I like Stross' essays, but I think this one is slightly off the mark. Sure, everything he says makes sense, more or less, but we also have to ask whether this c

I like Stross' essays, but I think this one is slightly off the mark. Sure, everything he says makes sense, more or less, but we also have to ask whether this convergence happens for a reason other than the simple one he outlines. After all, we can see examples of convergent evolution is a huge variety of fields - biological evolution, product design, scientific theories etc. If independent groups/individuals set out to achieve some aim, oftentimes their answers will turn out very similar to each other. And there's nothing that says "The People" have to find some particular solution intuitively appealing. In this case, he says alternatives aren't presented as choices, but is that because of the mechanism he outlines, or because those choices aren't really choices and were whittled out for very good reasons? I actually think anti-vaccine thought can be very helpful in explaining way more than the anti-vax movemement. At its core it represents a set of people raised in a safe, secure environment without the living memory or first-hand experience of a problem. Only logical, rational, book-memory remains, as well as the "rituals". But this sort of memory is weak, unintuitive and requires a certain mindset and education. So opponents start to question whether this thing is even real, they employ stronger, emotional arguments, they appear as "outsiders" demanding "choices" etc. So how much of this is the Iron Law of Oligarchy and how much is the Anti-vax mindset spreading to the political realm?