Open Systems Versus Closed Systems -- Be More Open

When you flip a switch, it closes a circuit and opens a continuous path for electricity to ‘flow.’ No, the electrons in the wires — probably copper — don’t move, but the energy — excitement — in the electrons traveling around each atom’s nuclei do pass from each atom’s electrons to a neighboring atom’s electrons. If there is more current in that ‘flow,’ then there is more vibration passing from electron to electron.

Circuits are the opposite of culture systems. Circuits open when we ‘close’ the loop.

Culture systems open when they open. They operate like a loop that you can step into or out of. The degree to which the loop prohibits us from entering (inside) or exiting that contiguous space is the degree to which they are open or closed. If you can just step in or out without any restrictions other than one’s own choice, then they are very open. If you have to pay money, to pass many tests, to do many things, to wait for a long time, or to fulfill many requirements (like initiation/hazing/secret rites) before you can enter or leave, then they are more closed.

Bank vaults are (and must be) closed to open-and-free entry, or they will soon be empty. Surgery rooms are closed to just anybody walking in off the street and breaking the rooms’s sterilized environments. Closed systems exist and need to exist in some/many situations. Other systems are less open, not because of any absolute logical necessity, but more by choice — like VIP areas at events. General (concert) admission - with its festival seating - is closed to ‘free entrance’ but open to ‘sit-where-you-wish’ — or first come, first serve.

Societies move between open and closed systems with natural fluidity. We need both. When is an open system best? A closed system best? How many/much of each does a society need? Do private-VIP-waiting lounges at airports help advance society?

Like banks with their closed safes, closed systems allow some people in society to concentrate and preserve ‘value’ for their group. This possible outcome may encourage people into creating value/good that would not have been created in a merely open system. This is ultimately what conservatives are trying to conserve with their politics. They see it as their right and duty to preserve, for themselves, the value that they mostly and exclusively created for themselves — and that they would not have mostly created if they had to just share all of that value with others. Largely, this is the profit that is created via (the) free economic exchange and occurs at the ‘direction’ of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.“ Essentially, conservatives want a higher wall to enclose ‘their system’ — with its more restrict access.

Progressives are etymologically centered on ‘gress’ (or ‘to step’), also known as ‘movement.’ In that same word, ‘pro’ means forward. Rather than focusing on preserving a collection of ‘stored value’ created in the past, progressives want to move society toward creating an open — freely-circulated, readily-accessible, and newly-created — value for the future.

Systems can restrict people by gender, race, wealth, occupation, religion, age, ability, family relations, accomplishment, voluntary membership, involvement, ethnicity, spoken language, and much more. The more restrictive a system is the greater the number/percent of people who are excluded from it and the less ‘social’ — available to all people — it is.

As stated before, there are some entities/realities in societies that do require and benefit from some ‘closed and restricted access.’ However, as meritocracy has shown modern societies, it is beneficial to allow more people to contribute to the ‘value’ of a society rather than less. When governments greatly restrict large numbers of their citizens for mostly arbitrary and discriminating reasons, these societies greatly withhold from themselves the many talents which are available within their populations. This may advantage the few people that are not restricted, but it harms the rest, and more importantly harms the whole of society by withholding from the government the best resources that it could use.

The Olympics are a goodwill opportunity for countries to build positive experiences via safe and free competition AND a chance for some fun national, and yes nationalist, rivalry. But for the whole of humanity, it is a chance for ‘arete’ — excellence — to be exhibited. It is an opportunity for all humans to see what we as one whole worldwide group can achieve at our absolute greatest or best. As Melanie Trump said it, ‘Be Best.’ What speed can the fastest of all humans run? As each individual winner takes gold, it is actually all humans on Earth collectively versus gravity itself and other limitations. What is the best that we humans can achieve in our Earthly existence? The winners win for us all.

There is competition between members of a society, between societies, and between ourselves and extinction. In the midst of all of this, we each compete with our other possible selves. Economists ultimately want to know how systems can be designed to incentivize each and every person to work to create their best self. That best self — arete — will create the most value for ‘themself’, their family, their community, their society/country, and the world as a whole. Yes, we are always fighting for a bigger slice of the pie, but modern, global economists say that the struggle should be more focused on stretching the edge of the whole pie — usually quantified as GDP. It is true that modern economies have almost mastered stretching the edge/size of the whole pie …all while not seeing much or any individual improvements for many people and groups within those societies. This is where the societal debate is the freshest today. Additionally, the quickest dilemma to arrive at our current doorstep is whether we have neglected to give credence to the concern about our own possible extinction as a result of our own foolish oversights — do negative externalities really need to be calculated into and/or subtracted from profits? If one generation lives great, easy, and leisurely lives and leaves the next generation with greatly marginalized survival, was it all for naught? Do we have a moral mandate to stop such an inter-generational imbalance?

Open systems create more value. Open systems share more value. Closed systems have some use and can occasionally create more value in their own right. However, closed systems can also be used and abused to merely advantage one group at the expense of others and with no or negligible value to society as a whole. Society, the word itself, implies that a group of people have some distinction — even if only geographic — that separates them for all of Earth’s humanity as a whole. Gravity holds us down and makes life on Earth possible. Gravity is necessary and has many benefits. Likewise, ‘society’ can be used as an advantageous tool for humans, but it can also be used as a lever against those same humans.

Society needs systems, and they need to be more and more open. If more and more people can easily and voluntarily enter and leave those systems, then they will serve society better. The 13 colonies/states moved away from required religious participation and religious taxation. Christian denominations have continual opened themselves to more and more people. It is true that today’s non-denominationality has made people more fluid and additionally made churches less certain and in control of their survival. Other religions have blended into Christian churches. These churches do need to hold something at their center that sustains their ‘raison d’etre.’ — reason to be. That is a tricky existential concern, and occasional crisis, for them to keep an eye on. If all of our closed systems stretch out and blend into one ‘Synthesis’ unity, is that the end of all of them individually or the beginning of some great unification? Is an all-you-care-to eat buffet the end of food? The end of restaurants? The beginning of starvation? Or is it the beginning of everyone having what they value most/best without facing artificial restrictions that stifle their choice(s), but do incentive us to strive for more and better?

Open access, open government, open democracy, open markets, open borders, open schools, open religions, open hands, open hearts, open minds, and OPEN PEOPLE. :)