我认为理性应该建立在平等的基础上，这是隧道尽头的光。=

I have a modest proposal that would allow all humans over a minimum age to independently and anonymously join "The Human Society. - THS " This web membership would be separate from their country, religion, community or family. Initially, a high percentage of members (e.g., 80%) would agree on a set of Principals, Rights and Values (PRV). To maintain their membership in THS, each member would vote annually on three global issues (two mandatory).

Questions vis a vis "Can reason save us?" might be: .

我们能相信人类社会50%、60%、70%、80%的判断吗?

Can the judgment of 80% provide sufficient "moral suasion" to sway governments to make more rational decisions on Nuclear Disarmament, Climate Change, Economic Disparity/Migration, Political Refugees and similar global issues?

I have a longer and more detailed essay/proposal on The Human Society that might/should be on interest to your membership.

Martin MacIntyre

The Human Society
By Martin MacIntyre
martin.macintyre@juno.com

This modest proposal germinated in my mind in the 1960s when the means of person to person mass communication was the postcard. The idea was based on the fact that humans didn’t have an unfettered opportunity to join the human race (as it was called then). This proposal was rekindled by an idea competition offered by the Global Challenges Foundation seeking a solution to the fact that the existing models of governance were not capable of solving global problems. To see details of the prize competition, go towww.globalchallenges.org. While the competition offered a possible US$5 million for the best idea and at a minimum $1 million. The competition is over and the highest actual awards were for $600,000, because the stated and unstated competition goals were contradictory and therefore could not be met. They were:
• The new model must be achievable and sustainable within the foreseeable future.
• Violent methods can’t be used to achieve universal acceptance of the new model.
• Decisions of the new model of governance must be enforceable.

下面的提案并没有被竞赛委员会选中，尽管在我看来它已经接近于人类可能达到的既定目标，并且在某些方面超过了它们。我知道这个建议满足了前两个目标，而第三个目标不使用暴力手段是不可能实现的。

I know that this proposal can be implemented within a few years at a reasonable cost. I offer it in the format required for the competition and ask you to give it serious consideration.

1. Abstract

Problem:
Existing models of governance are incapable of solving significant global problems.

Solution Requirements:
1. To solve global challenges, countries will individually and/or collectively make a significant improvement in their models of governance or agree on a single world government.

2. The solution must be instituted in the foreseeable future and be sustainable.

3. The governance model must have enforceable decision-making authority.

Previous Governance Models:
All secular governments are basically tribal in character with territorial boundaries and leaders. Systems of religious governance have no territorial boundaries but can't countenance competing beliefs. There have been many models of governance including the clan, village patriarch, town meeting, aristocracy, theocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, military rule, dictatorship, representative democracy and government of governments. Previous methods for changing governments have ranged from extermination of opponents (war) to voluntary creation of a new government (voting).

Previous Governance Failures:
All models of governance and change methods have failed to prevent war, which now has the potential of annihilating all living things. The failures may be due to human nature, which embodies a natural territorial imperative (land/water/air ownership) and a belief imperative (one true belief). Also, the existing models aren't based on acceptance by a super-majority of individuals. Until recently, there was no global method for individuals to independently agree on basic human principles, rights and values (moral imperative) or to instantly and simultaneously voice their views on global issues.

The Conundrum:
人类如何控制领土和信仰的必要性，这既是当前治理的基础，也是失败的根源?

Proposed Solution:
The Human Society (THS) adds a moral imperative (moral suasion) to balance the the territorial and belief imperatives. Individuals will voluntarily join THS, a free Web organization based on shared principles, rights and values with minimal - but mandatory - participation.

THS will provide the existing governments with real, timely, transparent and continuing knowledge of global views generated by its members. Although THS can't force the decision-makers of each country to comply with widely held views of their citizens, it would be hard to ignore a super-majority of individuals.

Formation of The Human Society:
The Global Challenges Foundation, the Nobel Prize Committee and representatives chosen by UNESCO will select the founding Board of Trustees from a group of individuals representing human diversity who volunteer for this important, but short-term, task. The Board will select and oversee the technical personnel who will create The Human Society website and pretest it in a number of diverse countries and governance models.

Functioning of The Human Society:
通信将使用所有公认的语言，包括书面和口头。本会网站会保留会员名册。将显示数据，以表明其成员是多样化的，并能代表世界人口。当注册人数达到临界数量和多样性时，成员将对一份人类原则、权利和价值观(PRV)的清单进行投票。由绝对多数人分享的PRV名单将每两年公布一次，并重新投票。

Annually, members will have the opportunity to vote on at least three issues of global significance and obligated to vote on two. The results will be used to guide existing governments.

三手投票制简单、透明和安全，可最大程度地促进选民参与和信任投票结果。政府的“权力”应该发现很难拒绝他们国家和世界上绝大多数公民的观点(道德劝说)。为了成功，三手烟必须保证无记名投票，防止虚假会员/投票。

Ten-Year Measurable Objectives:
1. 30% of the world’s population with web access will be members of THS.
2. 20% fewer individuals in war zones.
3. 10% fewer political refugees.
4. 10% fewer economic migrants.
5. Deceleration of the gap between rich and poor.

Funding:
Crowd-funding and anonymous donations will create an endowment to fund a low-cost system. Major costs of THS will be the web server, computer security and translation services.

Assessment Criteria:
The Human Society exceeds the criteria of the 2017 New Shape competition.
1. Improves foundational forces instead of changing governance models.
2. High probability of acceptance by the world community.
3. Low-cost and easily tested.
4. No veto, minimal delay and possibly a more efficient decision process.
5. Universal participation without added fees.
6. Immediate feasibility.
7. Existing technology and flexible.
8. Simple and transparent.
9. Meaningful and trustworthy.
10. Practical and sustainable
11. Objective measurement of success.
12. Accountable and non-commercial (no advertisement).
13. Secure and effective.
14. Moral suasion (moral imperative) replaces physical enforcement of decisions.

Arguments:
认为当前形形色色的政府会接受一种基于理性/道德论证、具有可执行法律和削弱主权的共同治理模式，这是没有道理的。因此，该提议没有改变现有的治理模式(这是竞争的一个不合逻辑的要求)，而是增加了一种国家以外的联合和平衡的基本力量——道德说服。道德劝说在结束南非的种族隔离和解决其他国家问题方面是有效的。现在它可以在全球范围内使用，因为互联网允许个人基于共同的人类原则、权利和价值观，就当前重大的全球问题发表自己的观点——人类社会。'

Summary:
1. Current governance models, founded on the territorial and belief imperatives,
can’t resolve global problems.
2. A significant change in the governance models of existing countries is unlikely.
3. A moral imperative is needed to balance the territorial and belief imperatives.
4. Global citizens should have an opportunity and obligation to express their
views.
5. The Human Society (THS) fulfills the need for a countervailing foundational
force - moral suasion - that will hold the "powers that be" accountable.
6. THS fulfills all the reasonable criteria of the 2017 New Shape competition.
a. Core Values: upholds the common good of humankind.
b. Decision-making capacity: Adds timely global moral suasion.
c. Feasible: Immediate implementation with measurable objectives.
d. Resource and Financing: Existing technology and low-cost.
e. Trust and Insight: Transparent, participatory and considers existing
realities.
f. Flexibility: Trial run, regular revision.
g. Prevent Abuse: Constant vigilance and multiple back-up systems.
h. Accountability: Independent vigilance, rotating management, nonpartisan.
i. Likely Criticism: Massive moral suasion will be ineffective in guiding
各国政府的决定。

2. Description of the Model

THE HUMAN SOCIETY - THS

BACKGROUND (Ref. 1)
在描述所提出的解决方案之前，有必要简要回顾一下智人是如何在我们寻求一种成功的治理模式(共存)的过程中达到这一点的。

The governance of humankind is rooted in a natural, evolutionary tribal system, whether it is a village/clan related by blood with a patriarch or matriarch/chief (that can still be found in many places in the world) or a country, with a hereditary, appointed or elected leader and sometimes a representative decision-making congress or parliament with an independent judiciary. The members (citizens) of each territorial group owe their allegiance to that group/sovereign, whether or not they support that model of governance or the actions taken on their behalf. (Ref. 2) Citizenship is usually determined by the location of one's birth or a parent’s citizenship, rather than by an overt declaration of consent and loyalty. Exceptions are naturalized citizens, elected officials or members of the military, who take a pledge of loyalty. Citizenship includes the unstated obligation to fight and die to maintain the security of the nation's borders and system of governance (patriotism). Any major opposition to the group’s existence or governance can be deemed a high offense (treason), punishable by death, imprisonment, torture or exile. Even being unwilling to fight and die for one's country (conscientious objector) can result in imprisonment and/or torture. One rare example of a government voting itself out of existence was in 1707 when, under economic pressure, the Scottish Parliament voted to become part of the United Kingdom.

Laws:
There have been written laws of governance as early as Hammurabi (c. 1700 BCE) and the Decalogue (c. 1400 BCE). However, until recently, most countries had no written statement of their basic principles and significant changes in government have been, and often still are, by brute force, with assassination of the ruler or civil wars being common change methods. It wasn't until after the American Revolution that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved.

Individual Representation:
1789年，美国是最民主的代议制政府，但“人人生而平等”的含义只适用于拥有财产的白人男性。直到美国内战之后，在1868年，黑人男性才被认为是公民，但女性直到1920年才有投票权。直到1965年才有了美国联邦投票权法，一些州的法律仍然使公民群体(最贫穷和受教育程度最低的人)投票困难。直到1971年，美国的投票年龄才降低到18岁，这个年龄男性可以被迫参军——杀人或被杀。仍然有一些国家没有普选权。

International Language:
There have always been international languages based on conquest and territorial occupation e.g., Latin, Arabic, Spanish, French, Mandarin and English, among others. At one time, French was the Lingua Franca of diplomacy and now English has become the default language of diplomacy, commerce and science.

然而，在19世纪，一些欧洲知识分子——他们可能会申请参加这样的竞赛——认为共享“世界”语言对全球和平共处至关重要。为了达到这个目的，人们构建了一些新的语言，试图避免与某个特定的国家、地区或文化联系在一起。持续时间最长、使用最广泛的是世界语(意为“有希望的人”)，但它并没有达到成为一种流行的或统一的国际语言的目的。(Ref. 3)

World Governance:
Secular - Attempts have been made to have a unified, secular, "world" government. After World War I, the League of Nations was formed but it failed, largely because the United States didn't join. The United Nations was formed after World War II and has had partial success but the veto power of the five "permanent" members of the Security Council has greatly limited enforcement powers. Its basic model hasn't changed in keeping with the changes in world governments.

Before and after WWII, there were attempts by non-governmental groups of individuals to plan a world government. There was a "World Constitution" and the United World Federalists, a union of organizations seeking a world government. These efforts haven't received widespread support, partly because they were seen as counter to the interests of individual nations (e.g. un-American).

Due to the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed by western democracies to counterbalance the military might of the Soviet Bloc’s "communist" model of governance. When the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO was enlarged to include countries formerly part of the Soviet Bloc. NATO still remains in opposition to Russia and other groups in opposition to western democracies, like Al-Qaeda and Isis, that has resulted in military action as far away from the North Atlantic as Afghanistan.

The European Union was formed as a countervailing economic and then political force to the United States, Soviet Union, China and Japan. Formation of the EU required some loss of sovereignty by the member countries in return for greater cooperation among its members. By agreement, new countries could be added, and members could have a peaceful exit. Some Eastern European countries were added, as was a common currency. However, the expansion and consolidation trend was halted in 2016 when the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. The United Kingdom's decision was based on a simple majority of those voting with 37% of eligible voters approving the exit. A major argument for leaving was the real and perceived loss of sovereignty and cultural identity - forces that both unite and divide.

宗教——有些团体虽然没有控制领土，但仍然在人类应该如何生活和相互交往的大多数方面拥有支配地位。这些“宗教”通常是基于明确的原则，通常是书面的，有时描述地球上的生命如何开始和死后会发生什么。这些“神圣”的文本通常被认为具有超自然的起源和权威;作为唯一的绝对真理(信仰必须)。要成为一名宗教的成年成员，可能需要公开确认信仰该宗教的核心租户。如果你不相信，不愿意在公共场合公开表达你的信仰，或者不按照该宗教的佃户的方式生活，那么你就会被避开、羞辱、逐出教会、流放、折磨或杀害。即使是一个单一的信仰也能将一个宗教与另一个宗教分开，而这往往会导致战争，即使他们宣称的信仰是非暴力的。

宗教对世俗领袖的主要影响在许多国家仍然存在。当一个国家的领导人改变了他的宗教或建立了一个新的宗教时，整个国家的“官方”宗教也发生了变化，例如罗马皇帝狄奥多西和英国的亨利八世。超过50个国家有官方宗教，如伊朗、以色列、沙特阿拉伯、梵蒂冈、缅甸，甚至英国。Past examples are: Tibet, the Roman Empire, and Aztecs.

Summary:
Regardless of whether the governing organization is a territory (village/country), a religion (true belief) or a combination, the decisions that affect the individual citizen are made by hereditary, appointed or elected leaders, including the decision to go to war.

If individuals have no binding and unifying agreement on basic principles of co-existence, then individuals and groups will try to impose their secular or religious government on each other. This is a manifestation of the territorial and belief imperatives. (Ref. 4)

现有的治理制度并没有解决重大的全球问题，在某些情况下反而加剧了这些问题。这是2017年全球挑战“新形态”治理模式竞赛试图解决的问题。

PREVIOUS SOLUTIONS
The goals of a global government or one shared "improved" model of governance have already been attempted by various means:

Extermination of the non-believers or unwilling citizens, known as ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (e.g. Hitler’s Holocaust; Pol Pot's Cambodia, Rwanda massacre, ISIS Caliphate beheadings etc.).

Forced submission and/or agreement via war or threat of war/death (slavery).

Exile: Citizens of Judea were taken to Babylon; Native Americans were moved from Georgia to Oklahoma; Armenians were removed from Turkey.

Here are examples of voluntary agreements to not exterminate or harm each others (peace treaties) or to settle disputes and cooperate on world problems:
League of Nations
United Nation
United World Federalists - individual memberships, not representing countries.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
World Health Organization
International Court
International Atomic Energy Agency
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
International Monetary Fund
World Bank
World Trade Organization
Sustainable Development Goals
Paris Climate Accord

None of these solutions have fully or permanently prevented armed conflicts or prevented significant actions detrimental to the health and wellbeing of individuals. The United Nations has not prevented individual nations from resorting to war. In one instance, the UN sided with South Korea against North Korea based on approval of four of the five permanent members of the Security Council with the Soviet Union not voting and therefore not vetoing (Korean Conflict).

联合国的成员是国家而不是个人(全球公民)。这意味着多年来，台湾的政府代表中国。联合国有一份原则和次级组织声明，其中有更详细的原则清单(例如教科文组织和卫生组织)。然而，作为人类社会(文明社会)的个别成员的全球公民并没有证明这些原则。

Up to the present time, the human species' quest for permanent, safe and secure coexistence has resulted in many forms of governance including village patriarch, town meeting, monarchy, aristocracy, republic, oligarchy, theocracy, military rule, dictatorship, representative democracy and government of governments. All have fallen short of resolving the most serious world problem - war with the potential of annihilating all living things.

WHY HAVE PREVIOUS SOLUTIONS FAILED?
First: There are territorial and belief imperatives that both unite and divide individuals/groups on the basis of common and differing characteristics and beliefs. There are many legends and historical facts concerning ownership of territory as a source of conflict and there are still wars based on which belief is the true one. Nonetheless, these two imperatives have been the foundation of governance and have both united people under one government and pitted countries and blocs of countries against each other. History and the study of human interactions strongly suggest that there is no way to eliminate these natural imperatives.

Second: All prior attempts to solve this problem have been based on agreements among countries rather than among individuals. When a country goes to war, it doesn’t require a majority of its citizens to approve. It is only speculation, but what would happen if war required approval of a super-majority of all citizens of each country, including the obligation to be willing to kill and risk being killed?

Third: Until c. 2010, it wasn't technically possible for a super-majority of humans to voice their views on values or issues. Within the last few years, the Internet/Web, space communication satellites and relatively universal access to wireless mobile communication devices have made this feasible. As of March 2017, half the world population (over 3.7 billion individuals) has access to the Internet. (Ref. 5)

REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2017 NEW SHAPE GLOBAL CHALLENGES COMPETITION
First: In the foreseeable future, it will be possible to have a widely accepted model of governance that can make decisions on global issues.

Second: The decisions of global importance must be enforceable.

THE CONUNDRUM:
These requirements may be unattainable by any model of governance due to human nature, which has an imbedded territorial imperative (ownership of land, water and air) and/or a belief imperative (one absolute true belief).

So, how can humanity control the natural territorial imperative and the natural belief imperative that are the current foundations of governance but at the same time are the reason for the failure to peacefully coexist?

One might conclude from the preceding discussion that it is impossible to have a new, improved and universally accepted model for global governance in the foreseeable future. However, I'm reminded of a statement by George Bernard Shaw:

"You see things; and you say 'Why?' But I dream of things that never were; and I say, 'Why not?'"

这是2017年“新形态全球挑战基金会”竞赛的基本精神，正是本着这种精神，我提出了以下解决方案。

PROPOSED SOLUTION FOR 2017 NEW SHAPE GLOBAL CHALLENGES COMPETITION
Instead of trying to improve all the inadequate and diverse systems of governance or to have all national governments accept a single world government, there is a third alternative.

We can add a uniting and countervailing foundational force - moral suasion - that has always existed but, until now, has lacked the means to be used effectively on a global stage.

Moral Suasion is our species' natural moral imperative. There are two types:
1. Pure Moral Suasion - an appeal to an individual's sense of morality (moral imperative) in order to guide everyone's behavior without threat of harm during life or afterlife. This was the primary method used to end apartheid in South Africa.

2. Impure Moral Suasion - Threatening or using non-violent actions to force someone to take a desired action or to prevent/stop an undesirable action. This was also used to end apartheid via boycotts of South Africa's commerce by other countries and individuals.

在这个命题中，“道德劝导”仅指纯粹的形式。它通过创建“人类社会”(The Human Society，简称THS)得到了体现——这是一个基于共同原则、权利和价值观(PRV)的全球公民自由自愿的网络会员组织，以最低限度但强制性的参与为基础。THS是由自愿表达全球人民道德和政治良知的独立个人组成的无所不包、非民族、非宗教和非暴力组织。

作为治理的基本力量，三手拳为已经存在的领土和信仰的必要性增加了一种至关重要的抵消和联合力量(道德上的必要性)。只有这样，现有的治理体系才能与全球公民的道德意愿更加紧密地结合在一起。三手单车会员的唯一技术要求是免费使用该网站。虽然没有办法阻止三手烟成员个人使用或劝导他人使用不纯的道德劝导方式，但三手烟不会推动这项活动。这种限制是必要的，因为可能会就目的(期望的结果)达成一致，但对达到目的的手段却没有达成一致，例如，纯粹的道德劝说vs.不纯粹的道德劝说:制裁、抵制、封锁和边境墙vs.实体武力威胁，通常是实体武力(战争)。

The initial THS goal is simply to have a super-majority of humans become members of The Human Society. This free, voluntary global citizenship will be separate and distinct from the individual’s birthplace, residence, DNA (ethnic and biologic characteristics), socio-economic status, religious affiliation or national citizenship. Members will be anonymous. There will be periodic votes on basic principals, rights and values (PRV) and regular informed votes on important global issues. The purpose will be to give timely direction to the existing governments as they make life and death decisions on their citizen's behalf and/or have global consequences.

THS has similarities to opinion polls and elections but with significant differences.

Opinion Polls/Surveys are minuscule statistical samples, usually self-selected based on the decision of each individual to answer or not answer the question being posed. The way the question is asked can influence the response and the results are frequently not consistent with the prediction.

与之形成鲜明对比的是，三手烟是一个庞大的人类代表团体的绝对多数，这些人必须投票才能保留人类协会的成员资格。

Plebiscites/Referenda/Elections are limited to countries and often don't represent a majority of the eligible population, because in most countries, voting isn't a requirement of citizenship. This means that elections are frequently won by a minority (plurality) of eligible voters. In the 2016 US Presidential election, only 55% of eligible citizens voted and only 22% of them voted for the winning candidate. This means that many individuals, who were eligible to vote, either didn’t register or were prevented from registering and many of those who were registered, didn't vote or were prevented/discouraged from voting and a significant number didn't vote for one of the presidential candidates. There are often questions about the accuracy or legitimacy of the vote count because voting is conducted by a partisan government.

与此形成鲜明对比的是，对三手制原则、权利和价值观的投票需要100%的参与，而对具体问题的投票则需要至少66%的参与。投票将不受任何政府或个人的干涉。

因此，三手手是一种自下而上的权力来源，通过透明但不记名的投票，提供了一个道德/伦理指南针，为那些有能力改善或摧毁世界的决策者提供信息和指导。这种额外的代表性和道德权力来源不需要改变现有的多样化政府，也不需要得到它们的批准。

三手烟并不能消除地域和信仰的必要性，因为它们无法从人类DNA中移除。Instead, it provides a way for each global citizen to voluntarily and independently become an avowed (but anonymous) member of the human society and to directly participate in the politics of global moral suasion regardless of their national citizenship, religious affiliation, biologic characteristics or socio-economic status.

道德劝导会起作用吗?
YES. If one can believe the Old Testament Exodus story, it was some form of pure or impure moral suasion that convinced the pharaoh to free the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage and similarly to allow the Babylonians to free them. In the last 100 years, on rare, but significant, occasions, moral suasion has succeeded on a national level with the non-violent efforts of Mahatma Gandhi in India against colonialism; Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez in the United States for civil rights; and while in detention, Nelson Mandela against apartheid in South Africa. Moral suasion was a force in stopping atmospheric nuclear bomb testing. Moral suasion hasn't always worked, e.g., the Dalai Lama for Tibet independence and for nuclear disarmament. There are still forms of slavery in the world (vulnerable women and children) despite almost unanimous moral opposition to it. However, moral suasion has never been tried on the scale of THS to improve decision-making on global issues.

THS is an up-to-date international version of those prior efforts without individuals having to physically demonstrate in the street where they can be identified by the authorities and consequently risk their lives. For example, THS could have been used by protesting Syrians and might have averted the displacement and carnage that has subsequently taken place. Joining and participating in THS will be safer than demonstrating in the street and easier than mailing in a ballot, standing in line to vote or buying a product online.

FORMATION OF THE HUMAN SOCIETY (THS)
The Human Society will be formed by fifteen full-time, but short-term (one year), members of a founding Board of Trustees. The trustees will be selected by the Global Challenges Foundation, the Nobel Prize Committee and diverse representatives of UNESCO. Five will be Nobel Prize laureates/nominees or persons of similar stature; another five will be from countries of permanent members of the UN Security Council and five from other countries in the UN General Assembly. The ten selections from the United Nations are intended to allay any concern that THS is usurping the prerogatives of the UN and to ensure a wide representation of a diverse global population. It is also intended to make the UN part of the solution rather than a potential opponent. The Board of Trustees will represent all continents and human diversity in biological, geographical, generational, gender, educational, sociological, religious affiliation and technical skill characteristics.

The entire THS organization may be no more than 100 individuals.

The Human Society Organization (See PDF Attachment: THS Organization Tree)

Board of Trustees
Co-Chairpersons -> Technical Staff

Committees
Web Design
Language/Translation
Security/Data
PRV List/Votes
Personnel
Public Relations/Communication/Outreach/Endorsements
Finances/Endowment/Budget
Membership

Technical Staff
General Manager
Web Design
Translation
Computer Security/Data
PRV List/Votes
HR/Personnel/Job Description/Recruiting/Vetting/Hiring
Outreach/Social Media/Press/Government Relations/NGOs/UN
Controller
Membership

董事会的每名成员将在至少三个委员会任职。各委员会将提出建议，全体董事会将挑选/监督技术人员。工作人员将从响应网络邀请创建“人类社会”的经验丰富的个人中挑选。理事会的实际地点和技术人员将由理事会决定，但在作出这些初步决定时，重要的是借鉴全球挑战基金会的专门知识。可能会有区域办事处，但只要有可能，将通过互联网开展活动，以便包括那些无法搬家或与家人和文化分离的候选人。

Communication within the staff and the Board will be in English but communications to the public will be in all recognized languages - both written and spoken formats. This will allow the inclusion of those individuals who can't read or see or hear. Unfortunately, but by necessity, participants will need to have access to a web device, a problem already being addressed by others.

从三手科技第一次董事会召开之日起，可能需要6 - 12个月的时间，才能组建一个三手科技网站，安全地开始接受数十亿会员。三手烟系统将在存在各种潜在问题的国家进行试点。首次试运行的地点可能包括:中国、南非、美国、埃及、沙特阿拉伯、以色列、巴勒斯坦、伊朗、印度、新西兰、巴西、委内瑞拉、西班牙、乌克兰、俄罗斯、朝鲜半岛和英国。试运行将通过多媒体新闻发布和通过社交媒体口碑传播启动。启动三手烟不需要得到现有政府或联合国的许可，但会积极寻求和欢迎它们的意见和支持。

The initial technical staff will also create a system for selecting the maintenance staff and permanent Board of Trustees. There will be a staggered turnover in positions to avoid stagnation, entitlement or appearance of bias, while maintaining continuity and trust in the THS system.

A list will be developed of principles, rights and values that might be acceptable to a majority of global citizens, regardless of their national origin, biologic or physical characteristics, social, economic or educational status, beliefs, ethnic origin, sexual identification or age (with minimum limits). The founding Board of Trustees and staff will mold these into coherent principles, rights and values, ready for a vote by the THS membership.

当网页系统的错误修正后，校董会会考虑本建议书所载的指引，批准最终的运作计划。到那时，也只有到那时，三手手才会在全世界范围内被激活，三手手成立的董事会才会解散(就像梭伦在设计雅典宪法后计划流亡雅典10年，根据历史学家希罗多德(Herodotus)的说法，只有他才能修改宪法)。(参考编号6)三轮车的运作将交由维修人员负责，并由新成立的校董会负责监督。希望三手手的董事会职位将会得到高度重视和尊重，因为它可能是唯一一个对所有人开放成员资格的真正的全球性组织。这将是人们希望在可预见的未来实现的最接近全球力量(如果不是真正的政府)的目标。

FUNCTIONING OF THE HUMAN SOCIETY
每一个符合年龄要求的人都将被邀请加入人类社会。通信将使用所有公认的语言:书面和口头形式。唯一的会员要求将访问网络和最低限度的积极参与。为了确保注册者是唯一的个人，他们将被要求确认他们的年龄范围、自我确认的性别、多种身体特征、一般出生GPS位置、一般目前的GPS住所、国家国籍、在他们的群体中自我描述的社会经济地位、种族来源、语言(主要和次要)、宗教信仰或没有宗教信仰，以及唯一的密码(有一个安全系统来防止多重成员身份)。没有姓名、电话号码、邮政地址、电子邮件地址、电脑id或个人id号。为了避免虚假会员，将开发出防止黑客入侵的算法。

In the foreseeable future, it may be possible to have identification of individuals that is too difficult, cumbersome or expensive for hackers to penetrate yet simple enough for all individuals to easily access.

This extensive information requirement for individuals will also ensure that THS membership is representative of the world’s population. It must be able to distinguish between identical twins residing together without being able to determine the information needed to steal their identity. Avoiding fake memberships (computer security) will be the most difficult barrier to overcome and a top budget expense along with translation. Despite the fact that membership does not offer monetary gain or risk identity theft, there will be individuals or groups who would like to have multiple votes in order to defeat the purpose of The Human Society or simply to show they can "beat the system."

When the THS membership has reached a critical mass of enrollment and diversity, the members will be asked to select items from the initial PRV list that they can accept and think a majority of their fellow global citizens should be willing to accept.

From this reduced list, members of THS will vote on each principle/right/value (PRV) creating the official THS-PRV list of items that are supported by two-thirds of those voting and a majority of each major subgroup (gender, continent, age range etc.).

The PRV list will be revisited bi-annually for possible additions, deletions or revisions. PRV items that are supported by a majority (but not super-majority) of the THS members will be offered for a revote in two years.

At least three times a year, there will be votes on issues of world importance selected by the THS membership in order to inform decision-makers. Prior to these votes, there will be position papers with references arguing each side to help the THS members make an informed vote. This will be relatively expensive because it will be in multiple languages and in audio for those who are sight-impaired or cannot read. Examples of issues might be the Paris Climate Accord and management of economic migrants. In September 2017, the THS members might have wanted to vote on the question, "Should there be universal disarmament of nuclear weapons?"

要保持三手烟会员资格，必须在激活会籍后的12个月内投票至少两次。如果会员资格失效，可以通过对之前错过的所有问题进行投票重新获得会员资格。会员可以随时取消会员资格，但他们没有理由抱怨全球政治的现状。

If a vote by a majority of members on a specific issue appears to be in conflict with an item on the PRV list, then that PRV item will be resubmitted for a mandatory vote of the membership with essays supporting and opposing the alleged inconsistency.

ENROLLMENT OBJECTIVES
Within 5 years, 15% of the world’s eligible population will be members of The Human Society and in ten years, 30% will be members (approximately 2 billion humans). I propose that membership can start at age 10 (the age of my granddaughter who already has well-considered opinions on important issues that affect her life now and in the future). There could be a non-voting associate membership for those under age 16 and their votes might not be counted in determining a super-majority. However, it is important for as many humans as possible - as early as possible - to have the opportunity to join The Human Society and to participate as a unique individual, independent of their siblings, parents, family, village, country, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic group or religious affiliation. Enrollment and participation in THS will be simpler to perform than online shopping or voting in elections.

SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIVES
On the tenth anniversary of the activation of THS:
1. Twenty percent reduction in individuals living in war zones,
2. Ten percent reduction in political refugees,
3. Ten percent reduction in economic migrants,
4. Deceleration of the gap between rich and poor,
5. 50% reduction in human trafficking and slavery.

On the twentieth anniversary of THS there will be:
1. Ten percent reduction in poverty,
2. Ten percent increase in literacy,
3. Ten percent reduction in childbirth mortality (both mothers and children),
4. Fifty percent increase in girls attending school,
5. Deceleration in birth rate,
6. 90% suffrage.

FUNDING
Crowd-funding and/or anonymous donations will create a long-term irrevocable endowment to sustain a low-cost THS organization. The annual budget of THS might be so low that a single individual could endow it, as was the Nobel Prize and was the Global Challenges competition prize.

LIST OF HUMAN PRINCIPLES, RIGHTS AND VALUES (PRV)
Sources and inspiration for the initial shared list of principles, rights and values can be from the Hindu Rig Veda; Decalogue; Confucius sayings; the New Testament; Buddha sayings; writings of Plato and Aristotle; Magna Carta; United States Declaration of Independence; United States Constitution and Bill of Rights; Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen; English Bill of Rights; United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; European Union Charter; charters of international organizations; and other writings on this subject.

As a start on a list of shared PRV of humanity, we could use a slightly revised version of a list composed by L.D. MacIntyre in the early 1940s as guidance and motivation for International Red Cross volunteers.

PRINCIPLES, RIGHTS AND VALUES OF HUMANITY

权力永远不能成为衡量权利的标准。

目的不能用来为手段辩护。

神赐给我们力量，扶助和保护弱者;为心中有病的人减轻负担;教导所有希望学习简单技能以帮助自己和他人的人。

地球上所有的孩子都是兄弟姐妹，我们不应承认任何生理特征、阶级、信仰、经济或社会地位、国籍或公民身份的障碍来将他们区别开来。

That equal opportunity must be afforded for each to share in the fruitfulness of this world and each, according to his ability, to share in it burdens.

这种善良、仁慈和理解将会增长，而且必须增长，使这个星球成为儿童及其子女的子女生活在和平与安全中的地方。

That each must have a chance to contribute what he wills to this new world, this fitter measure to his dream.

正如我们每个人都在我们所了解并希望塑造的世界中占有一份份额，我们每个人现在都必须努力挽救那些赋予人的尊严和生命的意义的简单的人类价值。

For these principles and to the just means to achieve these ends, I pledge my time and efforts.

HOW WOULD GLOBAL CITIZENS VOTE ON EACH OF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES OF HUMANITY?

HOW WOULD GLOBAL CITIZENS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING CURRENT GLOBAL ISSUES?
Climate Change and Global Warming?
Nuclear Weapons Control? Disarmament?
政治难民?
Economic Migrants?
Mal-Distribution of Wealth?
控制人口吗?
Conflicts:
Israel/Palestine?
Korean Peninsula?
Syria?
Yemen - Shia vs. Sunni?
Afghanistan?
ISIS?
Myanmar - Buddhism vs. Islam?

难道你不想知道这些问题的投票结果吗?

WHAT AFFECT WOULD THIS MORAL SUASION HAVE ON THE DECISION-MAKERS?

3. Argumentation demonstrating how the model meets the assessment criteria

General Argument:
目前各种各样的政府和模式都不太可能接受一个共同的治理模式，这种治理模式基于理性/道德论证和可执行的法律，这些法律削弱了它们的主权，即使这些决定仅限于全球问题。因此，这一提议没有改变现有的治理模式，而是增加了一种团结和平衡的基本力量——道德说服。道德劝说在结束南非的种族隔离和解决其他国家问题方面是有效的。现在它可以在全球范围内使用，因为互联网允许个人基于共同的人类原则、权利和价值观，就当前重大的全球问题发表自己的观点。
The Human Society meets, and in some respects exceeds, the New Shape Global Challenges competition assessment criteria. In two respects it doesn't fulfill the criteria. I have two comments on those criteria.

First, no matter how rational and practical a new and improved governance model might be, it is too optimistic to expect existing governments to voluntarily change their models of governance in the foreseeable future (10, 20, or 50 years). With a few notable exceptions (e.g., EU), governmental changes have been the direct result of wars or attempts to do so have been precipitated by violent conflicts.

To expect all countries to accept the same model of governance, albeit an "improved" one, or to join into a single world government, will entail a universal motivation more dire than the already existing threat of global annihilation via nuclear war. As fanciful as this sounds, it might require a force from outer space that threatens the lives of everyone on earth, regardless of their citizenship, social order, religious/moral persuasion or species e.g., the thesis of the film, The Day the Earth Stood Still or a 60% chance of a direct hit by an asteroid. Only then, and only with sufficient lead-time, would there be a strong enough "survival" imperative to unite global citizens under a single earthly government that fulfills all the requirements of the Global Challenges Foundation competition.

Second, it is too limiting to require enforceable decisions, which ultimately means physical force, i.e., war. The model shouldn’t be delimited by necessitating physical enforcement. There have been rare, but monumental, changes in the world of politics (governance) that weren't preceded by violence or threat of force as the change agent (even when violence was used in trying to prevent the change). Thus, it is possible to have an unenforceable, yet forceful and effective "middle way" to improve governance and this possibility shouldn't be preemptively ruled out. (Ref. 7) (Ref. 8)

So, I'm arguing that it is possible to significantly improve decisions made by all types of governance, even dictatorships, without using force or requiring them to relinquish any sovereignty, cultural identity, beliefs or authority. While this may seem to be impossible, it has already happened in human history and is far more feasible in the foreseeable future than persuading all the governments with various models of governance to accept one “improved” model or one world government.

After all, the purpose of the 2017 New Shape Global Challenges competition is to make the competitors “think outside the box” and "… to dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not?' " Only in this way can we develop a solution that meets the stated goal, even if it does not meet all the criteria but nonetheless, achieves the required goal. As the announcer says at the beginning of the Star Trek TV series we will need to go "Where no man [person] has gone before."

This proposal has very few references and only one attachment because the proposal is not a new form of governance but rather an expanded implementation of a naturally existing and well-known human moral imperative using existing technology .

CRITERIA & ARGUMENTS:
1. Core Values.
‪Decisions within the governance model must be guided by the good of all humankind and by respect for the equal value of all human beings. ‬‬

The Human Society fulfills the core values because all human beings can join and equally participate in selecting the shared principles, rights and values of humankind.

2. Decision-Making Capacity.
Decision-making within the governance model must generally be possible without crippling delays that prevent the challenges from being adequately addressed (e.g. due to parties exercising powers of veto).

At present, it has been impossible to even achieve global action (binding and enforceable agreements within the UN Security Council) to oppose on-going crimes against humanity, like those taking place in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Congo and M. (Ref. 9)

For this reason, The Human Society will leave intact the existing systems of governance and depend on the enormous force of moral persuasion (moral suasion) expressed by billions of individuals to do the work that can't be accomplished by physical enforcement. The consensus views of humanity must be the force to guide the decision-making process of each and every proposed "New Shape" governance model, no matter how diverse the models.

THS will create minimal delays (perhaps a week or two) in decisions. The THS process might even accelerate (also perhaps a week or two) the otherwise slow decision-making process of governments that have legitimate deliberative bodies. A recent example of a similar device was critically important in the decision to not change the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in the United States. The U.S. Congress has an independent, non-partisan research organization (Congressional Budget Office) that estimates the effect of proposed legislation. In the case of replacing Obamacare, they determine that millions of individuals (voters) would lose medical insurance and that fact alone may have swayed the decision-makers.

没有一个完美的治理体系是所有国家、所有人民甚至大多数个人都能接受的。所提议的解决方案唯一具有“否决权”的力量是，由现有政府决定的特定项目明显缺乏三手烟的支持。这将是一个很好的“否决”，相当于立即和压倒性的公众街头抗议。在人类社会的治理模式中，除了关闭或摧毁通讯工具(网络)之外，现存的政府或发声的少数人没有任何办法以身体或暴力的方式阻止、恐吓或反对THS成员的意见表达(批准/抗议)，这将有关闭或摧毁整个世界经济的风险，任何政府都不愿意仅仅为了阻止反对或支持的表达而采取这样的行动。黑客可能会尝试这样做，这是该模型的主要关注点，但这种关注点存在于所有治理模型中。

3. Effectiveness.
‪The governance model must be capable of handling the global challenges and risks and include means to ensure implementation of decisions. NO and YES ‬‬

NO -任何治理模式都不能在不使用武力(死亡、流放、拘留或威胁伤害和愿意采取行动)的情况下"确保"执行其决定。这就是为什么尽管国际上有防止核武器的协议，但许多国家(印度、巴基斯坦、以色列、朝鲜)和其他国家(利比亚和伊朗)已经开发了核武器和运载工具。在这一点上，实际的强制没有效果，而不纯的道德劝说在利比亚和伊朗有效，但在朝鲜、印度、巴基斯坦和以色列无效。使用平等的力量(所有国家都拥有核武器)来强制(所有国家)核裁军是不可想象的，联合国安理会的五个常任理事国不会轻易放弃它们。然而，全球公民从来没有投票消除所有核武器，这可能是改变平衡所需要的。这当然值得一试。无论如何，让个人参与全球政治仍然会带来巨大的好处。

是的，因为由世界上绝大多数人代表的道德劝说是实现政府决策改变的唯一途径，尽管它不能确保实施。

There will be two major criticisms of this non-enforceable moral suasion approach:

A. The addition of moral suasion might still be inadequate to avoid war or global actions that can destroy the environment and make the world uninhabitable. That is an invalid reason for not trying it. The United Nations hasn’t been 100% effective but it certainly has been worth trying. One can always add impure moral suasion to the equation with voluntary enforcement of boycotts by individuals.

B. There is a significant percentage of the world's population who are illiterate, uneducated, uninformed or have more important personal survival issues that might keep them from joining and participating in THS. However, illiteracy won't prevent participation, since there will be spoken languages. The bottom line is that we have to start somewhere by including as many people as possible in the political process in the hope that they can be informed and, if given a chance, they will be guided by a common moral imperative. Only then will their voices potentially lead to alleviating some of their survival problems.

These criticisms apply to any other proposed New Shape changes in the model of governance. For example, it will take more than an 85% international survey result to get the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to give up their veto power or nuclear weapons. However, a 70% vote of the THS members in the countries who are permanent members of the Security Council might affect a change in the veto power to require two countries to agree on a veto and/or to override a veto by 80% of the General Assembly. Any major change in the United Nations is unlikely without the support of a super-majority of the global population behind it, representing the moral imperative expressed in a way similar to The Human Society.

4. Resources and Financing.
‪The governance model must have sufficient human and material resources at its disposal, and these resources must be financed in an equitable manner.‬‬

The required human and technical resources to create THS already exist. Financing will be minimal and can be initially achieved in the same way that Wikipedia has been funded, by crowd-funding and anonymous "no strings" donations from individuals, foundations, companies, and governments. The cost is so minimal that it could be sustained by an irrevocable endowment from a single wealthy individual, as was the case for the Nobel prizes and this prize. In this way it would be free from leverage by the funding source and any withdrawal of funding, or threat of withdrawal, would easily find "no-strings" alternative funding.

5. Trust and Insight.
‪The trust enjoyed by a successful governance model and its institutions relies on transparency and considerable insight into power structures and decision-making. ‬‬

“新形态全球挑战”竞赛的既定目标是在治理模型中的全球决策的组织和执行方面有显著的改进。在这些限制范围内，在可预见的未来实现这些目标的可能性很小。正是这种“对权力结构和决策的洞察”，促使我提出在底层增加一种基本力量，而不是改变上层的“权力结构”。取而代之的是一个强化的全球心理强制系统(道德劝告)，而不是一个新的实体强制系统。这种变化直到现在才可能发生。三生科技网站以非暴力、透明和及时的方式，向全球绝大多数公民(即人类社会自愿成员的声音)对现有的治理机构进行道德劝说(道德上的必要)。

6. Flexibility.
‪In order to be able to fulfill its objectives effectively, a successful governance model must contain mechanisms that allow for revisions and improvements to be made to its structure and components.‬‬

The Human Society has a bi-annual membership vote to correct any problems. The Board of Trustees and technical staff will be available to correct immediate Web problems or to request an emergency vote on an urgent global issue.

If and when a problem in The Human Society website is detected, it can be presented to the membership (via a backup system, if necessary) where solutions can be proposed, discussed and voted on by the membership. If needed, this can be accomplished on a short notice.

7. Protection against the Abuse of Power.
‪A control system must be in place to take action if the organization should overstep its mandate, e.g. by unduly interfering with the internal affairs of nation-states or favoring the special interests of individuals, groups, organizations, states or groups of states. ‬‬

It is difficult to imagine how The Human Society can be abused as described above, beyond multiple votes by a single individual, fake identities or a malicious shutdown. This will require constant vigilance by the staff and membership and could happen even though there will be no monetary or power reward for successful hacking. However, it will be relatively easy to know when it is happening due to input from the (anticipated) billions of members. If there is suspected vote tampering (as suspected in the 2017 Kenyan presidential election), an immediate re-vote can be accomplished in a short time to offset and discourage any voting abuse. Unsuccessful attempts at hacking or vote tampering could be considered a measure of THS success.

在可预见的未来，可能会有一种识别黑客无法复制的成员的方法，比如视网膜扫描、指纹和类似的技术。

Avoiding abuse by the individuals managing THS can be accomplished by rotating management and independent oversight.

8. Accountability.
‪It is a fundamental requirement of a successful governance model that it performs the tasks it has been charged with, and the governance model must include the power to hold the decision-makers accountable for their actions.‬‬

让决策者承担责任的权力是，基于数十亿三手拳成员的道德劝说，获得即时、透明和持续的建议和反馈。这种问责制也适用于管理三手烟的人。

It is hoped that decision-makers (whether legislators, executives, judges or a supreme authority who has all three powers) who consistently ignore the "will of the people" will lose the citizens' trust, even the trust of any military support they may have at their disposal. If so, they will be deposed via election or by whatever means are appropriate for their form of governance, but hopefully non-violent.

Therefore, decision-maker(s) who ignore moral suasion will risk loss of power. In authoritarian models of governance, it will swiftly and clearly demonstrate loss of support by the people and hopefully result in a change in decisions that otherwise are avoided when the government controls the media. Otherwise, the authoritarian ruler will risk forceful removal from power by members of the ruling group and, at the very least, will know that the citizens of their country and/or the world strongly disapprove of the action being taken (e.g. Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump).

9. Likely Criticism (added item)
人性中具有破坏性的一面总是存在的，必须加以考虑。只有时刻保持警惕才能控制它。(参考文献10)(参考文献11)(参考文献12)创造人类社会，或类似的东西，似乎是唯一可行的方式来推进实现理性治理和全球和平共处的目标。虽然合理改善治理的最佳基础是有文化、受过教育和知情的人口，但我们必须从某个地方开始。以《人类社会》的形式进行的纯粹的全球道德劝说似乎是一种可行的、可行的、可持续的、有意义的、透明的、潜在有效的选择。

References

1.https://api.globalchallenges.org/static/files/GG%20models%20in%20history...
2. "Australia Wants to Drain the Swamp -- of Canadians. Lawmakers felled by obscure
citizenship rule: 'Resigned as , bro' " by Rachel Pannett, Wall Street Journal Page A1 Monday August 7, 2017
3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
4.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Territorial_ImperativeRobert Audrey
5.http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htmPotential worldwide access by individuals
(e.g., Facebook and Twitter and mobile devices)
6. Herodotus, The Persian Wars, The Modern Library 1942 Random House, P.16
7. Middle Way -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Way
8. Global Citizenship -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_citizenship
9. "U.N. Backs Inquiry on Syria After Departure" by Associated Press, Wall
Street Journal, Page A16 Tuesday, August 8, 2017. The Director resigned due to lack of
Enforcement.
10. "Humanity Violated" Podcast ofm.f8r7.comAug. 22, 2017
11. On Tyranny, Twenty Lessons From The Twentieth Century,
by Timothy Snyder, 2017, Tim Duncan Books
12. The Future of Democracy, Lessons from the Past and Present to Guide us on our Path
Forward by Steve Zolno, 2016, Regent Press, Berkeley, CA
13. Stuart Little, The School Room pp. 91-96, Pub. HarperCollins 1945.

The Chairman of the World (a mouse names Stuart Little) is the substitute teacher and with the help of his students, they try to develop and test “laws of the world.”

“Absolutely no being mean.” Suggested Milfred Hoffenstein.

“Very fine law.” said Stuart. “When I am Chairman, anybody who is mean to anybody is going to catch it.”

“这是行不通的。”赫伯特Peengast说。“有些人就是天生刻薄。艾伯特·弗恩斯托姆总是对我很刻薄。”

“I’m not saying it’ll work.” said Stuart. “It’s a good law and we’ll give it a try. We’ll give it a try here and now. Somebody do something mean to somebody. Harry Jamieson, you be mean to Katharine Stableford. … Harry ran over to where Katharine sat, grabbed the little pillow from her hand and ran back to his seat while Katharine screamed.

“现在。斯图亚特用严厉的声音说，“坚持住，我的好人们，让你们的主席去看看规章。”“(斯图亚特假装在看一本关于规则的书)……哈里已经违反了两条法律——禁止刻薄的法律和禁止滑动的法律。”让我们把哈利追回来，免得他变得那么小气，人们再也认不出他来了!…

他跑向哈利，其他孩子从座位上跳起来，在过道上跑来跑去，围住哈利，而斯图尔特要求他放弃那个小枕头。哈利看上去很害怕，尽管他知道这只是一场考试。他把枕头给了凯瑟琳。

“在那里，它运行得非常好。”斯图尔特说。

他们不知道也不给它起名字，就成功地利用道德劝导来执法。

14. Twitter #MeToo Movement. A real example of moral suasion using the Web.
15. Towers and Squares, Niall Fergusson. A history of networks. The title refers to the tower in Siena that looms over the piazza/square. The tower represents the secular hierarchical power structure of governance (along with the cathedral of the same height for religious governance/power) and the piazza/square represents the powerful but unpredictable alternative market place of ideas.

Comment: The web is the new “market place of ideas” with governance via moral suasion.

As some of us know, Pinker has written about reason. Others have read Susan Jacoby's book on unreason in America. Good books, both (and Jocoby's Strange Gods parallels another of Pinker's other works, The Better Angels of Our Nature). Public Intellectuals have, of late, tackled some pretty philosophical issues and given us more to think about. Hume (18th century) wrote about ideas and impressions and the difference. He claimed resemblance; contiguity; and causation as the relational factors involved in the development of ideas. As an idea, reason itself emerges on different levels; in different times; among different people. Within such temporal proximities, reason (as so many other physical and non-physical entities) Evolves, or depending upon outcomes, DEvolves---taking now, two steps forward; now, three back. There are many things/influences (social; cultural; economic; theological, etc.) which can and do affect the direction of this evolution/devolution. Predicting its direction is tentative, at best. Mr. Hume also asserted that ideas and impressions are not the same...an impression may be only a passing notion that lacks life and 'vivacity', sufficient to attain the substance of an idea. If we view reason historically, as Pinker has done, and consider that it has waxed and waned in areas of the world, we might wish to ask: Is reason an idea, or is it merely an impression? Semantics? No, I think not. Because if some of us treat reason as a convenience, to suit certain aspects of situational ethics, then the rest of us must forever be looking over our shoulders, lest we be unceremoniously stabbed in the back. I have adhered to brevity here, while hoping to stimulate some thought. This is important, I think, if we ARE worth saving.

当我们谈论理由时，它总是给人一种印象，我们是文明的，有文化的，意识到自己的行为的理由。在最简单的形式中，我们定义我们的术语，通过逻辑工作，得出一个结论，这是如此有说服力，人们被迫接受。然而，值得注意的是，在技术上，有两种类型的推理，演绎和归纳。演绎推理被认为只有有限的价值，因为它不能增加已经知道的东西，而归纳推理不能保证结论100%正确。最糟糕的是，我们别无选择。因此，要接受一个论点，我们不仅需要确认其内在逻辑是否连贯。即它是有效的，但更重要的是，我们需要个人相信至少一个前提为真，或者我们需要接受结论不保证为真。随着我们周围的世界不断变化，一些事实将会与我们的结论相吻合，而另一些则不然。相应地，我们要么调整我们的信念，要么改变我们关于事物之间如何关联的主观可能性。通过这个过程，随着时间的推移，我们对世界的看法越来越接近现实世界。 And for me, it is in this sense that reason is useful for us that it provides a framework for us to think things through. However, due to cultural diversification, value diversification and different material circumstances in which people live, even intelligent people with perfectly sound mind can reach very different conclusions through reasoning, e.g. WWII Germany as illustrated above. Therefore, unless, one is ready to question all the assumptions behind an argument, we need to prepare to be wrong as we reason. The problem seems to be that there is always a point at which if further questions are raised, it becomes culturally absurd and further inquiries attract unfavorable attentions and people would normally just stop at that, because a common belief is good enough for most of us to go by e.g. Democracy is desirable. So in conclusion, I would say that reasons are useful, subject to differences in cultural values, material circumstances and the courage to challenge our existing beliefs and when these conditions fail to hold, people could be vulnerable to political manipulations.

In Mumbai, in my third year of college, I was a happy Sanskrit major and English minor. A friend with Sanskrit major had philosophy as his minor. I was full of Indian philosophy which I studied at its primary sources, in Sanskrit. When the friend recommended Western philosophy, I reacted, "What is there to study? It's all materialistic." I had a stereotype. I thought materialism was all about physical pleasures and Western culture was nothing but a hot pursuit of dance, dollar and divorce. But curiosity led me to start reading a history of Western philosophy. And the rest is my personal history.

What attracted me to Western philosophy was its tall claim that it was all about reason, rather. And that all other cultures were full of unreason and their thought was not worthy of being called philosophy, a term which was truly descriptive only of Western thought. Plato, with Socrates as his mouthpiece, started the reason game which is still being played out.

Even voices within the Western philosophic scene that criticize reason also claim that they do it with reason, especially when they are face to face with non-Western thinking. Everybody from Socrates to Sartre, even the anti-logocentrists use a method of reason to support their anti-reason theory. So, reason, reason and reason everywhere, with the constant perpetual drum-beat of reason saving us from unreason and from rival reason-mongers as well, who are dime a dozen. Every Western thinker seems to be saying, "I am for reason. All who disagree with me stand for unreason. If they say they are for reason, it is only rhetoric. I have the true voice of reason. And this is so, even if I am against essentialism or logo-centrism or even if I am a rabid existentialist or a deconstructionist."

康德可以写出他的巨著，并称之为《纯粹理性批判》。这是对一些理性主义者同伴的半心半意的批评，使他陷入了自己承认的教条主义的昏睡。它所做的只是认可并恢复了牛顿的世界观。通过虚假的类别“演绎”，演绎不是正式的逻辑力量，而是佩里·梅森式的法庭演绎，以帮助有偏见的陪审团。哈，他驳斥休谟对因果关系的攻击了吗?我在他所谓的《理性批判》里找了又找，发现它不过是一个类比，“论证”因果关系是一种不可辩驳的知性范畴，类似于形式蕴涵的逻辑概念!

哈哈哈!伟大的理性“批判”到此为止。接着，大西洋彼岸的约翰·斯图亚特·密尔反驳了对证明所谓思想法则的申诉的指控，他说，这些法则已经被批评家们自己假定了。理性无法用自己的方法证明自己，却厚颜无耻地指责它的对手使用它。饶了我吧，饶了我吧!约翰·杜威(John Dewey)则走在更好的轨道上，他说理性只是解决问题的工具。实际上，休谟也有类似的观点，但他的立场也被分析性陈述中隐含的必要性所驯服。

我的观点不是说理性没有价值。康德对教条理性的抨击也并非毫无价值。直到19世纪，布莱德利为摧毁休谟所梦想摧毁的一切，提供了无可挑剔的理由。当他说形而上学是为我们凭直觉相信的东西提供不好的理由时，斯特劳森补充说，这样的理由可以是好的、坏的或无关的。布拉德利的观点可能是，哲学家只是试图粉饰他们的本能，并把它们打扮起来，而这个原因只是为了表演。这是心理学，但谁知道他说的有道理。但斯特劳森在牛津大学的前任之外，继续提出了一个进一步的观点。至少他没有被那些剑桥哲学家们所倾倒，那些哲学家们为了捍卫他们新发现的现实主义而反对布拉德利的所谓理想主义，而仅仅把布拉德利标榜为黑格尔主义者。例如，拉塞尔一直不理解布拉德利对内部关系和外部关系的批评，并指责他具有黑格尔式的模糊的内部关系。

Turning to Strawson, we may ponder his penchant for descriptive as against revisionary reason. The big problem is not how or whether reason and only reason can save us from not waking up tomorrow with the whole world being destroyed by a nuclear holocaust. The problem is with reason itself. Starting with Parmenides, it has always and unfailingly drawn a poor picture of our world. We cling tp the latter, with all our energies, even as it always comes up short of reason in the eyes of philosophers who swear by reason. And the world as we see it drives philosophers, with their reason, crazy. Some are driven so crazy as to propose a revision of the world, others enough to keep cooking up reasons to support the world, as if only their reason can save it!

Anyway, philosophers are divided in a hopeless fight within their own rank. There are: those, like Plato, who offer a revised world that suits reason and those, like Hume, who offer a better description of the world, again one that suits reason. This match between the revisionists and the descriptionists re-emerged, yet again, as Strawson pointed out himself, into the Formal Language Philosophy camp of philosophers in North America and the Ordinary Languge Philosophy camp in the United Kingdom. Lately these camps have muted and mutated themselves beyond the death wish suffered by philosophy herself. But who can say the matter is over? There seems no settled verdict on the issue.

无论如何，理性的展示仍在继续。无论理性如何证明或反驳它自己，它总是肯定它自己。Some, or rather most in the
West, are simply addicted to reason or whatever they call reason that they are practicing. They will continue to scream that only reason can save us. Others, using reason yet again, in whatever form, will try to find holes in this rhetoric in the name of reason. They will show how reason has got us in this or that hole from which we cannot extricate ourselves.

Descriptionists want to save the world from revisionist reason, but they do not want to stop using reason themselves. Revisionists want to save reason itself even if it destroys the world which, in their view, is not worth saving, at least not in its apparent form. Will the real reason stand up, please? Then maybe we can decide whether it is itself worth saving.

Anyway, what reason, if any, can save us from this rhetorical fight in the name of reason itself? Both, or all, parties here use reason, descriptive or revisionary, that is hell-bent on an intellectual destruction or disfigurement of our world. And almost everyone, including those for and those against reason do it either in the name of reason itself or against a reason that is called dogmatic, let alone umpteen other names.

I have taught intro to philosophy more than thirty times, in both historically oriented and problems-oriented forms. With the possible exception of ethics, it's the most challenging course I have taught, yet I loved to teach it every time. I get bored teaching the same texts, so I nearly always taught different books. Almost all these books contain or even start with a refutation of naive realism. Obviously, it is endemic of philosophers to attack the commonsense world in the name of reason. Yet they want to save the same world?! Or themselves? Or their reason?

理性的主角与他们在自己的西方社会中发现的非理性进行斗争。然而，同样的非理性的声音说他们是理性的声音，当他们面对非西方思想时，他们用一个声音想要称之为非理性的声音。理性是一种矛盾修辞吗?或者，它是西方的代表，狂妄地将两者等同起来?

The most ironic aspect of all this seemingly chauvinist charade is probably that the emperor has no clothes. What in the world is reason? Socrates, in his relentless pursuit of definition, failed to provide a definition of what in his view was the arbiter of truth, namely, reason. He equated and equivocated hopelessly between cogitation, dialectic, argumentation, intuitive reason and even seeing of the Forms by an intellectual eye. He said to Demosthenes who complained that he could see horses but not horseness, "My dear Demosthenes, that is because you have eyes but not reason." What is interesting is that reason, which ceaselessly enjoins everyone to give clear concepts and definitions, cannot produce a single definitive idea of what it itself is. Since Socrates, the list of notions claiming to be semantic equivalent of reason, has grown unmanageably large. You ask the question: What is reason? and a plethora of platitudes show up. Has anyone reduced them to a single cohesive concept? Have all agreed on that concept after a good debate? If not, should not the emperor be declared stark naked?!

玩得开心，在合理范围内!