STUDIJŲ METU ĮGYVENDINTI NORIMA IDĖJA

THE IDEA I WANT TO REALIZE DURING STUDIES

ENGLISH , COMMENTS , EXAMPLES , CONTEMPLATIONS , HOW TO REALIZE?

Idėja kilo susirašinėjant su viena japone vardu Hiroko. Hiroko mėgdavo parašyti laišką apie tai, kaip jai sekas ir išsiųsti jį jei ne visiems, tai daugeliui savo draugų. Ji su draugais susipažįsta per pokalbius internetu. Taip ji susipažino ir su manimi. Iš pradžių jos laiškus atsakydavau. Tačiau pasirodė keista, kad negaudavau atsakymų į parašytus klausimus. Tačiau laikas nuo laiko vis tiek gaudavau jos laiškus, kuriuose ji parašydavo, kaip jai sekasi, kokia ekonominė ir politinė padėtis jos šalyje Japonijoje. Po to kai ji neatsakydavo man laiškų, pasidarė nebeįdomu susirašinėti. Įdėjus šiek tiek pastangų pavyko susipažinti su keletu kitų žmonių, kurie irgi su ja susirašinėjo, ir teko pripažinti, kad daugelis buvo praradę norą su ja toliau susirašinėti. Tačiau aš buvau atkaklesnis ir įžvalgesnis. Tiesa yra tai, kad tie laiškai atrodė kaip savotiškos ataskaitos pasauliui apie tai, ką ji veikia ir ką nuveikė. Kita vertus, nustačiau, kad jos laiškų adresatų skaičius labai didelis. Tuomet kitaip pradėjau žiūrėti į tokius jos laiškus.

Įsivaizduokite, kad jūs parašote laišką apie tai, kaip jums sekėsi šią savaitę ir kokių turite problemų, kurių nežinote, kaip spręsti. Jūs tas problemas aprašote taip, kad skaitytojas galėtų aiškiai įsivaizduoti jūsų situaciją. Tada jūs išsiunčiate tokį laišką tūkstančiams savo draugų interneto pagalba. Rezultatas: jūsų problemas svarsto tūkstančiai žmonių. Ir jie jums atsiunčia atsakymus, kokių sprendimų jie priėję. Aš pats išbandžiau šį metodą. Ir tie draugų atsakymai, nors palyginus dažai būna beverčiai, kartais būna suteikiantys tokių galimybių, apie aš nepagalvojau. Tūkstančiai žmonių, mąstančių už tave yra „jėga“... Tai galimybė rasti papildomus sprendimus kitų žmonių laiko sąskaita.

Atradęs tokį dalyką pats labai džiaugiausi. Tai nuostabus būdas praturtėti informaciškai. Tereikia surinkti žmonių elektroninio pašto adresus... Tačiau mano tikslas nebuvo pačiam vienam praturtėti. Ir tokiame laiškų rašyme aš įžvelgiu labai didelę neteisybę laiškų gavėjų atžvilgiu. Žmonės tampa priversti paaukoti savo laiko dalį apsvarstyti kito žmogaus problemą. Tai yra gerai, kai tai daro tinkamas žmogus, kuris iš tiesų gali padėti. Tačiau kuomet tai daro daugybė žmonių, tai tampa labai neefektyvu sisteminiu požiūriu. Bendras sistemos laiko nuostolis tampa didesnis už patiriamą naudą. O naudą tuo metu tiesiogiai gauna tik tas žmogus, kuris išsakė problemą ir ją išsiuntė savo draugams.

Tačiau aš patyriau tą malonumą, kai draugai imasi tavo problemos spręsti, ir tai yra tikrai žavu. Pamaniau, kad gerai būtų jei visi žmonės galėtų pasinaudoti šitokiais draugų resursais. Ir iš tiesų jie gali. Deja, faktiškai tai būtų neįmanoma esamomis priemonėmis. Pagalvokime, kas būtų jei visi pradėtų siuntinėti laiškus visiem savo draugam. Aš turiu apie 500 internetinių draugų. Vadinasi, turėčiau gauti apie 500 laiškų su kitų žmonių problemomis... Kas būtų jei tokių draugų būtų daugiau? Tikriausiai nesugebėčiau perskaityti ir atsakyti visų laiškų, arba laiškai surytų visą mano laiką. Visuomenė nebespręstų problemų, o atsakinėtų laiškus. Tai yra nepriimtina.

Visgi man pavyko sugalvoti būdą, kaip galima būtų pasinaudoti tais pačiais turtingais visuomenės resursais, ir nesukelti tokių didelių laiko nuostolių. Visi galėtų pastoviai naudotis šiuo nuostabiu visuomenės gebėjimu mąstyti ir spręsti problemas taip pat efektyviai, kaip tai pavyksta šiais laikais padaryti atskiriems gerai informuotiems individams. Tokių galimybių tikriausiai norėtų kiekvienas. Tai leidžia padaryti paprasčiausiais žinios. Žinojimas, kam užduoti klausimą ir kur kreiptis pagalbos, kur pasiūlyti idėją, kad ji būtų naudingai panaudota... T.y., kur prezentuoti problemą. Dalis žmonių šias žinias yra sukaupę ir jomis puikiausiai naudojasi savo veikloje. Tai – vadybininkai, vadovai, organizatoriai ir kiti žmonės, kurių pagrindinis darbas yra bendrauti su žmonėmis. Jie žino daug žmonių, kurių prireikus visuomet gali pasikonsultuoti. Tai jiems teikia privalumų. Tos jų žinios yra įgyjamos pastoviai bendraujant su žmonėmis, sužinant tų žmonių pasiekimus ir kompetencijas. Tiesa, kad kiekvienas komunikabilus žmogus anksčiau ar vėliau pasiekia tam tikrą žinių apie kitus žmones ir žmonių grupes lygį, kuris po to padeda klestėti. Deja daugelis žmonių tokių žinių nesukaupia dėl nebendravimo, o šiuolaikinėje visuomenėje žmonių yra tiek daug, kad ne tik neįmanoma visko žinoti, bet ir progresyviai veiklai neužtenka vien žinoti. Problemoms spręsti reikia panaudoti išsamias visuomenės žinias apie pačią visuomenę.

Idėja yra kaupti žinias apie visuomenę ir panaudoti jas surasti žmonėms, galintiems padėti išspręsti problemas. Jokia logika ir šiuolaikinės techninės galimybės neprieštarauja idėjai kaupti informaciją apie žmonių kompetencijas ir gabumus, ir panaudoti šią informaciją rasti visuomenėje individus, sugebėsiančius kompetentingai atsakyti iškilusius klausimus, padėti išspręsti problemą, arba suteikti kokią nors kitą paslaugą.

Tam tikslui aš pabandžiau pasidaryti savo pažinčių duomenų bazę. Duomenų bazė leidžia įvairiai apibūdinti ten esamus objektus. Kiekvienas mano žmogus šiuo požiūriu apibūdinamas tuo, kokiomis kompiuterinėmis programomis yra dirbęs. Jei man iškyla kokių nors sunkumu dirbant su kokia nors programa, aš parašau laiškus visiem savo pažįstamiem, kuriem yra tekę naudotis ta programa. Šiuo atveju daug labiau tikėtina, kad didesnė dalis žmonių duos naudingus atsakymus. Taip neklausdamas visų savo pažįstamų, neklausiu ir tų žmonių, kurie labai tikėtina, kad niekuo negalės padėti. Taip sutaupau kitų žmonių laiko. Ir tai yra iš tiesų nuostabu: įvairių sričių specialistai „po ranka“. (Tikriausiai ne veltui žmonės buriasi į grupes pagal tai, kokia programavimo kalba jie programuoja ir pan.) Tačiau tai dar nėra viskas. Aš tikrai nesinaudoju visu visuomenės potencialu spręsti problemas, nes mano žmonių sąraše vis dar nėra visų žmonių. Be to, aš vis tiek dar neefektyviai rašau laiškus, nes naudoju visų tos srities specialistų laiką savo naudai, kas nėra būtina problemai išspręsti. Ir tai yra vis tiek nepakankamai efektyvu, ir gan savanaudiška.

Kaip prezentuoti problemą, kad ji nesunaudotų daug visuomenės laiko, bet būtų panaudotos visuomenės žinios ir problema būtų nukreipta tinkamam specialistui? Įsivaizduokime tokią sistemą. Individas parašo problemą. Tada nurodo tikslią problemos sritį ir posritį (ir galbūt kitus kriterijus*, padidinančius tikimybę, kad bus rastas žmogus, kuris bus kompetentingas sprendžiant tą problemą). Įsivaizduokim, kad kiekvienas žmogus turi savo elektroninius tvarkaraščius (yra žinoma, ar žmogus užimtas, ar laisvas), ir ši informacija sistemai yra žinoma. Tuomet įsivaizduokime, kad naudojantis palydovais yra sužinoma kiekvieno individo geografinė padėtis. Tada įsivaizduokime, kad aprašius problemą ir išrinkus sritį bei posritį (ir galbūt kitus kriterijus), problema automatiškai išsiunčiama vienam žmogui, kuris yra laisvas, ir yra geografiškai arčiausiai. Gavęs problemos aprašymą, jį perskaito. Jei jis gali kompetentingai atsakyti/išspręsti problemą, jis padeda tai padaryti. Jei ne, jis arba siunčia problemą atgal geresniam jos aprašymui, arba persiunčia kitam žmogui, arba sistema automatiškai parenka kitą kriterijus labiau atitinkantį žmogų. Galėtų egzistuoti ir kitokie žinučių rašymo būdai, tačiau esmė ta, kad jie būtų paremti žiniomis apie žmones, ir kiek įmanoma tiksliau būtų adresuojami laiškai. Šitokia sistema, neišnaudodama daugelio žmonių laiko, pakankamai tiksliai paskirstytų klausimus pagal kompetenciją. Priklausomai nuo problemos, tai galėtų būti tolimi arba artimi žmonės. Ir tokia sistema, šių laikų technologiniu požiūriu, būtų visai įmanoma. Tačiau tai, kas paminėta čia, yra tik dalis bendros idėjos kompleksinio vaizdo.

Aš paminėjau kiekvieno žmogaus tvarkaraščius, kurie iš kažkur yra žinomi... Idėjos dalis, apie kurią dabar pasakosiu, kilo nebe iš to susirašinėjimo su drauge iš Japonijos. Ji daugiau kilo iš problemos ir tikslo koncepcijų.

Pirmiausia, tvarkaraštis gali atsirasti tik esant tikslui. Žmogus, turintis tikslą, pirmiausiai išsikelia problema – tai rasti uždavinius, kuriuos reikia atlikti norint įgyvendinti tikslą. Jis taip pat išsikelia problemą nustatyti terminą, kada jis tikis tikslą įgyvendinti, bei apytikslius kiekvieno uždavinio įgyvendinimo terminus. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kokie uždaviniai turi būti atlikti, žmogus nusistato užduotis (darbus), kuriuos turi kasdien padaryti, kad įgyvendintų uždavinius. Taip susidaro dienotvarkė ir tvarkaraštis, kurio žmogus maždaug laikosi. Taip vyksta paprasto tikslo siekimas.

Svarbu, kad kiekvienas žmogus pasiektų savo tikslus. Tik taip sukursime laimę. Iš tiesų, tikriausiai nėra didesnės laimės, kaip pasiekto tikslo teikiamas pasitenkinimas. Tam, kad žmogus sėkmingai siektų tikslo, idėjos papildiniu tapo visuomenės savikontrolės sistema, pagrįsta tvarkaraščiais, terminais ir dieninėm ataskaitom. Idėjos papildinio dalies tokia: žmogus kasdien privalo parašyti, kokius darbus vardan tikslo nuveiks rytoj (rytojaus darbų sąrašas). Dieną jo užduotis yra likviduoti darbų sąrašą (sudėti kryžiukus prie darbų). Po kiekvieno sudėtingesnio darbo atlikimo, jo pareiga yra trumpai aprašyti sprendimą. Dienos pabaigoje pareiga – parašyti kitas svarbias detales apie tai, kaip sekėsi. T.y., parašyti trumputę dienos ataskaitą.

Idėjos papildinio esmė tokia: viskas būna gerai jei žmogus per dieną nuveikia visus darbus. Kontrolės sistema suveikia tuomet, kai žmogui atsiranda pavojus nepabaigti visų dienos darbų, arba jis jų tiesiog nenuveikia. Darbai tada automatiškai būtų perkeliami į kitas dienas, ir apie tokį nedarbingumą automatiškai sužinotų gerai tą žmogų žinantys kiti individai, geografiškai arti esantys individai (sudarant sąlygas jų pokalbiui, ir netgi visai nepažįstamų žmonių rūpinimuisi individu). Apie tuos darbus turėtų būti automatiškai pranešta žmonėm, kurie, sprendžiant pagal problemos aprašymą, tikėtina, turi kompetencijos padėti tuos darbus atlikti. Toks visuomenės rūpinimasis savo nariais padėtų užtikrinti, kad darbai būtų atlikti, ir tikslai – pasiekti.

Kitas idėjos papildinys – tai tikslų ieškojimo posistemis. Yra žinoma, kad jei žmogus siekia tikslo, jis gali susidaryti grafiką, gali turėti darbų sąrašus ir būti darbingas. Tuo tarpu jei jis neturi tikslo, jis neturi problemų... O tiksliau, jis turi problemą surasti tikslą. Tikslas formuojamas poreikiams patenkinti. Gyvybės pagrindinis tikslas yra išlikti, ir įgyti formą, kurioje ji būtų dar pranašesnė išlikti. Toks pagrindinis ir žmogaus tikslas. Įvardinamas jis įvairiai – gerbūvis, visuomenės gerovė ir kitaip... Tikslas gali turėti dvi prigimtis:

1. Tikslas patenkinti poreikius

2. Tikslas įgyvendinti sumanymą

Pirmos prigimties tikslą galima numatyti, apskaičiuoti. Tokios prigimties tikslams generuoti ir kilo šis idėjos papildinys. Kiekvienas žmogus turi skirtingus poreikius. Tačiau visų žmonių poreikiai yra panašūs. Tad visai įmanoma, kad skirtingi tų pačių produktų kiekiai tenkins kiekvieną individą. Idėjos papildinio esmė ta, kad kiekvienas žmogus kompiuterio pagalba vartydamas prekių katalogus ar kitaip (galbūt yra geresnis būdas sužinoti poreikius kompiuterio pagalba), visiškai negalvodamas apie tai, ar jis įpirktų vieną ar kitą daiktą, elgtųsi taip, kad tiksliai nurodytų, ar jam to daikto reikia, ar ne. Žmonių įnoriai būtų fiksuojami, ir pagal tai atitinkamai būtų formuluojami gamybiniai visuomenės tikslai. Galbūt ateis laikai, kai žmonės galės norėti, ko tik nori. Tiesiai iš žmonių surinkta informacija apie jų poreikius galėtų patiems žmonėms parodyti, ko jie nori. Tokia statistika leistų visuomenei susikurti tokius tikslus, kurie labiausiai atitiktų poreikius. Remiantis tais tikslais galėtų būti sudarinėjami grafikai. Beje, visi antros prigimties tikslai iš esmės vis tiek yra būdai tenkinti poreikius, ir pasiekti pirmos prigimties tikslus.

Tikslų prioritetizavimas sistemoje

Natūralu, kad tikslų gali būti ne vienas. Gali būti visuomeniniai tikslai, ir žmogus gali susikurti asmeninių tikslų. Žmonių grupė taip pat gali susikurti kokių nors tikslų. O žmogaus tvarkaraštis turi būti vienas, ir aiškus. Panašu, kad žmogus vienu metu gali judėti tik link vieno tikslo. Nors gali egzistuoti daug tikslų. Kas apsprendžia, prie kurio tikslo jis turi judėti vienu ar kitu momentu? Tai apsprendžia prioritetas. Kaip nustatyti prioritetą?

Pirmosios prigimties tikslų prioritetą automatiškai nustatytų tai, koks poreikis būtų populiariausias, mažiau populiarus ir t.t. Tai galima būtų nustatyti iš paprastos statistikos ir teorinių vartojimo skaičiavimų. Antrosios prigimties tikslų prioritetą lemtų jų gebėjimas padėti pasiekti pirmosios prigimties tikslus (atitinkamai pagal jų prioritetus) bei pačių antrosios prigimties tikslų populiarėjimas. Tam būtų sukurta speciali antrosios prigimties tikslų viešinimo ir balsavimo už juos sistema.

Tai tokia yra studijų metu įgyvendinti norima idėją. Tai kompleksinė visuomenės veiklos reguliavimo, organizavimo ir vykdymo sistema. Pagrindiniai principai apžvelgti. Papildomos galimybės kaip kad pvz., galimybė patogiau pasakyti kai kurių rūšių problemas (tarkim, norime nusigauti iš taško A į tašką B, ir mums reikia rasti žmogų, kuris pakeliui važiuoja ir gali pavežti – tam galėtų būti sukurta posistemė). Tokia sistema galėtų būti sukurta jau šiandien, ir veikti kaip internetinė programa, nors dar nėra pasiektas toks visuomenės išsivystymo lygis, kad kiekvienas žmogus turėtų nešiojamus delninius kompiuterius su interneto ryšiu, bet netolima ateitis, kai tokius nešiojamus kompiuteriukus turės kiekvienas... Galbūt vietoj mobiliojo telefono.

1. Mindaugas Indriūnas, 2004-06-06 22:12, http://i.tai.lt/

* Kiti kriterijai: Galėtų būti žmogaus išspręstų problemų istorija. T.y., žmogui begyvenant, jis pastoviai turėjęs kažkokių problemų ir jas kategorizavęs bei daugiau ar mažiau aprašęs. Sunkesnių problemų sprendimai galėtų būti dar detaliau aprašomi. Ši problemų sprendimo istorija, nelyg koks nors dienoraštis su visų žmonių patirtim, galėtų būti papildoma informacija ieškant žmogaus, kompetentingo sprendžiant naujai aprašytą problemą.

ENGLISH , COMMENTS , EXAMPLES , CONTEMPLATIONS , HOW TO REALIZE?

PRE: The idea is based on mobile computers (like palm) with internet connection, GPS (navigational system involving satellites and computers that can determine the latitude and longitude of a receiver on Earth), internal compass and a level, mobile phone, videophone, project manager, planner, voting system, task oriented communication platform and other features integration for the main goal: to optimally coordinate people (labor force etc.) to best fit people‘s needs, and to create wealth in society. „I think it would be something like... nervous system for a living body“.

I thought of this idea while talking with a Japanese friend name Hiroko. Hiroko liked to send a letter about how is she going and send it to many of her friends. She gets acquainted with her friends through the Internet. She got acquainted with me the same way. At the beginning I used to reply her letters as if they were personal letters. However later it appeared strange that I didn't get the answers to my questions. However time to time I used to continue to get her letters, where she used to write how is she, and how is the economical and political situation in her country Japan. As she didn't answer my letters, it became boring to correspond with her. But still I watned to hear her answers. I managed to get acquainted with several other persons who also corresponded with her the same way, and, I should admit that the majority have had lost their wish to further correspond with her. I tried to understand it: it is true that these letters looked like specific reports to the world about what she is doing and what she has done. In addition, I estimated that the number of letters she was sending out was quite large. Then I started looking differently at this kind of her letters.

Imagine that you write a letter about how were you this week and what problems you have, which you don't know how to solve. You describe your problems in a way that the reader could clearly imagine the situation. Then you send this letter to thousands of your friends via the Internet. The result: your problems are considered by thousands of people. And you get their answers with various solutions or suggestions they came up with. Realised that, I tried this method myself. I used the WorldCast software (http://www.fairlogic.com/worldcast/). Believe me, these "answers of the friends", though quite frequently not so useful, sometimes are providing such possibilities, which I wouldn't think of myself! I have felt this power of thousands of people thinking for you. It's an exciting way to find additional solutions to your problems using other people's time.

Having found such a valuable thing I was very happy myself. It was a wonderful method to receive a lot of useful information. You only need to collect people's emails... However, at that time I realised that my goal was not to abuse it. I think this kind of mass mailing is unfair from the point of the addressees. Because using "mail merge" messages look, and are, very personal, people are forced to give you a part of their time for thinking about other person's problem. That is good when it is done by the right person, who can really help. However when it is done by a lot of people, even if it solves your problem, it becomes very ineffective from the systemic viewpoint. The integral time loss becomes higher than the benefit you get. Moreover, the benefit is experienced only by the person who wrote the problem and sent it to his or her friends.

But still, I have experienced that pleasure when your friends takes solving your problem, and it is really wonderful. I thought, it would be good if all the people could use such friends resources to solve their problems. And in reality they could. However it would be quite impossible in with nowadays technologies. Think what it would be like if all started sending letters to all of their friends. I've got more than 500 internet friends. It means that I should get about 500 letters with other people's problems... What it would be if there were more friends? Probably I couldn't read and answer all the letters, or letters would take all of my time. The society would no longer solve problems, but only answer the email letters. And that is uneacceptable.

However, I thought of a method, how it would be possible to use the same immense resources of the society, and without such a high loss of time. All of us could constantly use this wonderful ability of the society to think and solve problems as effectively as it does only a few well-informed individuals nowadays. Probably everyone would want such possibilities. What makes it possible is actually KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge to whom to address the question to get the maximum result, where to call for help, where to suggest an idea so that it was used effectively... That is, where to present the problem. Some people have this knowledge and use it perfectly in their work. They are - managers, leaders, organizers and other people, whose main ocupation is communication with other people. They know a lot of people, to whom they can contact whenever they a specific knowledge. It gives them privileges to other people. But this knowledge is acquired while constantly communicating with people, getting to know their achievements and competences. It is true that every communicable person sooner or later achieves some level of knowledge about other people and groups of people, which later helps them to prosper. However the majority of people do not accumulate such knowledge because of lack of communication. Moreover, in the modern society there are so many people that it is not only impossible to know everything, but it is also not enough to only to know. In order to solve problems need to use the excessive knowledge of the society..about the society itself.

The idea is to accumulate knowledge about the society and to use it for finding the people, who could help to solve problems. No logics or the technical advancement of nowadays contradict the idea to accumulate information about people's competences and abilities, and use this information to find the individuals (and, maybe, groups), who could answer your answers, help to solve a problem or give any other kind of service.

For that purpose I tried to make a database of my acquaintances. The database alows to describe it's objects in various ways. Every individual in my database is described by what computer programs has the person used. If I come accross a difficulty working with some computer program, I write a letter to all of my acquaintances who have had some practise with that software. In this case it is more probable that the larger part of the addressees will give useful answers. So, avoiding to ask all of my acquaintances, I do not ask the people who are - more likely - unable to help in any way. So I save some other people's time. And this is really working great: it's like "various kinds of specialists on your fingertips". (Oh, this is probably the reason why people garther into groups/mailing lists depending to what programming language they use and so on.) However, that is not all. I still really do not use all the potential of the society to solve problems, because my database doesn't have all the people of the world on it. Moreover, I still write the letters not effectively, because I use all of the time of the specialists' of that kind for my own benefit, which is not necessary to solve a problem. And that is not as effective as I would want, and also, it looks to selfish.

So, how to present a problem, so that it didn't use up too much time of the society, but still, the knowledge of society was used to solve the problem and the problem was directed to proper specialist? Imagine the following pattern. An individual writes a problem. Then he or she categorizes the problem showing it's category, subcategory (and probably other criteria [ I think that people could blog some kind of "solved problems history". That is, while a person is living, as he or she constantly encounter various problems and solve them by using the system (t.i., categorizing the problem and more or less describing it. (Solutions of more difficult problems could be described more in detail.)), this accumulated problem solving history, as a kind of specific diary with the experience of all the people, could be additional information for searching a person who is competent in solving a newly described problem ] which would raise the probability that there will be found a person, who will be competent in solving that specific problem).

Now, imagine that every person has electronic diaries (that is, it is known if the person is busy or free), and this information is known to the system. Then imagine that using artificial sattelites, the geographic location of every person can be known. Then imagine, that by describing a problem and selecting a category and subcategory (and probably other criteria), the problem is automatically sent to one single person, who is free at the moment, and is (not necessarily and depending on the type of the problem) geographically nearest. Having got the description, he or she reads it. If he or she can help, he or she helps. If he or she can't help, he or she has several choices: to direct the problem to another person who could help OR send it back for the better description (so that not to spread a badly described problem too widely and not to waste other people's time). It should also be possible that the system automatically directs the problem to another best match in case of no answer for some time. There could exist and other kind of methods of writing messages (not necessarily the very time-saving 1:1), but the essence is that they were based on the knowledge of people, and the letters were directed as precisely as possible. This kind of system would direct the questions according to the competence of the addressees precisely enough, and without using up too much of people's time. Depending on the specific problem, that could be far or near people. And that kind of system is completely possible in the viewpoint of contemporary technologies. However, what is mentioned to this time, is only a part of the complex picture of the idea I want to convey.

I have mentioned every person's timetables, which are known from somewhere... A part of the idea about which I am going to tell now is not directly connected with correspondence with the Japanese friend. It has much more connection with the consideration of the concepts of "GOAL" and "PROBLEM".

First, the timetables can exist only if a goal exists. An individual who has a goal automatically has a problem - to find several main tasks that have to be accomplished in order to achieve the goal. The individual also has another problem - to estimate, when he or she expects to achieve the goal, and also, to estimate how much time will every task take. Then, he or she has a problem to describe hierarchically, what should be done in order to accomplish every of the main tasks as detailed as possible. If the person doesn't know what has to be done in order to start accomplishing main task 1, or even deson't know what should be the "main task 1", but has a clear description of the idea that he or she wants to realize, then the system already can be used to make some other person help with determining the main tasks or subtasks. After all the tasks are known and discussed and the first task is determined, the person can already estimate, how much time will he or she give for accomplishing the first task. E.g., he or she has some job that he or she thinks to accomplish in two days. This way can be estimated what a person has to do in his or her days. This is already a timetable or to-do list for a period of time. And this is how normally a goal is being reached. Just accomplishing task after task.

It is very important that every person could achieve his or her goals. Only this way real happyness is possible. In fact, there probably isn't anything more rewarding than the satisfaction due to an achieved goal, an accomplished task, seeing that the things that you are doing are real in your imagination and will become true. But not always do people tend to communicate, even if they come up with a problem. Therefore, in order to assure that everyone would successfully achieve goals, as a supplement to the complex picture of the idea, I thought of another addtion to the system: a control system based on timetables, deadlines and a kind of daily reports (don't imagine reports as extensive reports). The idea is that a person has to tick what works did he or she accomplish in the day, and what exact works is he or she is planning to do tomorrow for achieving that goal ("the tomorrow job list"). Next day, from the early morning, the person knows what to do - his or her job is just to do the tasks and clear the job list (to put ticks to the jobs). After completing every more difficult job, his or her obligation would be to write a short description about the solution he or she found, but not necessarily in that moment. It could, of course, be postponed. In the end of the day it would be good to write how was the day as well. Of course, it could be not necessarily a written report.. :-). One could talk, and the talks also could be recorded all time...

Everything would be okay if a person would always do all the jobs he or she planned to do. The control system would turn on only when there is danger that a person will not make the task in the time estimated, or a task is simply not accomplished in time. In this case, the tasks are transferred to other day(s), and the people, which are - most probable - able to help (probably the acquaintances or relatives), were informed about this kind of "incapacity" of the person. Also, system could decide to inform other people (e.g. those who are geographically near) making it possible for the persons to talk, and the care of each other much like relatives care about each other. That kind of society's care about it's members would help to ensure that tasks were completed and goals - accomplished.

Yet another addition to the system would be - a system dedicated for setting goals of the society and individuals. It is known that if a person reaches a goal, he or she can have a timetable, have to-do lists, and be efficient. On the other hand, when he or she doesn't have a goal, he or she doesn't have problems... But, in fact, he or she has a problem to find a goal. Goals in general are formulated to satisfy the needs. The general goal of LIFE is to survive and to acquire a form, in which it was even more capable of surviving. That is also seemingly the purpose of humanity. It is named in various different ways like "welfare", "wellbeing of the society" and so on... So, a goal can have two origins: 1. A goal to satisfy needs 2. A goal to realize an idea

The first type of goal can be anticipated and estimated. This system of setting 1st type of goals. Every person has different needs. However it is completely possible that various amounts of the same products will satisfy every individual. The idea is that every person, with the help of computer, scrolling through computerized catalogues or in some other way (maybe there is a better way to get to know about the needs of people.. maybe it is better just to estimate what could be maximum needs) would, regardless of if he or she can or cannot buy one or another product, would behave so that he or she would direct exactly what he or she needs and what doesn't. These wishes of people would be registered and the production output goals of the society would be formulated accordingly. The information, taken directly from people abut their needs would show what people want. That kind of statistics would allow the society to create such goals that would proportionally match the needs (I think that it is best to set maximums to that, because it is proven that the needs of people are endless). According the the statistics about 1st type of goals, the 2nd type of goals could be prioritized , as various inventions and so on are nothing but smart methods to achieve 1type goals.

The prioritization of the goals It is natural that there can be not a one goal. There can be the goals of society, and a person can create his or her own personal goals. A group of people can also create some separate goals. But a person has to have a single and correct timetable. It seems that a person can move only into one direction at a time, reach a one goal at a time. Even though there can exist a lot of goals. What makes a choice between goals, where to go at one moment or another? The priority does. How to set a priority?

The priority of the 1type goals can be estimated automatically according the popularity of the needs. It can be calculated according to the statistics and the theoretical calculations about consumers. The prioritization of the second type of goals would depend on their helpfullness for achieving first type goals and the popularity of the second type of goals themselves. E.g., if a second type goal is more popular than a kind of first type goal, then it has higher priority. There should be created a special voting system for second type goals, and also, the publication system for publishing the second type goals.

So this is about the end.

I think it would be something like... nervous system for a living body, which makes sure that no part of the body aches. If your finger aches, you pay attention - it would allow to ensure the better conditions of all the citizens, and would eliminate such a distinct differentiation of classes of rich and poor.

I would call this a complex society self-regulation, organization and task-oriented goal achievement system or "Society's problem sovling system" (SPSS). The main ideas are above. Additional features like possibility to better solve other kinds of specific problems (e.g., getting from geographical point A to point B by hitchkining - finding a passing car) could perfectly coexist. This kind of system can be created using nowadays technologies, it could work as an internet program (even though it is not achieved such a development level that every individual had a portable computer like a mobile phone with internet connection and GPS, but not far is the future when it will be reality).

What reforms would such a system do? I think education would becoem very different and much more material goal oriented than today. People would become much more busy. Everyone would be busy. Because whenever you have free time... I think many things would change a lot.

ENGLISH , COMMENTS , EXAMPLES , CONTEMPLATIONS , HOW TO REALIZE?

Critics:

-2.

-1. For really driven personalities there is a dichotomy: Working towards a goal is the only true fulfillment attainable, but it doesn't lead to fulfillment when you get there... It just leads to another goal.

0. Happiness is not equal to the achievement of goals.

1. You know, I hardly imagine..

2. Well, for me it looks a little bit utopian

3. I quite doubt about one thing: people‘s wish to help each other.

4. ...Probably because I don‘t see the use of it for myself.

5. It is not correct that people want to plan everything and attain goals like that. Yes, they use „TODO“ lists and write appointment dates...

6. People‘s desires are always higher than their possibilities, therefore planning of economy is essentially not a good thing, because it destroys the freedom of choice: both the producer‘s and the consumer‘s.

7. Current system very effectively distributes the resources and give people what they want – you vote for the things which you want to have, you vote with your money. If there will be enough of people who will want, say, mobile phones with video cameras, they will be ready to pay enough money for that, and there will definitely be a producer, who, tempted by a possible returns, will supply the product to the market.

8. Solution of every problem is TIME. And time is estimated by money. For exmaple, Bin Laden cannot be found, no matter how you would try to solve that problem.

9. This way seem to lead to utopian socialism or communism. A wish to improve the society, didn‘t make it better, no matter how hard someone tried.

10. Efficiency is a deciding factor. If you can solve a problem not in 10 years, but in 5 hours, then the solution is worth attention, otherwise the solution is worthless..

11. The internet is based on this principle (I don‘t know where is www.somehost.com, but I know who can get to know ... etc., until I reach the somehost)

12. The realisation of this idea requires transformation of the society.

13. Society is inertic, therefore a realization of such an idea would take a lot of time (about a century)

14. Society, which is needed for the realization of such idea, is utopian.

15. If you want that this kind of society function and did the functions described, you need a control.

Incorrect comprehension:

1. In fact you want to create a social network, similar to Orkut, linked-in, friendster and a lot of others, but with a lot more elaborated possibilities to find a person with knowledge in one or another area.

2. I don‘t understand what such a project would be useful for, cause we do the same on IRC, ICQ and so on.

Answers to critics:

-2. This can be fully achieved. I think that these really driven personalities could very successfully take the goals of society as goals of themselves. And, as one goals ir realized, of course, there follows another goal.

-1.

ENGLISH , COMMENTS , EXAMPLES , CONTEMPLATIONS , HOW TO REALIZE?

* What actual problems and how the system could solve?

1. Let's say you are... Ok, you can't be just wandering without a goal, but... let's say you are there in a city, and you get injured. Let's say you have something in your throat. You need a doctor ASAP. So you choose to define a new problem, then write "Medi..", choose medical, then it automatically finds the nearest person who has a lot of experience with medicine. You could also enter additional search terms as "neck" or "throat" or "stuck". That would narrow the search and find people who had experience with that. Well, there could be a button of emergency, so a person already knew where to find you because of GPS. If there are people who had defined their interests in medicine who are free, they could rush to see how it is being helped for the person. It would be a way to learn. Other viewers could also be marked as having some not practical experience in that, so they might be helpful with that later...

2. Let's say you don't have a girlfriend... And you want to meet someone you liked this evening. You could do a search, see a video, and it would direct you where to go. It's probably as easy as finding indexed objects...

3. Let's say there is someone who is fed up with his or her life because he can't see the meaning of it all, and probably feel depressed. Usually people get depressed because they don't know how to do something that they want to, or they don't want to do something... Well, I think this kind of states should disappear. Because people would solve their problems collectively, and always not alone! They won't have their own prolbems anymore. And, actually, a mind goes crazy usually because it tries to solve something that it can't. I can hardly imagine all the society going mad. There will always be people, who think clearly.

4. Let's say there is a region of starving people in Africa. How to solve this problem? Let's say, someone comes up with an idea to.. create plantations for growing the foods required... And submits the idea to the system. There are lots of people starving, so they vote or the realization of that idea. And just at the moment they decide to realize it, they have to find the ways to accomplish the tasks needed. If they can't - don't have resources or knowledge to realize - the problem, then other people get to know about this "failure" to do some jobs until the deadline, and other people start helping to solve that problem. Maybe other people will suggest a better idea or offer a know-how or technology of, let's say, making fields where food is being produced, factories for production of food and so on.

5. Let's say there is a problem of people in Africa spreading HIV within themselves. It may not seem a problem yet, but it may become a problem when a lot of people starts dying. It's more not about solving problems, but about predicting problems, right?.. But I don't think people would be stupid and won't create goals/ideas to prevent disasters, to prevent calamities. However, usually people are more looking at the present, not the future, thre should be paid special attention, and other kind of voting rules for those ideas which are based on predicted future problems.

6. Let's say I want a Ferarri. I show this need of mine by showing it in catalogues. This way I vote for production of it. Why should Ferrari produce me a car for free? Alright. Maybe they would stop producing cars in this type of system, and temporarily shift to solving other - more important - social problems. That is, use their intelligency for more important social problems. And then, when people will mostly vote for a super cars, they could participate in producing super good cars, together with the other producers of cars. I think it would be possible to create much better products by cooperating than by competition. Or maybe, they should do it already now...

So, I don't know.. for some people it might be not so desirable. Such a system would be pushing to cooperation cooperation cooperation towards the most desired goals of the society, and thinking thining thinking of how to realize them.

So.. probably I'll have to wait for Ferraris, until more people will show this as their desired product, and more people will have to cooperate for that. But look here. I think actually monetary sistem can be really compatible, and even desirable to this system.

7.

ENGLISH , COMMENTS , EXAMPLES , CONTEMPLATIONS , HOW TO REALIZE?

1. How would this kind of system interfere with the current monetary system? Today, we are buying people's time for their work. And people get consumer products for that. If we invented that kind of system, the people who "subscribed" to the system, should rather dedicate their time for achieving goals, and solving problems related with the achieving of goals of the many. So, they had less time for work. E.g., being at work for someone a problem occurs, so you have to go to help out solve the problem. If you have no transportation, yet someone else helps you to get there. What do you get for this? Nothing?.. Maybe not. By solving that problem, push the main goal a little bit forward, so that when the goal is realized, the society, including you, benefits from producing the products. If some products are lacking, people will, of course, try to satisfy their needs through getting the products somehow!! I imagine that they may steel them if they can't buy them. But.. The real solution would be making an excess of the products. T.i., realizing an idea that gave a lot of products.

2. Would there be people who doesn't work? Yes, but this problem should be solved by education. Educating would enable people to contribute more complex tasks.

3. How would the education be perforemd? Normally, we have institutions that perform this education. But as these institutions do not educate so that people acquired useful skills, part of the people who are most busy with solving real life problems, should make other people _who yet are not able to solve them_ solve them. I mean tuition. E.g., you need to design some part, and there are a lot of people who can't do that. T.i., useless people. So, you take one person, and tell him what to do to design it, what program to use, etc. People for tuition also probably should be chosen by some criteria.

4. Would there be people who would still be workless? No. Depending on the IQ, there probably could be people who can perform less complex tasks, and these people could be used for various physical works and so on. But all the people could do physical works as well, because all they would be mobile. Those people who couldn't contribute to the actual realization of goals, could contribute by creating solutions...

5. Why should I want that kind of system?

It should allow you to have products you want.

It should allow you to realize ideas you want.

It should allow you to have services you want.

It should allow you to have more freedom than the current system.

It should allow you to feel more secure than the current system.

Whereas it improves social performance toward solving important problems, it seems to diminish the actuality of personality and personal problems. Maybe. But a person has a right to want anything!! That is, do parties, celebrations, meetings, solve local problems, invite friends, etc. And that doesn't mean only concentration on the greatest problems of the society. But it does mean that you can always contribute, and the questions about how to perform one or another task of the main goal can be directed to you too, and if you have a good idea, you can always contribute directly.

So, would there be freedom even for groups to produce Ferraris if they want, and get benefits from that?

There should be.

To build a roler coaster if they want it there?

There should be, depending on how much money the people have, and how much money they can give for the other people. But other people‘s suggestions and know-how should be for free.

Would there be able to have candies if I want?

There should be. You should be able to buy them.

How would the property be defined: "It's mine, but it's not yours!".

Simply, I bought it, and it is mine. I can sell it.

Also, how would the responsibility be defined? I borrowed it, I crashed it, so, what is the penalty?

I have to take the product for myself, and pay for it from my account.

6. I think 13:52 2004/11/17 This system could coexist with the monetary system!!! It could be dedicated for self-governance (politics) and people search. The exchange of products could be realized by the existing monetary system, or the monetary system could be implemented to the system. Yes, products have their value. And money for people could be distributed according to the participation/collaboration/contribution to solving problems. So, even people who doesn't have enough money, could vote for products. :-).

IF nowadays people who are starving would have money, they would voted for solving this problem. But as they don't have money, it's very difficult. Probably INVESTING SHOULD ALSO BE RESTRICTED AND LIMITED TO INVESTING INTO SUCH AREAS, FOR WHICH PEOPLE VOTE. As everyone has equal rights to vote, not depending on how much money they have.. It should solve a lot of problems.

But, if there is excess of products in the society, people should get money anyway, even if they don't actually do a lot of work to solve the society's problems, they should get money... All the people should get money. Those people who create products and exchange them to other people's money, could, of course, have more money. And also, people who produce good ideas, contribute solving problems, would get extra money on their account depending on the time given, and the importance of the solutions.

ENGLISH , COMMENTS , EXAMPLES , CONTEMPLATIONS , HOW TO REALIZE?

HOW TO REALIZE IT?

There is a saying "If you want your dream come true, make your dream the dream of people." That is, if the number of people who want an idea to be real reaches some critical value, the idea will be realized without a lot of your efforts.

So, my way would be:

1. To write this idea in an attractive way, so that its realization was desired for many people.

1.1. While refining the idea, use the feedback from people to make it more and more attractive.

1.2. Write the details and answer all the questions how it should work with various problems and in various situations.

1.3. To write the disambiguation, and comparison to current capitalism system.

2. Publish the idea, tell the idea to smart people who are not rich people (good programers, workers, etc.) who are in lack of something what the system would enable them to have. Also, tell it to the governments.

You are welcome to send feedback if you don‘t like the idea, or ideas on the idea.

I‘ll try to make this page so that it would be possible to comment it directly.