4 ms·
> if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? I have a pet theory that is slowly becoming a personal religion of sorts. (Disclaimer: only accredi
by patcon 10y ago
> if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it?
I have a pet theory that is slowly becoming a personal religion of sorts. (Disclaimer: only accreditations are a biochem degree over a decade ago, and this armchair.) It involves a belief that at each level of organization -- atomic, cellular, organismal, societal (which in itself has something of an interesting fractalness) structures try to arrange themselves such that they have "access to the maximum possible future opportunity space"[1][2]. When each structure at every level is operating in such a way, structures tend toward centralization as some parts of the whole become more powerful, and the whole at the next higher level of organization becomes more effective. And so we tend to create hierarchy and oppress our fellow man, for the same reason that our brain cell oppresses and rends subordinate the skin cell of the finger. And so oppression is systemic, almost a law of nature. Decentralization and equality is not what the universe tends toward.
But we can perhaps be clever, and create the society we want and value. It would be a rare organism, in many ways crippled, like a slime-mold among eukaryotes.
So if perhaps centralization and growth (ie control of largest possible future opportunity space) is expected as a physical law of sorts, then the trick would be to create a niche that preserves our value system -- we'd need to engage in systems design that allowed our society to exist is a "test harness", where we get to /feel/ like we're fulfilling desires for these things, but are somehow prevented from engaging in the behaviour that we have subjectively decided (at a societal level) will lead to bad outcomes. I dunno, just riffing here ;)
[1]: https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_for_intelligence https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_...
[2]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170126-information-theory-and-the-foundation-of-life/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170126-information-theory-a...
- Retric 10y agoFrom a resource perspective nerve cells don't really consume all that much of the body's resources. More than fat cells but less than active muscle tissue. It's really cancer that's the major risk.
- aaron-lebo 10y agoSociety and structures do tend towards centralization (at least on a local or short-term scale, not a physics guy, but entropy seems to say something over time). Concepts like path-dependency seem to have an explanation for this, but they also stand in contrast to "access to the maximum possible future opportunity space". Many structures are clearly sub-optimal; organizations often crystallize in ways that maximize nothing at all but short-term laziness. They centralize by choosing paths that are convenient, not necessarily those that offer the most opportunity.
- pacificleo11 10y agoInteresting hypothesis . As far as maximization of opportunity space is concerned its not very different from selfish gene theory suggested by Dawkins . But I guess you are wrong about need to centralized being inbuilt in nature . You are confusing unification / alignment with centralization . If you look outside of any abstraction level ( molecular ,cellular ,organismal ) its hard to tell if the underlying harmony is attained by centralization or coordination of independent autonomous entities. thats why a lot of well meaning people tilt toward the intelligent design and can’t bring themselves to believe that Evolution was self organized .