The Immediate Challenge: Though it is difficult and time consuming to navigate a sea of differing views and opinions, Wikipedia is existing proof that this is possible. Close to 50 million voices from around the world contributed constructively, beating out every encyclopedia ever created by our human species, and no thanks to any isms such as capitalism or communism - it was built by volunteers from around the world, all for the sake of contributing to humanity's advancement (from experience, humans are not as scary as they are made out to be).
Sure, some biases remain in Wikipedia articles, but the solution to these is simple: More voices! By definition, we are all biased in some way or another. So if we all contributed to Wikipedia, its biases would be comprehensive and exhaustive, and the platform itself would therefore no longer be bias towards any one person or another. If that does not make intuitive sense, that is ok. A jury is used in a court of law because mathematics factually proved that "two heads are better than one." We consider brainstorming, ideation, defining goals, formulating solutions and implementing strategies as activities that are enriched through diversity and dialogue. In short, this seemingly behemoth and idealistic undertaking is in fact both realistic and feasible - we absolutely can do this!
I think Star Trek folks sort of gave it a shot with the original Starfleet, but the author(s) still felt the need to dream up conflicts with aliens, as if unavoidable (or perhaps for entertainment purposes). Are they truly innate though, or are we desensitized to violence at such an early age that conflict becomes perceived as a human trait that we cannot circumvent? A trait in them and the others of course, not in us; we're somehow (almost always) the good guys/gals. I can't help but think back to how we played with toy soldiers as kids in Lebanon, while hiding in bomb shelters during wars in the 80s. Desensitization to war at an early age? Did these toys teach me that humans kill one other and that this is normal?
It's not normal. Soldiers know this best because the last thing they want to live with is having killed anyone with no moral justification to excuse their cognitively dissonant behaviour. Their PTSD is real. Nations give soldiers the excuse they need, portray it as honourable and patriotic, then fill their minds with all the tribalist dehumanization necessary to make it easier for these men and women to pull triggers and perform inhumane atrocities on other men and women just like them.
By now, we should be able to agree that the more heads are involved in this (or any) process, the closer we will get to a more universal, desirable, feasible, equitable and inclusive solution (forget what you were made to believe about DEI, this dialogue is far more important than the senseless tribal rhetoric on TV). If we don't start off by defining world peace, the only logical outcome is that we are highly unlikely to ever get there. If looking at the world today isn't proof enough, then more basic reasoning for this claim can be found under Qualifying the Social Need for Collaborating on Shared Objectives.
The Proposed Medium: Use this MediaWiki platform (same open-source software used for WikiPedia) as a dialogue for re-inventing our reality. We have used this platform to collect all past human knowledge. Why not use it to have a rich dialogue on designing our global, richly diverse future?
If you've ever felt unheard or helpless in affecting change, perhaps because presidents, prime ministers, monarchies and generals don't ask you for your opinion before they make decisions (then lie about all that they will do and then do the opposite), consider this platform as an opportunity to override them all. Transfer your vote from being their name, to being your own voice. An opportunity to redesign life without them.
Perennial Illusions: The majority (or all) of us have been made to believe that there is no other way to live; that the world is a complicated place, that life is not fair, that we must attend school, and then get a job or run a business and feed the economy. Economy is good == life is good; economy is bad == life is bad.
We are also made to believe that there are some bad, scary, lazy, or weird people out there that think so differently from us, that we could never ever see eye to eye on everything, if on anything. My personal experiences and encounters tell me otherwise. All current behaviours stem from existing societies. There would be zero doubt that if we changed our societies, people would change as a result. We may no longer be as good, and others may no longer be as bad. No matter what, all people, will definitely change. This also means that not one of us knows how others will behave, we can only speculate.
What I do know is that I've only met good people everywhere I've gone, some of whom have felt the need to do bad things. We have always been interdependent, without question. Strengthening those around us has always strengthened us all as a consequence. Simply put, the stronger we all are, the less inclined any of us will be to do "bad things".
Just as importantly if not more, I would love for us to see how any institution would crumble immediately if we all wished it away. That is how truly powerful we are in unity - not only can we create amazing things, but whatever we stop using, relying on or believing in, will simply cease to exist! This is not wishful fluff, it's literally the driving force behind a free market economy.
Imagine for example that we do not want any more wars. Great initiative, but how could we ever fix something so complicated? Well, what if we replaced the concept of nations, states and governments with something better? Seems crazy at first but if we dig into the idea, we find that there's nothing stopping us from doing so! Our past (including our most recent) certainly hasn't shown us how the current state of affairs has been successful at maintaining any form of peace or humanity. Why do we continue to accept it?
Same with banking systems, we can design our very own alternative and do away with the old. What's the catch? Well, each and every one of us must care enough to make the time to understand others. To cultivate a genuine curiosity to truly know one another, so we can finally collaborate instead of fear, hate and/or divide, reinventing ownership and all that is necessary to produce a world where every newborn gets to love their life. A life where they spend their time growing, exploring, discovering and creating.
I would love for us to lean into our curiosity for questioning the status quo, similarly to how so many of us used to ask "why" about everything when we were still kids (just before adults, schools and other institutions choked this curiosity out of so many of us). The trail of our discoveries would eventually lead us back to what has always been right there for us to feel. That is, to understand both ourselves and our world, through a connection to our existence, where we feel our humanity forcing us to be considerate of others, in the same way so many of us would feel care and concern for a child who is exposed to danger. In the same way that every family I've ever met anywhere around the world has shown me care and consideration, regardless of whether they were socialist, communist, capitalist, christian, muslim, jewish, buddhist, atheist, beach bums, mountain folk, rich, poor, vegan, pescatarian, omnivorous or otherwise.
I am not (nor is anyone, I could argue) brighter than anyone else, but I've been lucky enough to have experienced a wide variety of situations in and around the world. I've also had the opportunity (and the leisure of) exposure to endless courses, books, authors and artists who have seen things and took the time to share them with the rest of us. I can suggest endless titles to help but would rather suggest an app like Blinkist and a mindset that is open to various contradicting views.
Third Party Reading for Reference: If this proposal continues to sound naive, unachievable, utopian or just plain crazy, I suggest taking a glance at the following books, which are only a handful of the dozens that support an endeavour such as this. All of these have been authored by not-so-crazy, rather highly respected individuals, all from various backgrounds: Willful blindness (2011) by Margaret Heffernan, Collective Illusions (2022) by Todd Rose, The Psychology of Money (2020) by Morgan Housel, Capitalist Realism (2009) by Mark Fisher, Doughnut Economics (2017) by Kate Roworth, Longpath (2022) by Ari Wallach, The Network State (2022) by Balaji Srinivasan, and Understanding Power (2002) by Noam Chomsky et al.
Some thoughts worth considering from the first two titles mentioned:
"In doubting our own judgment and defaulting to conformity, we transform ourselves from individuals into members of the herd."
"By seeking out other perspectives and questioning the world around us, we can avoid falling into complacency and conformity"