Thanks for commenting.
- Yes, it will take quite an effort, but when the alternatives get bad enough (and they are getting bad with how much fiat is being printed now), they will put in the work.
- Not everyone, but some reasonable form of consensus such as 51% or 2/3rds+1. I don't think everyone needs to agree, just a level of agreement that creates benefits. We agree to drive in the right side of the road not just because we'll get a ticket if we don't, but because that level of cooperation benefits us all.
- I don't think so, and that is the magic trick. Our DNA is universally unique. Why is that? Could it be that we are designed (or evolved) to bring new information to the system so the absolute unbounded oneness can learn about itself? It a computer system, duplicate data is compressed and the duplicates are removed. We are refined, unique information. Human ambition and how we choose to use our time is not only scarce, but unique. Yes, new challenges and problems will arise, and that's the point! That's how we continue to evolve and grow!
The end result will be something that keeps us evolving forward. :)
I have to agree with almost everything and I really enjoyed this discussion and read. One thing though.
This type of governance makes sense for problem-solving but when it comes to moral values and obligations, I'm very sure we will need at least 90%+ consensus on for that one to ever pass. It's that last hurdle that worries me.
Attempts to enforce moral values often cause very severe immoral consequences. If we could get enough people to agree on some basics like the non-aggression principle, other things can be left as live and let live.