2 ms·

Exactly this. We need to heavily (re)invest in processes, tools, ethics, technology that boost human social power and our ability to work together. There are

Exactly this. We need to heavily (re)invest in processes, tools, ethics, technology that boost human social power and our ability to work together. There are 8 billion people on the planet. So much potential.

SoftTalker 2y ago
Every attempt to organize people bureaucratically ends in failure or war. We don't seem to learn this lesson as we keep trying. No bureaucracy will ever care for individual goals, needs, desires as much as you will for yourself and your family. We need some rules of the road and limits. History also proves that. But it's a fools errand to think that we can organize 8 billion people to work together, other than within some fairly loose rules that prohibit undesirable extremes of behavior.
- si1entstill 2y ago
  I think both can be true. Most liberal western economies are highly individualistic in terms of form and law, but large firms naturally come into being and thrive. I guess one could argue that this isn't due to the need for "bureaucracy" but instead "labor" and that the bureaucracy is an unavoidable side-effect, but there is undeniably large-scale organization. Context seems like the most interesting thing to consider. I suspect the attitude and outlook of the individuals toward the organization is the key component (and their capacity to undermine the organization in some manner). All of this is to say that I don't believe organization is inherently against the human sentiment, it just needs to be seen as justified, sensible, and a net-positive to those involved.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    I would agree, a bureaucracy that one chooses to enter (employment) as a means to earn income is different from living under an all-controlling government that dictates most aspects of your life. Still, people in highly bureaucratic jobs tend to burn out and quit, or endure a certain level of misery.

SoftTalker 2y ago

Every attempt to organize people bureaucratically ends in failure or war. We don't seem to learn this lesson as we keep trying. No bureaucracy will ever care for individual goals, needs, desires as much as you will for yourself and your family. We need some rules of the road and limits. History also proves that. But it's a fools errand to think that we can organize 8 billion people to work together, other than within some fairly loose rules that prohibit undesirable extremes of behavior.

si1entstill 2y ago
I think both can be true. Most liberal western economies are highly individualistic in terms of form and law, but large firms naturally come into being and thrive. I guess one could argue that this isn't due to the need for "bureaucracy" but instead "labor" and that the bureaucracy is an unavoidable side-effect, but there is undeniably large-scale organization. Context seems like the most interesting thing to consider. I suspect the attitude and outlook of the individuals toward the organization is the key component (and their capacity to undermine the organization in some manner). All of this is to say that I don't believe organization is inherently against the human sentiment, it just needs to be seen as justified, sensible, and a net-positive to those involved.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  I would agree, a bureaucracy that one chooses to enter (employment) as a means to earn income is different from living under an all-controlling government that dictates most aspects of your life. Still, people in highly bureaucratic jobs tend to burn out and quit, or endure a certain level of misery.