Nature has already figured out the solution to managing increasing complexity. Both multicellular organisms and brains do this. They form a new level of organization once the costs of managing complexity exceed the benefits due to synergy. Now, instead of having to deal with all the sub-parts, the new level only deals with parts. The sub-parts are hidden behind a level of abstraction (a membrane in a MCO and something else which we don't yet understand in a brain) and there is some subsidiarity at play, where the higher level lets its parts have autonomy over their sub-parts and does not micromanage the sub-parts. Successful companies within capitalism do this too, but there are issues with capitalism itself also destroying small companies in favor of large ones, and other intermediate levels between our individual brain modules and a nation-state (i.e. it destroys/outcompetes integrated individuals, families, tribes, villages and federations of tribes and villages). Molloch is a problem of insufficient intermediate levels from this perspective, and the solution is re-instatement of these levels.
Apologies, I neither saw you disagreeing with anything I wrote, nor asking a question, so I assumed you merely wanted to provide another perspective or an additional consideration, which I acknowledged.
I would say that nature has figured out *a*, and not *the* solution. Escaping Molloch requires reinstating these levels, as well as new coordination structures between levels, across the board shifts in ideology and how we evaluate our actions, what abilities and virtues we cultivate, and more. As opposed to cells we are immersed in language and culture, contexts that, I believe, require more than the solutions biology have arrived at.
Thanks for your reply. OK, so maybe the solution that nature figured out is inappropriate for us, because we are so special somehow, maybe because of language and culture? How do language and culture interfere with the principles of abstraction (with each new level, resetting the marginal costs of coordinating more parts, to zero, while keeping the benefits of synergy) and subsidiarity (allowing the lower levels to maintain some agency)?
For some additional explication so I better understand what you are asking, what does “with each new level, resetting the marginal costs of coordinating more parts, to zero, while keeping the benefits of synergy“ in practice mean for e.g. a family or a local community as part of a larger society?
Thanks again for engaging and asking for clarification. This resetting happens at each level, so yes, a family, a local community bound by agreements and inter-dependencies, etc. The family does not need to manage the coordination of individual sub-personalities (some say brain modules, but they seem to have agency, even in healthy individuals). So instead of dealing with interactions between sub-personalities, it only has to deal with interactions between individuals. Since the number of interactions goes like (n-1) n/2, reducing n to just the number of individuals is essentially reducing the number of interactions (and the marginal cost of coordination, assuming the cost per interaction is roughly constant) to 1 interaction if n is reset to 2, and then it starts increasing again as n increases.
Similarly, when you have a community that is functional (i.e. nested according to these principles), it doesn't need to coordinate the individuals in all the families. It only needs to coordinate the families, or representatives of the families. And this can be extended upwards to higher levels, though humans have rarely done it. It is easier to see how it's done going to lower levels (like organs, cells and organelles).
Thank you for clarifying your meaning. To me, this seems to say that the principles of abstraction and subsidiarity would be implemented by how varying levels of human organization relate and communicate. How humans relate is in part culture, and how humans communicate is in part language. The nature of the coordination between sub-units is thus as I see it dependent on both.
Great breakdown Severin. I write a newsletter on the Metacrisis too and what you share aligns with most of my thinking. What pathways do you see out of the multipolar traps? I am on the hunt for a playbook for change!
Thank you Akhil! Happy to see that my analysis resonates. I spent the last six months trying to wrap my head around many of the various approaches out there, and one common denominator I find in what I consider to be meaningful approaches is the cultivation of wisdom. My most recent post touches upon this, if you want to read a bit about what I'm thinking: https://tmfow.substack.com/p/the-wisdom-initiative
What are some of your thoughts around pathways?
I will check out your own writing (I'm assuming "Metacrisis: the root of all our planetary crises" is a good starting point), and thank you for getting in touch
Hi Severin. Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond. I just finished reading the post on wisdom. I agree that cultivation of wisdom so we can recognize our interdependence and think holistically and long term will help. I was hoping there would be some way to align incentives even without that though- because I am not sure how we can cultivate it at scales required in time. Perhaps a combination of media, wisdom schools and psychedelic therapy?
I’m not confident that humanity at scale will make it either, but the local, the communities that do cultivate wisdom and resilience, have a better chance. And then from them one can hope that new large-scale organizations arise that are in alignment. Imagining that the present global community can be ‘turned’ to some wise and resilient version of itself, whether top-down or bottom-up, I hold little to no confidence in. What do you think?
Nature has already figured out the solution to managing increasing complexity. Both multicellular organisms and brains do this. They form a new level of organization once the costs of managing complexity exceed the benefits due to synergy. Now, instead of having to deal with all the sub-parts, the new level only deals with parts. The sub-parts are hidden behind a level of abstraction (a membrane in a MCO and something else which we don't yet understand in a brain) and there is some subsidiarity at play, where the higher level lets its parts have autonomy over their sub-parts and does not micromanage the sub-parts. Successful companies within capitalism do this too, but there are issues with capitalism itself also destroying small companies in favor of large ones, and other intermediate levels between our individual brain modules and a nation-state (i.e. it destroys/outcompetes integrated individuals, families, tribes, villages and federations of tribes and villages). Molloch is a problem of insufficient intermediate levels from this perspective, and the solution is re-instatement of these levels.
I was hoping for a good faith conversation, not a "like". Please?
Apologies, I neither saw you disagreeing with anything I wrote, nor asking a question, so I assumed you merely wanted to provide another perspective or an additional consideration, which I acknowledged.
I would say that nature has figured out *a*, and not *the* solution. Escaping Molloch requires reinstating these levels, as well as new coordination structures between levels, across the board shifts in ideology and how we evaluate our actions, what abilities and virtues we cultivate, and more. As opposed to cells we are immersed in language and culture, contexts that, I believe, require more than the solutions biology have arrived at.
Thanks for your reply. OK, so maybe the solution that nature figured out is inappropriate for us, because we are so special somehow, maybe because of language and culture? How do language and culture interfere with the principles of abstraction (with each new level, resetting the marginal costs of coordinating more parts, to zero, while keeping the benefits of synergy) and subsidiarity (allowing the lower levels to maintain some agency)?
For some additional explication so I better understand what you are asking, what does “with each new level, resetting the marginal costs of coordinating more parts, to zero, while keeping the benefits of synergy“ in practice mean for e.g. a family or a local community as part of a larger society?
Thanks again for engaging and asking for clarification. This resetting happens at each level, so yes, a family, a local community bound by agreements and inter-dependencies, etc. The family does not need to manage the coordination of individual sub-personalities (some say brain modules, but they seem to have agency, even in healthy individuals). So instead of dealing with interactions between sub-personalities, it only has to deal with interactions between individuals. Since the number of interactions goes like (n-1) n/2, reducing n to just the number of individuals is essentially reducing the number of interactions (and the marginal cost of coordination, assuming the cost per interaction is roughly constant) to 1 interaction if n is reset to 2, and then it starts increasing again as n increases.
Similarly, when you have a community that is functional (i.e. nested according to these principles), it doesn't need to coordinate the individuals in all the families. It only needs to coordinate the families, or representatives of the families. And this can be extended upwards to higher levels, though humans have rarely done it. It is easier to see how it's done going to lower levels (like organs, cells and organelles).
Thank you for clarifying your meaning. To me, this seems to say that the principles of abstraction and subsidiarity would be implemented by how varying levels of human organization relate and communicate. How humans relate is in part culture, and how humans communicate is in part language. The nature of the coordination between sub-units is thus as I see it dependent on both.
Great breakdown Severin. I write a newsletter on the Metacrisis too and what you share aligns with most of my thinking. What pathways do you see out of the multipolar traps? I am on the hunt for a playbook for change!
Thank you Akhil! Happy to see that my analysis resonates. I spent the last six months trying to wrap my head around many of the various approaches out there, and one common denominator I find in what I consider to be meaningful approaches is the cultivation of wisdom. My most recent post touches upon this, if you want to read a bit about what I'm thinking: https://tmfow.substack.com/p/the-wisdom-initiative
What are some of your thoughts around pathways?
I will check out your own writing (I'm assuming "Metacrisis: the root of all our planetary crises" is a good starting point), and thank you for getting in touch
Oh and yes- that piece of mine is the right one to begin with
Hi Severin. Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond. I just finished reading the post on wisdom. I agree that cultivation of wisdom so we can recognize our interdependence and think holistically and long term will help. I was hoping there would be some way to align incentives even without that though- because I am not sure how we can cultivate it at scales required in time. Perhaps a combination of media, wisdom schools and psychedelic therapy?
I can't think of any other way than wisdom :-/
I’m not confident that humanity at scale will make it either, but the local, the communities that do cultivate wisdom and resilience, have a better chance. And then from them one can hope that new large-scale organizations arise that are in alignment. Imagining that the present global community can be ‘turned’ to some wise and resilient version of itself, whether top-down or bottom-up, I hold little to no confidence in. What do you think?
Yeah, I agree. Not without some degree of collapse at least :-/
Going meta on the Metacrisis: https://tempo.substack.com/p/metacrisis-what-metacrisis