I think you have provided a more complete description of what you are trying to achieve. Perhaps this precise location is not the ideal place for this discussion. I would like to suggest you take a look at the structure of the Rhizomatic Learning course. It has not started as yet, but the structure might suite your pursuits well, through collaborative construction of ideas and content.
To end with, I'd like to respond to a few points you raised in your last post.
This is based on the assumption that people are motivated by altruism, whereas there is much evidence in support of the contrary for the majority of people. Perhaps it might be an interesting exercise to investigate positive reinforcement, and motivation theory, and build a modal of participation in a utopian society which is based on scientific research. I also urge you to read around the subject of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which will need to be fulfilled in a society for each participant before such altruistic participation can be considered.
There is a brilliant book you should read entitled Emergence: The connected lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software . It will help you better understand this collaboration which appeals to you in biological systems. Something else which might fascinate you from a theoretical and philosophical level is Conway's Game of Life. I wrote an implementation of this in PHP last year, and found it fascinating how complex "organisms" can emerge from defining and tweaking simple rules. This is an example of emergence in its simplest form.
It is interesting that you will dismiss the concept of intelligent design, yet embrace self prophecy, despite obvious overlaps.
The problems with society are not due to infrastructure, economy, climate, ecology, technology nor government. The problems begin with human psychology. If you can alter mindsets and perceptions, then you will have the best chance of succeeding with your goals.
An alternate perspective is to see the concept of God as being the solution to the fundamental problem of Epistemology, where we cannot know truth about a system in which we exist. The problem is also found in cybernetics and ecosystemology, where a participant within a system cannot perceive of the system as the participant's perception of the system is a function of the system. However, with the concept of a being which exists external to the system in which we exist and are trying to comprehend and improve, knowledge passed into the system from an external source is not subject to the limitations of truth and perception originating from within the system (us). Thus, information resulting from a source external to the system (universe/time-space continuum) would be absolute truth, and more valid than philosophies and attempts at truth which we could create.
If the document contains knowledge originating from external to the system (see above), then it is more logical to trust its wisdom, than information originating from within the system.
True. Such a debate in this context is not useful. However, I would like to suggest that discounting potential sources of information which could greatly assist you in your endeavours simply because of prejudices you might have is unwise, regardless of your religious persuasion. If you would like to continue such a discussion via email or some other medium, I am more than happy to defend my stance from a scientific, philosophical and practical basis.
Having read quite a lot about transhumanism, I have noticed that a commonly recurring theme is the problem of elitism which occurs as you introduce segregation between humans and transhumans. You might argue that if everyone is a transhuman then this segregation will not occur. However, it is impractical to think all humans can be converted into transhumans simultaneously. Have you considered how such segregation and elitism which promotes violence and other societal problems (see Social Comparison Theory) can be mitigated? In addition, you must consider future enhancements, inprovements and updates. How will these be rolled out to avoid haves-and-havenots segregation?
I have not come across this theory before. It sounds interesting. Do you have any links I can look at to find out more?
Yes please, I would appreciate that.
I wish you well with your endeavour.