The Basics
Propose an idea for making the world a better place.
Do it in 100 words or less.
When Submitting Your Idea…
Describe what the idea is and how it could be brought about.
Don’t propose something that already exists: e.g., smart phones, capitalism, self-driving cars, 3-D printers, heart transplants, Twitter, unless you have an original and unique idea about something to do with that thing that already exists
Don’t propose ideas that have already been proposed by yourself or someone else (even if they don’t already exist in the proposed form): e.g., molecular nanotechnology, basic income, flying cars, seasteads, space elevators, unless you have an original and unique way of bringing that idea about or you have an original and unique idea about what to do with that thing once it does exist.
Don’t promote your political or religious (or anti-political or anti-religious) views in the guise of an original proposal. World-transforming ideas can come from any political or religious perspective, but the perspective alone isn’t enough. There must be an idea there.
In summary: please present an original idea.
Categories / Topics
There are no hard and fast categories for submissions, although a growing list of categories is provided on the submissions page. Broadly speaking, we would expect that every submission will involve an initiative in one of the following arenas:
1.Science and Technology
2. Business
3. Society
While important changes can (and must) be introduced in each of these three arenas, we should note that the three are ranked from first to last in terms of the simplicity, speed, and impact of the changes that can be brought about within them. Science and technology provide the quickest route to transformative change. The business world is also an arena in which high-impact change can be introduced in a relatively short period of time. The societal arena, which some would argue is the one most in need of transformative change, can be the slowest and most frustrating of the three in which to operate. It’s possible that major change on the societal level is more efficiently achieved through initiatives within the first and second arenas than in attempts to bring about changes to society directly.
Submit your idea here.
On “please present an original idea”:
Please consider that positive transformative change can also be made in the world by people reaffirming old values and working to bring those ideals back into reality (perhaps in new ways, or perhaps in old ways).
For example, consider the value of sidewalks — which BlueZones promotes among many other features based on study of happy and long-lived human societies. Sidewalks for pedestrians alongside roads for vehicles are a very old idea for connecting people — but many new towns have seemingly forgotten about them. Yet when BlueZones first tried to get sidewalks installed in one community there was enormous pushback over the short-term expense.
Porches are another similar idea. Parks are another — as are bicycle lanes and walking trails to get to them. Eating together is another really good idea from the past — yet how many families and communities eat together anymore? Christopher Alexander has a whole catalog of architectural “Design Patterns” like that based on a “timeless way of building” for human happiness and prosperity. But we modern architecture so often is built in complete ignorance of those patterns or for short-term reasons where the long-term social and psychological costs are ignored.
One can find similar trends in other professions. For example, much recent computing innovation in JavaScript and the web totally ignores so many lessons of the past regarding security, privacy, maintainability, accountability, and so on.
In general, sustaining a society is a constant process of educating and acculturating the newly born (or newly joined) while the older members pass away. Yes, societies must adapt in response to changes from both outside and inside — but this core process of learning and affirmation of (some of) the past is also never ending as otherwise the society just disintegrates.
Our global culture is perhaps increasingly shaped by short-term financial goals as the long-term future becomes ever more hazy in the face of rapid change. Convincing people to act against their own long-term interests through deceit or spin can make big bucks for others — as can keeping people ignorant of how they can help themselves and then convincing them they need to buy some new proprietary thing out of fear. Often benefits of change are privatized and the costs and risks are socialized. To resist such negative processes, there can be a lot of value in trying to remember what health, community, family, prosperity, fairness, security, and so on used to feel like. It can take courage to reaffirm those values because saying often means being on the wrong side of big money.
Of course, there was lots of narrow selfishness and short-term thinking in the past like via enslaving others or promoting other forms of exploitation and unfairness. So, what values from the past are worth affirming is a complex topic. Likewise, there was a massive amount of suffering in the past from lack of information and lack of the most basic infrastructure (like sewage systems). So, what means or patterns from the past are worth still using is also a complex topic. It can also take courage to promote new beneficial ideas — for example, advocating for cheaper and cleaner solar energy puts one on the wrong side of big money from fossil fuels.
Little in this world of value is truly original, and much (not all) original stuff is just not as good as what went before (even if it may be fun to create it). A focus on novelty can sometimes distract us from a focus on quality and effectiveness as demonstrated by past successes. Yet, sometimes we do benefit from seemingly original ideas (like Velcro, copied from Burdock burrs). So, I’d just suggest reflecting on the interrelationship between novelty and quality/effectiveness and not limiting advocated transformations to “original” ones.
For example, P.J. Manny advocates “empathy” in her book entry, and that is a very old value — even if there may be new ways possible for promoting empathy. Yet, she has also asked in a Live-Science OpEd: “Is Technology Destroying Empathy?”
As food for thought on the interplay of novelty and conservatism, here is something G. K. Chesterton wrote in “Orthodoxy”: “But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. But this which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and terrible sense true of all human things. An almost unnatural vigilance is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity with which human institutions grow old. It is the custom in passing romance and journalism to talk of men suffering under old tyrannies. But, as a fact, men have almost always suffered under new tyrannies; under tyrannies that had been public liberties hardly twenty years before. Thus England went mad with joy over the patriotic monarchy of Elizabeth; and then (almost immediately afterwards) went mad with rage in the trap of the tyranny of Charles the First.”