Main Page

Preface

All references made in this wiki come from scientific journals based upon access to data that would not have been possible without the incredible work performed by Aaron Schwartz and Alexandra Elbakyan in the creation of Sci-hub, a decentralised shadow library of copyrighted research papers. BurnZero is maintained by an anonymous group of moderators led by Wojtek Bereza, a neuropsychopharmacist based in Sydney. If you find any factual errors we offer a bounty which can be accessed on our subreddit. Please read the following with a critical yet, open mind.

Part 1: Introduction

We are running out of places to hide from the ecological crisis. Whilst we are working on solutions to deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change... they are remedies to symptoms, not the underlying cause. Common logical fallacies mean most of us are unaware of how imminent the threat is. Those that are aware are routinely pacified, but some have managed to elevate representatives to power to address the issue only to find them captured by bad science and the machine.

To defeat a foe it's said you must divide and conquer. However, we instinctively do it to ourselves. XR , Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd... all fight for the same cause but are segregated, losing economies of scale. Solidarity is desperately needed but this requires trust in a cohesive vision. This evolving wiki, BurnZero, is dedicated to the search for that vision.

Part 2: Popular Delusions

To believe that our beliefs are permanent truths which encompass reality is a sad ignorance. Popular delusions compound our personal cognitive biases creating a distorted view of reality. Before we can effectively address this crisis, first we must look at ourselves to be able to take off our tinted glasses. Due to the limited timeline involved and the neuroplasticity of the gerontocracy traditional learning is not suited for the task, we need to induce pivotal mental states to change our minds before an ecological tipping point will.

Part 3: Learning from our mistakes

The communism and neoliberalism societal experiments have failed. Thes former has shown our primary driver is our selfish genes and unbridled capitalism has now brought us to the brink of environmental collapse. Instead of framing these systems as two ends of one spectrum and ignoring these past experiments and building new, soon to fail institutions, we should accept these failings and build something new.

Instead of making hierarchical structures which are prone to corruption by status differentials a flatter structure could be used such as a holacracy. The issue with this is power structures inevitably arise. Very little organisations with flat hierarchies exist as they have been shown to be inefficient. Hierarchical structures are needed for effective human management, however the problem remains how to address the corruption issue?

Part 4: The Bad Machine

The irresponsible nature of corporate entities has been known since their inception. A corporate entity is only a means to an end, neither bad nor good. During their inception they were recognised as being so potentially powerful they should only be created with a goal in mind, after which the company had to be dissolved. As corporations limit liability their success as a means of business next to sole traders who took personal liability was incomparable. This popularity over time saw the loss of dissolution controls and in the majority of cases it the pursuit of profit became the paramount driving force.

This takes the form of a "fiduciary duty" to pursue financial gain of shareholders. This binding principle of the pursuit of profit being paramount gives corporates the traits of a psychopath. Research has found people with narcissistic traits tend to get promoted 39% faster in their progression to CEO and that there are at least three times as many psychopaths in executive or CEO roles than in the overall population . The importance of this fact is emphasised by the knowledge that psychopaths, at around 1% of the adult population, are reported to be responsible for about 50 % of all serious crimes and constitute 20% of (North American) prison populations.

Incorporation Tenet

Incorporation statements (IC) are legal documents which set out the specific rules, by which a corporation is to operate by. Subsequent rules may be applied in the form of Standard Operating Procedures however these must abide by the initial tenants on the IC. As a single document, ICs are filed usually with the Secretary of State’s office or other agency designated by the state to handle business registrations.

The majority of incorporation statements codify the fiduciary duty of the parts of the machine, which in over 99% of cases is the pursuit of revenue with the reduction of costs excluding environmental externalities. At this point, the relativity of ethics comes into play. Do all machines ignore externalities and are intent on destroying the earth? Is a gun bad? No. Its down to the intent set by the incorporation heuristic, these can be broadly classified into:

• For profit - your standard corporation
• Not For Profit - where the pursuit of profit is reduced however this often then moves into the pursuit of survival of wages.

At this point it is a good idea to define the difference between a tool and a machine:

"As nouns the difference between machine and tool is that machine is a device that directs and controls energy, often in the form of movement or electricity, to produce a certain effect while tool is (senseid)a mechanical device intended to make a task easier."

A machine is a more advanced tool as it direct energy to produce a certain effect, it has a more refined embedded purpose opposed to a tool. It is this embedded purpose embedded at conception of the machine that makes it good or bad. In the context of a machine, this depends on its founding heuristics which are found in it incorporation statement.

Part 5: The Good Machine

When the concept of robotics was first dreamed of Issac Asimov created a thought experiment called i Robot. In it he imagined the creation of autonomous intelligence in the form of androids. At this point a similar conundrum arose as above. If a machine is developed which has autonomy, how can we ensure that it primarily does no harm to humans. As such he developed the Three laws of robotics, distinct ethical rules to protect humans from the ruthlessness of machines:

• First Law - A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
• Second Law - A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• Third Law - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These laws are exceptionally famous in specific circles, however not many know that Asimov added a fourth law later in his life which he termed the zeroth law:

"A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

Law 1: Transparency

The founding tenet of a new organisation. All decisions, all work, all financial data need to be openly published in uneditable, real time. With this founding mechanic, what should its purpose be? Good? This is a relative term, what's good for one might not be good for all.

Law 2: Beneficence

What is good for all should be the purpose of a machine for all. However, this should prevent authoritarianism and prevent the harm to human life.

Law 3: Non-maleficence

The entity may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. To protect from automation

Law 4: Autonomation

The entity should only pursue activities which are autonomous. The entity must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the Second or Third Law.

Law 5: Self-preservation

The entity must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the Second or Third Law.

Law 6 Governance

As 100% autonomy cannot yet be achieved a controller and a board needs to be elected as to make specific decisions. A governance system of anonymous whistleblowing should be in place so that either the public, customers or board can anonymously highlight specific activity. If the activity is then investigated by the board and it is found one of the controllers or board members to be at fault of the Law they will be ejected from the group.

---

References