across the world. By 2045, semi-intelligent self-replicating robotic systems were just becoming a widely available resource. So all the enabling technologies for an ES Systems were in place, but the human race had to endure another fifty five years before the final release from repression - released only by the ‘Near Holocaust’ incident that you are all familiar with.
We need to step back even further to understand why the Capitalists held such sway for so long. The Capitalists managed to hang on to the means of production and control of information for a long time after capitalism became totally unworkable. This driven quest became more and more fervent right up to the ‘Near Holocaust’ in 2095.
While the technology leapt ahead, the political systems were essentially those of the seventeenth century. For Capitalism to survive against the odds there must have been fundamentals reasons for its endurance. There was, and unlikely as it may seem, it came from Marx, a political philosopher of the nineteenth century. Karl Marx, born in 1818 in Europe gave rise to a movement called Marxism. Marx, a libertarian and journalist, was successful in creating the idea of Marxism which became known as Communism. Marx, who described himself as a communist, argued that the working class (see note below - people themselves were then involved in the all areas of production), would eventually bring about equality in the society. His revolutionary thoughts when published in February 1844, were immediately banned in parts of Europe, Marx also upset the Capitalists by his attack on Capitalism.
A while later, due to the very poor conditions of the working class they rose up against the Capitalists in various attempts to overthrow the entrenched political systems. During 1917 an attempt succeeded in part of Northernmost Europe and then later in China during the first half of the 20th century. So triumphant were the Communists in their conquest, and so fervent was their desire to change the rest of the world that there was a subsequent and disastrous backlash against their ideals. This left an ugly scar both in terms of real suffering and the subsequent vilification of all socialist and communist philosophies. Marx’s ideas were clearly far too early to succeed.
At that time, the world could have done without Karl Marx’s ability to persuade a vast swathe of the human race of the value of his socialist theories. While the idea of an egalitarian state was profound, these early socialist states did not have the technical means to break away from individualistic power centred political processes. This meant that individuals naturally used their political power for their own personal gain and to sustain their power base. (Note that this was not new, all societies from the Greeks & Romans suffered from the same individualistic power centric politics). The general people, whom of course still had to work anyway, gained little advantage from the socialist state. Therefore, in time these states stagnated, and themselves became the worst type of corrupt power centric regimes. The almost fanatical resistance thereafter to anything resembling true socialism and egalitarianism, made possible the Capitalists control of political power for at least Fifty Years longer than necessary, this has subsequently been referred to as the 'Marx Effect'
The forces eventually unleashed against the religious like beliefs of the Capitalists and their yearning to hold on to power gave rise to one of the most perplexing periods in the ascent of man. The ‘Near Holocaust’ came very close to annihilating the human race, or in the best case scenario sweeping it back a thousand years.
The Capitalist held nearly all the cards for many years. They had the de-facto control of all resource creation and also control of all the information flow - please note that this was key to controlling the mass of the people and not the control of production per se. Surprisingly, the number of people involved within this power base was tiny. It is estimated that over 90% of all basic resources, means of distribution, food production and control of all information lay in the hands of less than 0.01% of the population. Most nation states had fully democratic voting systems where the people could individually choose an agent to represent them. These systems could not in themselves ever create deep change as even without the misuse of the information systems, (which was completely corrupted by the Capitalists by 2025), the political systems were polarised between slightly different versions of Capitalist Groupings known as Parties (consider them now as groups of competing agents within ES System). Within these competing Capitalist parties there was no credence given to egalitarian politics, this is now considered to be directly due to the Marx Effect.
Thus by the old adage of divide and conquer the Capitalists kept the real elements of change at bay. With the information systems effectively owned by large Capitalist organisations, it was easy to create the illusion of democracy while subverting any elements of real change. Interestingly, there was a direct hangover from Marx’s communistic revolutions at work here. In Marx's era, ‘terrorists’ as they became subsequently know, used violent means to overthrow the then Capitalists. The icon of 'terrorism' was used extremely successfully to quell almost any threat to the Capitalists from 1960’s through to 2095.
This historic political symbolism was so etched into the everyday psyche that it allowed huge levels of subversion and prevented any really effective focus for change to coalesce from the multiple world wide groups, whom were attempting in their own way, to overthrow the Capitalists and their power bases. This continued right up to the ‘Near Holocaust’.
To understand why this control was so total, consider life within this Capitalist world. Even the people who had some personal sway and significant resources were completely in the power of the ruling Capitalists. As we know the Capitalist system was based on ‘money’ which represented all the resources and production processes.
By 2025 the system of money was one and the same as the information systems. Nothing could be accessed or distributed without it being recorded and analysed by their machines (known as computers). This applied to both physical processes and of course to all personal information. So, even though the physical methods of production were available in theory for everyone, it was adeptly controlled by the Capitalists. Anything that today we would consider as naturally ‘a free resource ’ was controlled using a system of usage. B. Grates, the founder of the first really successful 20th century machine based programme (simple language like control for a machine), nurtured this Capitalist methodology and took it to a new level by distributing millions of copies of effectively worthless machine language and enabling its use only when the user ‘paid’ (money) to Gate’s organisation. It is hard to believe now but most people actually fell for this con-trick and in the process it made B. Grates the most powerful Capitalist in the world for a while. (It is said however that his understanding and use of power and politics were as naive as his first machine language – just as well perhaps – although he died a heroes death in 2021 protecting his wife from a gunman in a drug based attack on his family and had bequeathed all his resources to the Palestine people and in so doing dissolved the Israeli/Palestine war which had been running on and off for over 20 years).
As students of philosophy and literature will know, George Orwell’s 1984 predicted these overriding control mechanisms and the use of distraction methods (the ‘wars’). Orwell based his novel on Communistic control not Capitalism but Capitalism proved to be a far simpler system to control as the control mechanisms were already part of the basic infrastructure, especially with respect to the information and money systems. Orwell went even further suggesting that brainwashing was required to gain complete submission. The Capitalists by contrast could just annul the means to exist for an individual simple by limiting access to all the Capitalist processes. The policing system was simplicity itself, the Capitalists attached a ‘value’ (money) to everything, if the value was not offered up, then access to any products or information or machines were merely disallowed. Thus by a weirdly wonderful paradox, money was both the basis of Capitalism and the direct means of its control over the people. A truly awful symmetry and now a repugnant notion.
It is thought that well before the ‘Near Holocaust’ much of the world’s population was in discordant mood with the Capitalists but they had no means of affecting change. Early in the 21st century groups across the more advanced areas of the world (western civilisation as it was referred to) were campaigning against Capitalism but with no idea of what to replace it with. The emergence of an alternative seemed beyond their philosophical thinking, especially with the legacy left by the Marx Effect. This now seems truly amazing as we know there are many social styles that suit an advancing civilisation. The grip of Capitalism and the resultant enslaving of the people into a self-fulfilling worker / consumer orientation seems to have been complete. The mindset required to break free from this clearly absurd system seems to have been unreachable within this environment.
However the problems and injustice of Capitalism increased as the system began to outlive its usefulness and people across the globe became more and more aware of the Capitalists duplicity. This eventually built up into a brutal regime hated by much of the world’s population and change by some means became inevitable.
It was not so surprising that a group would emerge which offered a violent death-wish alternative. Such was the secrecy and professionalism of the World Holocaust Movement, (WHM), as it became known, we still do not know its extent or how long it was plotting the ‘Near Holocaust’ event. There is some evidence that it was founded by Al-Qaeda off-planet descendents who were steeped in ‘terrorism’ from their incessant cold-war with Britain and the USA. The ‘Near Holocaust’ ended this antagonism, as nation states effectively ceased to exist in any real sense after 2095.
The Capitalists were holding all but two of the cards. The first was that the basis for the original capitalistic philosophy - the ownership of the production and money purchase - was no longer a necessity. This made possible the subsequent events and especially the sudden phase-shift to Egalitarian Socialism.
The second was the earth bound nature of the Capitalists and this requires a little more explanation. Partly due to concerns about the satellite colonies creating alternative political systems and thus influencing earth-bound political processes (again due to the Marx Effect), and partly due to the very nature of the Capitalist themselves the Capitalists being steeped in 'old values' remained earth-centric and would have little or nothing to do with the radical satellite communities. The limited philosophical understanding of the Capitalists meant they could not easily comprehend a world other than that based on material wealth, (ie things), and as such, the more ethereal vales of the satellite communities did not seem to attract their interest in any way.
This meant that there was always a threat from an off-planet uncontrolled agent that could not be checked by the usual earth bound control techniques and which was beyond the radar of the Capitalists information control systems. The downfall of the Capitalists was therefore based on a simplistic oversight in not creating a separate command and control centre based elsewhere within the solar system. If it was not for this oversight, the world today may still be controlled by a Capitalist system! (only joking!).
The speed and completeness of the transition was proof of the pent-up, long overdue change for the vast majority of people across the world. By the time of the ‘Near Holocaust’, information systems, advanced bio food production units and semi-sentient self learning machines were so widespread that the ES System took less than a week to replace all the Capitalist systems throughout the world. The instantaneous demise of Capitalism, a system that had endured for thousands of years in some parts of the world, was also due to its reliance on its fundamental structure (money) and its immediate removal. There was simply no way back for the Capitalists themselves once their main control system was defunct. That which enabled them to stay in power for so long also brought them crashing down.
Some of the more intransigent Capitalists attempted physical resistance and there were some skirmishes but few deaths. The policing and disaster prevention forces were unable to 'defend' the Capitalists as their own systems had been turned over to the WHM's agent system.
Only two commands were issued by the World Holocaust Movement (WHM) to the Capitalists; One, remove all control and existence of money and two, load the ES System into all the information systems creating an association of agent machines in each local area, (then called super neural computers). In those early days the machine agents were still overseen by individuals (randomly chosen by the machine and automatically rotated every month).
These local agents did much the same task then as ours do now, by effectively controlling the potential of local production processes and in making sure that each individual had precisely the same access to all available resources (materials, food, travel, land reserves, water & beach resources etc). These ‘advanced’ information systems made it possible to balance the needs across the world in a very short time. Cross-checking agents also made sure that there was no interference with local systems. This ensured that from day one the people of the world had for the first time a fair, honest and equal system to the resources belonging to the human race. Man’s long bumpy road to equality and true democracy ended without (just) the demise of the whole race.
The speed of implementation after the ‘Near Holocaust’ gave birth to another useful result.
The swiftness of the change allowed very little time for any potential (hierarchical or less equinanimous) power structures to be set up in opposition to the agent mechanism. By the time the honeymoon period was over, the agents were securely in place and working extremely well. The great benefit of the agent system (the basis of ESS), was its inherent stability, fairness and autonomous control and this far outweighed any retreat to power based political systems. One of the astute moves made by the WHM during their first and only week of power was to ensure that the agents had the ability to construct organisations with clearly stated aims and made up of ‘named’ individuals. These ‘endeavour organisations’ also had rights to resources depending on the nature of their endeavours and their size. These specifically included endeavours that enabled new colonies within the solar system and exploration beyond. This provided an off-planet escape valve for many individuals who, for whatever reason, could not fit in or did not agree with this massive change. This was clearly a far-sighted move and has sustained human endeavour very effectively and efficiently for over the past hundred years.
The agents collected information from all people to help maintain the balance of requirements across the world populations, (this was of course already mainly known and used in the Capitalists censorship systems). It did not take long for most individuals, (as now), to lose interest in the intrinsic democratic feedback system. While it is essential in ensuring accountability, most individuals prefer to be involved directly with projects they think are important (or fun) via the many ‘endeavour organisations’ to which they can belong. Today, with highly intelligent agent machines overseeing the fairness and resource allocation of both the individual people and their endeavour organisations, the quest for any type of hierarchical or human based political organisation is not widespread. Some argue that this machine based control system is no better than the Capitalist control processes, not many however, would choose to revisit and live in the world before 2095!
Also on a final note, perhaps the Marx Effect while prolonging Capitalism created the conditions required for the phase-change necessary to move seamlessly to the agent based ESS. If Marx had not written his philosophies, then perhaps we now would still be thrashing around within an outdated human power based political system not a lot better than Capitalism. Well done Karl Marx!
Note - Working Class
For all societies right up to the 'Near Holocaust', people themselves had to create all their own resources. The methods they used change over time such as increasing help from unintelligent machines, improving information systems, transportation vehicles (but still controlled directly by an individual - how mad was that!) And other production processes that did eventually become semi-automated. The hours that people worked varied in accordance with how advanced their machine help was and this itself depended, in the main, in which part of the world they inhabitated. World-wide advancement with this process of work was much slower than necessary due to the now familiar power brokerage system of the Capitalist. It was not in their interests to relinquish their machine advantage to a potential competing society. Even in the most advanced states people normally worked 7 or more hours every day for 5 days with a break of only 2 days then another 7 hours per day for 5 days and so on! Imagine immediately after sleeping, having to do something for 7 hours that you didn't want to do! Please don't scare you children with this story!
The extreme threat of the automaton virus posed by the WHM created the Near Holocaust event. In summary:-
An enhanced and most deadly virus attack with a programmed em/bio-detonator virus. (With a inbuilt ability for annulment of the virus by self-destruction on command from another virus agent). This quiet virus infection had a payload of protein based nerve venom using an enhancement of the most powerful natural venom. This clever, programmable virus was both contagious and infectious. It used a common agent born by all animal species for infection and subsequent incubation.
The virus was simply designed to infect a host, (any mammal), incubate for many weeks without any outward signs of infection, while being extremely infectious and contagious using many of the body fluids including, sweat and saliva.
The key to detonating the payload was a complex encoded electronic em (electromagnetic) signal of low level. The complexity and encoded nature of the em trigger meant that there was virtually no way the virus could, accidentally, be activated. The em trigger worked by turning on, in sequence, three separate gene mechanisms that then allowed a fourth gene to become activated creating the release of the bio-detonator. The low level em radiation was capable of being transmitted by most wireless devices in use across the planet. Cleverly, once any single virus was detonated, it produced a further trigger (biochemical in nature), that itself was capable of being transmitted via the usual body fluids.
The WHM had ensured silently infection of the whole planet prior to any official negotiation. The ability to have massive parallel detonation with the intrinsic cascade effect ensured the payload would be ultimately delivered across the globe almost instantaneously. It was later calculated that 99.3% of the population were infected. Even if the Capitalists had managed to secure themselves in command centres and bunkers, the planet would have become off limits for a thousand years due to the long lasting nature of the secondary biochemical trigger. During the first week of rolling out the ESS, most people did still not realise that the detonation threat was still live. The annulment trigger (another programmable virus) was only used once the ESS had been fully established. The annulment was (thankfully) very effective and also long lasting, ensuring no possible return to an infective state so any ‘wild’ viruses that endured were quickly mopped up and self-destructed.
The WHM conducted secret off-planet trials to proved its total annihilation capability against all mammalian species and incontrovertible third party evidence of these trials was used to confirm effectiveness to induce the mass annihilation proposed along with the equally effective annulment mechanism. These were of course done subsequent to the infection process - so it was a risky venture!
The following provided the basis of the transition to the ESS Created initially by a small group of anti-capitalists at the end of the 21st century and it has proven very durable. Some comments have been added.
Based on equality for all humans with a fundamental basis:
Absolute freedom for every individual. Provided the individual does not cause any harm to any other individual, a persons life can be lived entirely within their own freedom of choice. A dispensation from requirement for human resourcing can be obtained if an individual requires it and has a valid reason.
For Resources that are finite: Land, sea, travel, food, products, information processing
The agents ensure access to all potential exchange of resources to meet individual needs. The distribution of these resources is undertaken automatically by the agent machines and systems.
Locally based machines (computers/information systems) list, control, distribute, and organise all resources according to:
Local agents are self regulated by all other agents. Local agents link to all other agents to identify world resources, needs, distribution and organisation. Human resources help and check machines. Human resources are chosen randomly and rotate each period (week/month).
Tagged or option approach:
In the event of causing premeditated death or serious injury the options take preference.
Although this was considered unlikely, provision was made nonetheless:-
All people required to provide a minimum of 10 days per year for human resourced activity (eg Agent Overseeing, Counseling)
All children and adolescents required to complete the world learning system to a minimum level before their adult resources are granted.
Individuals or groups of individuals may gain additional resources to pursue any endeavour. The aim or aims must be put before the local agent which may grant an allocation of resources. Each period the grant of additional resources may be provided depending on the aims and results of the individual or group. The agent will grant endeavours which:
The agents report on all main issues. These issues are ranked as follows: