Thanks for the counter-points. I believe your argument is in some way a version of "but just like the A-bomb example, we already have mechanisms in place that c

Thanks for the counter-points. I believe your argument is in some way a version of "but just like the A-bomb example, we already have mechanisms in place that can help deal with this" This is true. Note that the A-bomb situation may very well still spiral out of control over the next 20-40 years. Too often we get lost in arguing immediate benefits or drawbacks and lose the plot on the bigger picture. Suffice it to say that I don't understand how these local group dynamics will do anything except exacerbate the state's interest in controlling what the population knows and thinks. I imagine "good" effects, like promoting altruism, will be encouraged. "Bad" effects, like pointing out gaping problems with civil liberties and calling for massive peaceful political change, will be stifled. Also note that traditional ideas of small groups have them all being in the same geographical place. This is no longer true, and this alone might have greater ramifications than any of the other technological changes do. We could very well see (medium-term) a re-introduction of the clan and lots of associated desultory and internecine warfare. Or just general chaos and instability. Beats me, I'm just an internet commenter. You should know what kind of track record we have :)