Re: Seeking some info

Bob, I'd really like to add some predictions about human rights in the 
"human" and about human-centric governance in the "DAO" row. Can you 
provide me time-based steps (2025, 2030, 2040, 2050+) for the adoption 
of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
<https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights>? 
For example, it might be possible to get faster adoption for a universal 
infant "birth registration and health passport" perhaps by 2040. Another 
early adoption candidate might be a climate change diaspora registration 
system, so people can stay in touch as they are displaced by rising 
ocean levels – in a 3º future, perhaps 1 billion people would become 
climate refugees.

Golda, I'd be happy to include a section that proposes better ways to 
manage equitable moderation in social spaces. "I will not accept funds 
that went thru a murderers wallet" - is part of my own vision for "human 
centric computational currency" for new kinds of intelligent currencies 
that cannot be stolen, cannot be used for ransom, and can be 
computationally directed in terms of allowable usage (as in, "son, use 
this money for food and books, not liquor and videogames"). I look 
forward to chatting with you about this next week!

Moses



On 2/12/23 11:10 AM, Bob Wyman wrote:
> Moses,
> Thank you for your interesting "map of the technological future." I am 
> concerned, however, that because your map contains no mention of 
> Human Rights, it omits a very important evolutionary dimension that 
> should receive much more attention than it typically does today. If 
> Metaverse developers are successful in achieving their stated goals, 
> we will find that more and more of our daily interactions will take 
> place within one or another Metaverse instance. Given the current 
> expectation that a Metaverse will be developed and hosted by a 
> "private" entity, such as a corporation, and not by a government, I 
> wonder: "What Human Rights will we humans have within a Metaverse?"
>
> Current law, in many jurisdictions, now protects individuals from 
> government abridgement of rights. But those same laws usually don't 
> protect us from abridgements which result from contractual 
> relationships between individuals and corporations. Today, one may 
> have a "Freedom of Speech" when within a "public square," managed or 
> regulated by a government, however, many would argue that no such 
> right should exist within a Metaverse owned by a non-government 
> entity. If, as with The Matrix (Yes, the movie..), our entire 
> experience were hosted within a Metaverse, we would have essentially 
> no rights relevant to the experience of our daily lives. This cannot 
> be considered acceptable...
>
> My personal feeling is that if Metaverses are to become significant 
> venues for human interaction, it is essential that a concept of 
> "rights" must be imported into and enforced within them. We will need 
> protection against abridgements by Metaverse owners -- since they will 
> have effectively become the "governments" most relevant to our daily 
> lives. Thus, I would be pleased if your map were to reflect an 
> evolution from essentially "no rights" today to an enforcement, in the 
> future (2050?), of at least those rights guaranteed by the UN's 
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
> <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights> 
> -- particularly, but not limited to, those rights that are defined in 
> its Article 19:
>
>     *Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
>     expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
>     interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
>     through any media and regardless of frontiers.*
>
>
> I recognize that the primary focus of your map is on technical 
> matters. However, I am convinced that, while developing technical 
> systems, we should be cognizant of the impact that our creations have 
> on the non-technical aspects of their users' lives -- particularly 
> their impact on users' Human Rights. Please consider adding this 
> aspect into your map and other analyses.
>
> bob wyman
>


On 2/12/23 11:58 AM, Golda Velez wrote:
> hey Bob - I do agree with you that rights are critically important, 
> however i also think in a heterogeneous ecosystem its actually more 
> acceptable for there to be smaller spaces that aggressively kick out 
> bad actors.  The right not to have to listen is also important.  I 
> believe floods of disinformation can be a huge human rights issue.
>
> My perspective is that the lowest layers should provide a mechanism 
> for identity and choice of inclusion/exclusion, and upper layers may 
> choose to be all-inclusive or to require various standards of 
> behavior.  For example, I would like the ability to say "I will not 
> accept funds that went thru a murderers wallet"  with a list of known 
> wallets that funded violence.  Or even "in this chat we stay on topic" 
> is a form of restriction, in a specific small space.
>
> Its always a double-edged sword but yes, in a decentralized world we 
> each have to take responsibility for our actions and interactions and 
> we should have tools to make it convenient to be responsible, along 
> with tools to preserve anonymity - and then choose which criteria we 
> want to use to interact.
>
> --G
-- 
*Moses Ma | Managing Partner*
moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com | moses@ngenven.com
v+1.415.568.1068 | allmylinks.com/moses-ma
Learn more at www.futurelabconsulting.com. For calendar invites, please 
cc: mosesma@gmail.com