Some interesting ideas here. I have touched on some of them myself in my discussions about the structure of state-level society. It is very difficult for humans to keep up a rational course of action. Bill Rees has addressed the maladaptive aspect of this in a shallow sense. Boyd and Richerson give a deeper dive. My own perspective is to see what happens as states fail. So far it is organic social devolution to less complex levels. First stop in decline is authoritarianism - the chiefdom. Power is shared based on rank - i.e. proximity to the ruler. In order to get to the less complex tribal level, dieoff must occur. Our job is to learn and practice ways to capture and use power at the local level so we can utilize it properly when it lands in our laps. First step is to get out of the urban environment. If you cannot do that, all your power-sharing arrangements are heavily suppressed. And forget AI. A collapse of the electrical grid renders it moot. Finally, consider that clans are a good thing. They are the next step downwards after authoritarinism.
Appreciate the thoughtful comment. IMO the first stop for the west will be techno-authoritarianism, which to be honest is already here but mostly invisible for now. How evil/dysfunctional that system becomes as it becomes more desperate will have to be seen in time.
Human societies are definitely slippery beasts and trying to plan the details out based on rarified principles, then trying to force groups of humans to stick to them, is a recipe for disaster (especially at larger group sizes). But hopefully you can see the potential of a meta-structure of a patchwork of small groups in time and space, set up to test variations and pass on useful discoveries to the next iterations. I didn't want to delve into it, but I suspect this kind of culture would be embraced by a struggling techno-authoritarian government if it encourages the masses to be less restless. This has parallels with how the failing Roman Empire embraced Christianity as a tool for social control. Eventually the structures of the Empire rotted away and all that was left was the Church to hold things together through the dark ages. I suspect a similar dynamic could play out again.
Like it or not, the bulk of the westernised population is heavily urbanised, and they will experience ratcheting economic and cultural pressure in the coming generations. Simply fleeing to the rural zones is not a viable option for most. But they can do useful social experimentation in the cities since they have the population density and incentives to try new experiments.
And I agree that AI is a temporary tool at best. Any culture needs to use its immense power for transformation, but design systems which can function without it in the long run. The same applies to the techno-authoritarian governments, though they are more likely to be blindsided by economic simplification.
Clans work for sure, and they will become the default if nothing else emerges. Times of great upheaval pretty regularly birth new forms (homogeneous book based mass religion was a revolution compared to previous traditions for example). I doubt the end of the Industrial Revolution will be an exception.
I agree with your post. Also, what was missing from the hopeful body of this essay may be a looming pitfall of techno-authoritarian rule, its potential subversion by external enemies. It was suggested that this new system would be self-correcting to some degree, but an awareness of this sort of malign subversion would be required.
Lots of issues with rainbow, but has done a lot of groundwork for exploring an operating system for an open alternative society, much learned through struggle and conflicts.
Sounds somewhat terrifying and dystopian with the AI monitoring, also quite shallow from a depth of human relationship pov (basically a refinement on the current model where your apartment block or suburb is your ‘pod’.) Still, neat to see people giving thought to this kind of stuff, and the world could definitely use alternative thinkers.
I also think the whole concept of “high trust societies” is a bit of a misnomer. It usually seems to be used as a dog whistle by far right people to refer to immigration and diversity, though I know that’s not how you mean it.
But the entire concept falls apart when you think about it - for one, those clan-based familial kinship systems are “high trust” by definition, right? And this AI system is a high tech distant replacement for human trust and social bonds and reputations?
For two, if you actually examine the societies where the concept is applied, they are usually not at all culturally homogenous like is implied. Most of northeastern Europe was still home to many diverse cultures within various states, such as the Welsh and Scots-Irish within Britain, or in France where it was not uncommon to have villages that entirely spoke German or English. Most states were not powerful or widespread enough to absorb all cultures within their boundaries into themselves even if on paper they were all part of the same society.
For three, tailing off my last point, “high trust” usually just means “powerful centralized state control”. The state becomes the intermediary in relationships rather than familial or kinship bonds, and it breaks groups down into isolated individuals for greater control and exploitation. And again, the dog whistle is that it means racially homogenous, but this doesn’t match the reality. The Roman Empire was very ethnically diverse but ‘high-trust’, the Balkans for example (or any other part of Europe with poor state control like Scotland and Ireland for most of their history under British rule) would be ‘low-trust’ despite being racially homogenous in our modern conception.
Anyway, rant over, sorry about that. But all this to say, what is this model replacing that the kinship clan system doesn’t do better, let alone that it’s innate and we’re hardwired to prefer it? You just said it would be a “step back for humanity” without really substantiating it. To me it seems simple enough to say modern society is isolating and alienating to make us better consumers and I can’t wait to get back to the clan based ‘actual human connections, social bonds, and real relationships’ thing, rather than see this as progress or some sort of ideal to hold on to.
While I like speculation about and experimentation with the possibilities of human societies, I have no desire to go toward replacing human bonds with digital surveillance. Beyond my personal distaste, it also sounds like it would be likely to set up a fragile social structure that would collapse if the technology failed. We've already made society more fragile in so many ways with our technological dependencies, I'd hate to see it go that much further.
I do make use of digital technology as I am right now, but I like to do it on my own terms and spend plenty of time not connected to it. My general well being is significantly better when I'm "unplugged" for a good chunk of the time, particularly while at rest. I minimize electronics near me while sleeping and it makes quite a difference in the quality of my sleep.
On the subject of different cultures, I'm not sure if I'd say western culture is inherently more non-conformist than any others,. Maybe in certain ways but not all. I understand there are some quite conformist cultures out there, I've heard that about East Asian cultures pretty consistently, but I don't think that can be generalized about the whole world.
I was recently in Belize for a few weeks, which was my first venture outside the USA other than one brief trip to Canada a number of years back. While there's only so much I can know about a place that's so different from home from being there just a few weeks, I can say it's quite a diverse country despite it's small size, and there does seem to be a general "live and let live" attitude. It's more chaotic in many ways, just obeerving the flow of traffic on the roads makes that clear. Belize has it's share of issues like anywhere, but I didn't get the impression of a highly conformist society at all.
Meanwhile I recently heard a story about a village in Switzerland where there was huge drama because someone painted their house a slightly different color than the rest of the houses. I've never been to Europe but have heard a number of stories from people with experience there that there is is a high level of conformity expected, particularly in northern Europe where you state is more W.E.I.R.D. I know the E.U. is infamous for how much of life is controlled by beaurocracy. Sepp Holzer, the Austrian permaculturalist, writes a lot about all his struggles with the authorities for example. If I understand right, it's illegal to sell seeds in the EU that aren't on a list of officially authorized varieties.
I've heard that many Europeans looking to live more alternative lifestyles end up going to southern Europe, to places like Spain and Portugal, because they're less uptight about conformity than further north. So although my personal experience is limited, I don't necessarily see the trends you've indicated.
Shane! That's an excellent essay. I particularly enjoyed the IRL example, having lived the primitive un- wired version of that. And I would return. Still writing, learning, and hoping my USA doesn't completely devolve into madness. Your latest podcast with the fellow from Edible Acres was equally as inspiring.
Some interesting ideas here. I have touched on some of them myself in my discussions about the structure of state-level society. It is very difficult for humans to keep up a rational course of action. Bill Rees has addressed the maladaptive aspect of this in a shallow sense. Boyd and Richerson give a deeper dive. My own perspective is to see what happens as states fail. So far it is organic social devolution to less complex levels. First stop in decline is authoritarianism - the chiefdom. Power is shared based on rank - i.e. proximity to the ruler. In order to get to the less complex tribal level, dieoff must occur. Our job is to learn and practice ways to capture and use power at the local level so we can utilize it properly when it lands in our laps. First step is to get out of the urban environment. If you cannot do that, all your power-sharing arrangements are heavily suppressed. And forget AI. A collapse of the electrical grid renders it moot. Finally, consider that clans are a good thing. They are the next step downwards after authoritarinism.
Appreciate the thoughtful comment. IMO the first stop for the west will be techno-authoritarianism, which to be honest is already here but mostly invisible for now. How evil/dysfunctional that system becomes as it becomes more desperate will have to be seen in time.
Human societies are definitely slippery beasts and trying to plan the details out based on rarified principles, then trying to force groups of humans to stick to them, is a recipe for disaster (especially at larger group sizes). But hopefully you can see the potential of a meta-structure of a patchwork of small groups in time and space, set up to test variations and pass on useful discoveries to the next iterations. I didn't want to delve into it, but I suspect this kind of culture would be embraced by a struggling techno-authoritarian government if it encourages the masses to be less restless. This has parallels with how the failing Roman Empire embraced Christianity as a tool for social control. Eventually the structures of the Empire rotted away and all that was left was the Church to hold things together through the dark ages. I suspect a similar dynamic could play out again.
Like it or not, the bulk of the westernised population is heavily urbanised, and they will experience ratcheting economic and cultural pressure in the coming generations. Simply fleeing to the rural zones is not a viable option for most. But they can do useful social experimentation in the cities since they have the population density and incentives to try new experiments.
And I agree that AI is a temporary tool at best. Any culture needs to use its immense power for transformation, but design systems which can function without it in the long run. The same applies to the techno-authoritarian governments, though they are more likely to be blindsided by economic simplification.
Clans work for sure, and they will become the default if nothing else emerges. Times of great upheaval pretty regularly birth new forms (homogeneous book based mass religion was a revolution compared to previous traditions for example). I doubt the end of the Industrial Revolution will be an exception.
I agree with your post. Also, what was missing from the hopeful body of this essay may be a looming pitfall of techno-authoritarian rule, its potential subversion by external enemies. It was suggested that this new system would be self-correcting to some degree, but an awareness of this sort of malign subversion would be required.
Written core operating manuals remind me of rainbow raps from rainbowland, sometimes written on banners and displayed at gatherings.
https://www.bliss-fire.com/RainbowGuideOnLine.php?fbclid=IwY2xjawQdqqJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeb2_J7Rcsga2EkJMVb4oHGkmf-vjTWZvC7oGfg78TyL9LwfDWX2eRnFLk8S8_aem_p8ttu8Tmli38fBf1RhjFJQ
Lots of issues with rainbow, but has done a lot of groundwork for exploring an operating system for an open alternative society, much learned through struggle and conflicts.
Sounds somewhat terrifying and dystopian with the AI monitoring, also quite shallow from a depth of human relationship pov (basically a refinement on the current model where your apartment block or suburb is your ‘pod’.) Still, neat to see people giving thought to this kind of stuff, and the world could definitely use alternative thinkers.
I also think the whole concept of “high trust societies” is a bit of a misnomer. It usually seems to be used as a dog whistle by far right people to refer to immigration and diversity, though I know that’s not how you mean it.
But the entire concept falls apart when you think about it - for one, those clan-based familial kinship systems are “high trust” by definition, right? And this AI system is a high tech distant replacement for human trust and social bonds and reputations?
For two, if you actually examine the societies where the concept is applied, they are usually not at all culturally homogenous like is implied. Most of northeastern Europe was still home to many diverse cultures within various states, such as the Welsh and Scots-Irish within Britain, or in France where it was not uncommon to have villages that entirely spoke German or English. Most states were not powerful or widespread enough to absorb all cultures within their boundaries into themselves even if on paper they were all part of the same society.
For three, tailing off my last point, “high trust” usually just means “powerful centralized state control”. The state becomes the intermediary in relationships rather than familial or kinship bonds, and it breaks groups down into isolated individuals for greater control and exploitation. And again, the dog whistle is that it means racially homogenous, but this doesn’t match the reality. The Roman Empire was very ethnically diverse but ‘high-trust’, the Balkans for example (or any other part of Europe with poor state control like Scotland and Ireland for most of their history under British rule) would be ‘low-trust’ despite being racially homogenous in our modern conception.
Anyway, rant over, sorry about that. But all this to say, what is this model replacing that the kinship clan system doesn’t do better, let alone that it’s innate and we’re hardwired to prefer it? You just said it would be a “step back for humanity” without really substantiating it. To me it seems simple enough to say modern society is isolating and alienating to make us better consumers and I can’t wait to get back to the clan based ‘actual human connections, social bonds, and real relationships’ thing, rather than see this as progress or some sort of ideal to hold on to.
While I like speculation about and experimentation with the possibilities of human societies, I have no desire to go toward replacing human bonds with digital surveillance. Beyond my personal distaste, it also sounds like it would be likely to set up a fragile social structure that would collapse if the technology failed. We've already made society more fragile in so many ways with our technological dependencies, I'd hate to see it go that much further.
I do make use of digital technology as I am right now, but I like to do it on my own terms and spend plenty of time not connected to it. My general well being is significantly better when I'm "unplugged" for a good chunk of the time, particularly while at rest. I minimize electronics near me while sleeping and it makes quite a difference in the quality of my sleep.
On the subject of different cultures, I'm not sure if I'd say western culture is inherently more non-conformist than any others,. Maybe in certain ways but not all. I understand there are some quite conformist cultures out there, I've heard that about East Asian cultures pretty consistently, but I don't think that can be generalized about the whole world.
I was recently in Belize for a few weeks, which was my first venture outside the USA other than one brief trip to Canada a number of years back. While there's only so much I can know about a place that's so different from home from being there just a few weeks, I can say it's quite a diverse country despite it's small size, and there does seem to be a general "live and let live" attitude. It's more chaotic in many ways, just obeerving the flow of traffic on the roads makes that clear. Belize has it's share of issues like anywhere, but I didn't get the impression of a highly conformist society at all.
Meanwhile I recently heard a story about a village in Switzerland where there was huge drama because someone painted their house a slightly different color than the rest of the houses. I've never been to Europe but have heard a number of stories from people with experience there that there is is a high level of conformity expected, particularly in northern Europe where you state is more W.E.I.R.D. I know the E.U. is infamous for how much of life is controlled by beaurocracy. Sepp Holzer, the Austrian permaculturalist, writes a lot about all his struggles with the authorities for example. If I understand right, it's illegal to sell seeds in the EU that aren't on a list of officially authorized varieties.
I've heard that many Europeans looking to live more alternative lifestyles end up going to southern Europe, to places like Spain and Portugal, because they're less uptight about conformity than further north. So although my personal experience is limited, I don't necessarily see the trends you've indicated.
Shane! That's an excellent essay. I particularly enjoyed the IRL example, having lived the primitive un- wired version of that. And I would return. Still writing, learning, and hoping my USA doesn't completely devolve into madness. Your latest podcast with the fellow from Edible Acres was equally as inspiring.