5 ms·

Taking this more meta, and possibly utopian... Collective action, or rather, any effective form of organisation is (arguably) the limiting factor on human prog

by netcan 5y ago

Taking this more meta, and possibly utopian... Collective action, or rather, any effective form of organisation is (arguably) the limiting factor on human progress. Corporation, country, tribe, union... all forms of organisation. These are all very different, have very different strengths, weaknesses and abilities. Tribal chiefs are not very likely to be effective at the same things, in the same way as a CEO or a prime minister. Linux, GNU, WWW, Wikipedia and such are another form. Rare, relatively. But novel and productive. What these organisations produced is again, qualitatively different from what commercial entities produce. There's a medium-message dynamic between form and product. A lot of things are clearly doable, but our forms of organisation don't produce them. We're basically limited to the things that are forms of organisation can produce. Organisational methods are a limiting factor to the same extent that resources, science and such are limiting factors. This starts (according to YNH) at the start of history, or rather, we might define "human history" as the point at which our methods of organisation develop past biological determinants. IE, chimps operate in troops. Gorillas in harems. Geladas in a complex herd structure. Modern humans are (again, according to YNH) the homo subspecies with the ability to switch. That said, we're not that good at it. For the most part, human cooperation of this epoch is defined by working tirelessly against each other in such a way that sometimes produces emergent benefits. Within ^In a literal sense.

notpachet 5y ago
> Modern humans are (again, according to YNH) the homo subspecies with the ability to switch. That said, we're not that good at it. Our species is very clearly lacking a crucial ingredient for our continued evolution: the ability to align our actions (and motivations, and rewards), on a societal scale. If we're still here in a hundred thousand years, I think the anthropologists of the future will look back to today as falling before some critical phase transition in the way our collective consciousness operates. Whether that's a hive mind, or some technological approach to consensus (which I'm almost loathe to say out loud given the Baby's First Computer approaches we're coming up with these days), or just us all waking up and realizing that we should be living life in service to one another, who knows. Our contemporary penchant for individualism, while producing many interesting emergent artifacts, is causing us to eat ourselves alive.
- netcan 5y ago
  >>lacking a crucial ingredient for our continued evolution: the ability to align our actions (and motivations, and rewards), on a societal scale. I don't think these are contradictory statements. Our society is both defined and limited by the quality of our "collective consciousness," ability to operate cooperatively and such. It's not zero, and it's not unlimited either. Personally, I don't see this as a purely ideological or philosophical limitation. Our ideologies and philosophies tend to trail culture, IMO, not the other way around. Neither do I think that individualism vs collectivism is a defining dichotomy. Both individualism and collectivism are, likely, inevitable. Also both individualism and (especially) collectivism compete within themselves as much as they do with each other. And yes, the ways that we cooperate are clunky, maybe immoral, and not really designed. Money is a cultural construct, for example, that creates cooperation. So is religion, tribalism, legal systems, etc. Is money a collectivist artefact? I think it's very hard to argue otherwise. Money is useless if you are alone, and requires a collective consciousness to even exist. Equality and collectivism aren't synonyms.
- pavas 5y ago
  If you truly believe in the concept of a collective consciousness, then would you not also be forced to conclude that there are others that have considered these questions as well, and possibly that they have answers for them? Just curious, do you believe there is some greater organism or what have you with the ability to integrate human consciousnesses (something like Gaia theory)? If so, what do you believe that organism/being (or whatever it is) would feel or think about what humans are doing now, acting in the world?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - notpachet 5y ago
    > do you believe there is some greater organism or what have you with the ability to integrate human consciousnesses Haven't seen any evidence for it.

by netcan 5y ago

notpachet 5y ago

> Modern humans are (again, according to YNH) the homo subspecies with the ability to switch. That said, we're not that good at it. Our species is very clearly lacking a crucial ingredient for our continued evolution: the ability to align our actions (and motivations, and rewards), on a societal scale. If we're still here in a hundred thousand years, I think the anthropologists of the future will look back to today as falling before some critical phase transition in the way our collective consciousness operates. Whether that's a hive mind, or some technological approach to consensus (which I'm almost loathe to say out loud given the Baby's First Computer approaches we're coming up with these days), or just us all waking up and realizing that we should be living life in service to one another, who knows. Our contemporary penchant for individualism, while producing many interesting emergent artifacts, is causing us to eat ourselves alive.

netcan 5y ago
>>lacking a crucial ingredient for our continued evolution: the ability to align our actions (and motivations, and rewards), on a societal scale. I don't think these are contradictory statements. Our society is both defined and limited by the quality of our "collective consciousness," ability to operate cooperatively and such. It's not zero, and it's not unlimited either. Personally, I don't see this as a purely ideological or philosophical limitation. Our ideologies and philosophies tend to trail culture, IMO, not the other way around. Neither do I think that individualism vs collectivism is a defining dichotomy. Both individualism and collectivism are, likely, inevitable. Also both individualism and (especially) collectivism compete within themselves as much as they do with each other. And yes, the ways that we cooperate are clunky, maybe immoral, and not really designed. Money is a cultural construct, for example, that creates cooperation. So is religion, tribalism, legal systems, etc. Is money a collectivist artefact? I think it's very hard to argue otherwise. Money is useless if you are alone, and requires a collective consciousness to even exist. Equality and collectivism aren't synonyms.
pavas 5y ago
If you truly believe in the concept of a collective consciousness, then would you not also be forced to conclude that there are others that have considered these questions as well, and possibly that they have answers for them? Just curious, do you believe there is some greater organism or what have you with the ability to integrate human consciousnesses (something like Gaia theory)? If so, what do you believe that organism/being (or whatever it is) would feel or think about what humans are doing now, acting in the world?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- notpachet 5y ago
  > do you believe there is some greater organism or what have you with the ability to integrate human consciousnesses Haven't seen any evidence for it.