end-first thinking

One line of thinking has arisen, and mentioned in the last section, that of thinking of the end. It goes along with the notion of a name being attributed to someone’s actions retrospectively [like the teacher who can only take the role once a student makes them so]. Similarly, at the highest level, is it possible to think of the end of the whole entity? Or at least, if it scales to a global entity, and there is more money at the edges of the entity, contained within this scalable invitation membrane, than money in the outside world? Is this kind of thinking useful? It is a type of thought-experiment called backcasting, but I have never attempted this with numbers, at least, not to this extent.

The total global trade of the world was estimated to be around $27 trillion in 2010. This does not include the ludicrous amounts of money transacted on stock exchanges, the futures markets, and all the other absurd money-on-money games. I believe this figure is as close to the ground as is practically possible to compute. The amount of money to keep the world going round with regard to the distribution of things, foodstuffs, and the like.

So, if our entity is to exist at that level, then it needs to have this amount of money at the boundary, and contain half the population of the world, or there-abouts. Can this be a useful consideration? Can we plan ahead and consider that this entity reaches this point sometime during the 21st century? This allows funders to play at the century level, knowing full well that they are funding a possible transformation of the social world. And if this is stretching things, my intuition threw up an even more unrealistic date of within the decade.

As yet, this level of thinking might be best suited for wise^0, though it may give us some useful figures even at the outset, with the kinds of guidelines if we are to hit certain beautiful and optimistic results.

(from 4.35 end first thinking from the eco^2 entity)