EHNIX: Evolving a Grass-Roots Fractal Syndicalistic Holarchy under Subsidiaty

[Kai]

Kai - it was never my intention to start a scientific discussion. Frankly - this clusterfuck on my part is the product of an isolated summer and lack of familiarity with the forum. I should have made the OP short and clear and there was actually no need for the evolutionary stuff. I was just following my line of thought, but I just realize how cruel it is to subject other people that mess. My sincere apologies.

It's not that it's cruel. It's that it's obtuse.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That's a great question, Kai, and my hypothesis is that it's because we need to RECKANIZE HIS GENIUS.

Because seriously, bringing a specialized scientific topic to a non-science forum and then shitting on everyone because there aren't any other theoretical biologist PhD candidates here... is it just me, or is that a tad bit irrational and also kind of a dick move? Sorry we aren't all brilliant and specialized in your field of interest, guy.

I mean, I find it mildly disappointing that You People don't really want to spend endless hours discussing the neurobiology of disease. Therefore I won't ever attempt to do anything productive on this forum ever again.

I AM SO OFFENDED THAT YOU WANT TO TALK SO MUCH ABOUT THINGS I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AND THEN DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. 

I am currently reading Robert Sapolsky, who I have the biggest science crush on, and will find a related article presently and post it in a new thread. WARNING: I WILL PROBABLY GUSH EMBARRASSINGLY BECAUSE I LOVE HIM SO SO SO MUCH.

It will undoubtedly be interesting because you're /practiced at communicating/.

Aw.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Posted this elsewhere, but it's highly relevant to the discussion in this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

[LMNO]

Your new screename:

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Your new screename:

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I have started reading Steven Jay Gould recently, and he had an interesting perspective on the history and status of Evolutionary Theory. He wrote in his 2002 book the Structure of Evolutionary Theory the following from page 32 (emphasis mine):

As the most striking general contrast that might be illuminated by reference to the different Zeitgeists of Darwin's time and our own, modern revisions for each essential postulate of Darwinian logic substitute mechanics based on interaction for Darwin's single locus of causality and directional flow of effects. Thus, for Darwin's near exclusivity of organismic selection, we now propose a hierarchical theory with selection acting simultaneously on a rising set of levels, each characterized by distinctive, but equally well-defined, Darwinian individuals within a genealogical hierarchy of gene, cell-lineage, organism, deme, species, and clade. The results of evolution then emerge from complex, but eminently knowable, interactions among these potent levels, and do not simply flow out and up from a unique causal locus of organismal selection.

This Holarchic vision of genetic evolution has its parallel in Sociocultural Evolution; the histories of Biology and Economics seem to be eternally intertwined, and Hayek held his support for Group Selection in Sociocultural Evolution. I was googling and found this  paper by Todd J. Zywicki: "Was Hayek Right About Group Selection After All?" Review Essay of Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior by Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson. The Abstract reads:

One of the most controversial aspects of Hayek's social theory was his acceptance of the concept of cultural group selection. The publication of Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior provides an opportunity to revisit this much-maligned component of Hayek's thought. Sober and Wilson are concerned with biological group selection, but much of their argument is equally applicable to cultural group selection. This essay revisits Hayek's views on cultural group selection in light of the model proposed by Sober and Wilson. Comparing their model to Hayek's model suggests that group selection theories are more plausible than traditionally thought and that their viability in any given situation is an empirical, not an a priori, question. So long as there are benefits to a group from greater levels of altruism and cooperation, and so long as free rider problems can be mitigated, group selection models are plausible.

Now - while I do believe that such hierarchical selection plays a significant role on sociocultural evolution, I will allow that we must still collect a lot of empirical evidence to elaborate on the details. But we do not need to know these details, in order to implement them! The following proposal I will call for now EHNIX: the Erisian Holistic Network for Intersubjective Exchange. The structure would consists of units we will call Syndicates - of the order of magnitude of 5-500 people or so. People join by free association and decide their own organizational structure, determining they own actions and goals freely. But what if these in turn established a network and allow them to evolve? But suppose they consider some or all of the following strategies:

• Free determination and Subsidiarity: The Syndicates collects Resources, Tools, People and Skills suiting the Goals it chooses for itself, and decides on the appropriate actions. Free association and a spirit of subsidiarity would encourage regulatory structures decentralized as much as possible.
• Organizational Holarchy: Syndicates might forge Unions, Guilds and Schools with other Syndicates, to cooperate in many ways. These in turn might be combined to form even higher level coops.
• Third Party Contractual Enforcement and Skin in the Game: a trustworthy and impartial third party should be employed to handle contractual disputes between parties on any level of the hierarchy. The appropriate choice depends on context of course. This will provide an ad hoc anarchic judicial network to help maintain cooperation and this group selection. Skin in the Game means every individual and syndicate is responsible for the risks and chances they take, and those responsible should bear the consequences (whether positive or negative).
• Replication by Crowdfunding: If the Syndicate or Union has Resources to spare, it can consider micro or macro investments in other Syndicates in the network - with or without interest.
• Innovation: Using Bimodal Strategies the Syndicates might combine the bread-and-butter work with some R&D trial and error tinkering. 
• Imitation: Syndicates keep a communication network to culture is continuously exchanged - Syndicates might adopt each others Ideas, Skills, Tools and Traditions.
• Critical and Natural Selection: by the pressures of Ecological and Economic competition, and by the democratic consensus within Syndicates, the traits better promoting the interests of a syndicate would spread.
• Internal Currencies, Trade and Specialization: by use of internal currencies, different syndicates or unions could encourage trade between their members, and localize capital. Specialization will allow for a great diversity in the abilities and products of the network.
• Emergency Funds and Resources - Frugality and Redundancy: Taxes could be voluntarily agreed upon, and a the funds can be used to create an Emergency Funds and Resources. Budget will never be allowed to go into deficit, and over-leveraging will be avoiding. The extra resources be used to help accommodate individuals in distress and take advantage of opportunities but will not bail out failed projects unless there was no other choice, and will certainly ensure those responsible pay a price.
• Antifragile Heuristics, Evolving Evolvability and the Bar Bell: The above Heuristics are intended to make the evolving structure Adaptive, Antifragile - to minimize exposure to negative Black Swans and maximize exposure to Positive Black Swans. A Bimodal Strategy is implemented, maintaining redundant critical resources as well and tools while tinkering with experiments on all levels. This is intended to keep Options diverse and Evolvability high. Sometimes what begins as a joke might end up a serious project - and this strategy aims to permit little things to grow while keeping a safety net for people.
  

I am quite convinced that some variant of the sketch propounded here - when implemented with enough people and resources - could be is sufficient to at least reaching a level of economic and technologic autonomy sufficient for the basic sustenance, safety and shelter (as history has proven). But I also think we could reproduce many other products of modernity in this way as well - producing critical supplies like antibiotics and basic electronic and mechanical tools on our own. Probably in many ways it might be able to them better, if tuned right. I am also convinced that the growth of such a network is feasible and sustainable in the current climate and civilization. Not only that - if successful it could survive many disasters which other current social structures are fragile to. Thus - this Network might hide in the Shadows of current Nation State Paradigm - waiting for its collapse prepared.

Personally I hope to find people with whom to implement such ideas, specifically a Permaculture / Hunting / Fishing based Syndicate operating in Central Europe, that dabbles in Nonsense, Scientific Research, Artistic Articulation, Philosophical Inquiry and Cunning Craft - a plan I codenamed Project Hydra. The wiki this article is on is called Fluxcraft and I opened it with the intent of discussing ideas in this direction, as well as others.

Open Questions:

• Does this seem feasible?
• Does anybody know any existing projects in this direction?
• What kind of problems would you foresee?
• Which heuristics, strategies and concepts would you add or remove from this list?
• Anybody interested in helping me develop this concept farther in a serious way, even trying to implement it eventually?

Is it accurate to classify this as a utopian arcology (or at least, arcology-as-social-experiment)?

There are a shitload of arcology projects. Most of them had a social aspect (some founded upon the intellectual children of the Situationist movement's Unitary Urbanism, seemingly, and others upon more mainstream urban planning fandoms). Some of the arcologies have actually been completed, at least in terms of the architecture and plants and some animals, but I don't think any of them have gotten enough humans to join. That seems to be the big issue.

There's a lot of existing literature both on arcologies and on utopian communes. Some of the arcology literature gives fairly specific technical advice for things like sustainable passive air heating and cooling, the use of hydroponics and aeroponics, and how to build large underground structures out of concrete without having them leak endlessly. Most of the utopian stuff is a history of failure, and that's pretty valuable because most people make the same mistakes. The wikipedia page on arcologies has links to just about every related subject, and if you feel like getting lost for a few weeks reading about similar projects this would be the place to begin.

I don't really have the evolutionary-biology background to analyze your thought process leading to the heuristics. I suspect that different audiences will need different metaphors and different presentations (and probably the best presentation for most of the people on this forum would be some kind of foul-mouthed rant -- it gives off the appropriate alpha cues to circumvent at least some of the power politics stuff here, since one of the memeplexes here seems to be the idea that subtlety is duplicitous and cautious wording a sign of weakness; a lot of other groups react to overly carefully constructed academic-style writing the same way, so it's probably sensible to reword it as a rant anyhow).

My one suggestion would probably be to avoid excessive theorizing. Your suggestion is complex enough to make it difficult to explain, and implementation of a social structure involves explaining it to a very large number of people and ensuring that they all interpreted it the same way. I suspect that it's also complex enough to be quite difficult to model (even in a fairly coarse way as a two-actor game). Furthermore, the model in your head, while I'm sure it seems functional, is very likely relying upon incorrect assumptions that you will neither know about nor question until implementation-time. I know from experience in writing fairly large program suites (something far less complicated than this) that if you can't hold it in your head in 100% detail, something will break in a completely unexpected way -- so start smaller. I suspect that founding myths are actually more influential in the long run than initial rulesets anyhow, since rules get changed and founding myths aren't thought of in the same context.

[Kai]

Oh god.

I'm not gonna even. Let me know when these people learn to communicate. I'm out.

[Bu🤠ns]

I suspect that different audiences will need different metaphors and different presentations (and probably the best presentation for most of the people on this forum would be some kind of foul-mouthed rant -- it gives off the appropriate alpha cues to circumvent at least some of the power politics stuff here, since one of the memeplexes here seems to be the idea that subtlety is duplicitous and cautious wording a sign of weakness; a lot of other groups react to overly carefully constructed academic-style writing the same way, so it's probably sensible to reword it as a rant anyhow).

Hmm...

After the bold I pretty much think that's way off. I may have written 1 rant since I first showed up and NEVER experienced any of that alpha rant driven nonsense.  There may be power politics--as in any group dynamic--but it's hardly this, imo.

I spoke to Ixxie privately about this topic and it basically boiled down to follow Orwell's six rules. I tend to think of posting on forums as, posting emails.  That to reach the greatest amount of readers, throw down a short and sweet synopsis and include the lengthy academia for the people who really want to engage on certain points.

As for this thread being a reflection on Ixxie's character -- after speaking to him on numerous occasions,  I've found him to be sincere and open to new ideas and not in the least bit arrogant about wanting attention.

I've seen some real crap come and go in this place and, to my mind, Ixxie doesn't fit that bill and it'd be a shame if he got thrown in to the rest of the lump heap.

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about this. I'm not trying to fight anybody's battle and I guess I just see things differently.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I suspect that different audiences will need different metaphors and different presentations (and probably the best presentation for most of the people on this forum would be some kind of foul-mouthed rant -- it gives off the appropriate alpha cues to circumvent at least some of the power politics stuff here, since one of the memeplexes here seems to be the idea that subtlety is duplicitous and cautious wording a sign of weakness; a lot of other groups react to overly carefully constructed academic-style writing the same way, so it's probably sensible to reword it as a rant anyhow).

Hmm...

After the bold I pretty much think that's way off. I may have written 1 rant since I first showed up and NEVER experienced any of that alpha rant driven nonsense.  There may be power politics--as in any group dynamic--but it's hardly this, imo.

I spoke to Ixxie privately about this topic and it basically boiled down to follow Orwell's six rules. I tend to think of posting on forums as, posting emails.  That to reach the greatest amount of readers, throw down a short and sweet synopsis and include the lengthy academia for the people who really want to engage on certain points.

As for this thread being a reflection on Ixxie's character -- after speaking to him on numerous occasions,  I've found him to be sincere and open to new ideas and not in the least bit arrogant about wanting attention.

I've seen some real crap come and go in this place and, to my mind, Ixxie doesn't fit that bill and it'd be a shame if he got thrown in to the rest of the lump heap.

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about this. I'm not trying to fight anybody's battle and I guess I just see things differently.

If he's a cool guy then time will show it. Several people have given him solid things to respond to regarding his OP, if he wishes, particularly Kai and LMNO, and even to a lesser degree Enki. I'm not writing him off but I do hope that if he stays he gets past his notion that nobody else here is up to his standards.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't even understand the thread title.

I'm off to drag my knuckles on the ground for a bit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't even understand the thread title.

I'm off to drag my knuckles on the ground for a bit.

Yeah my impression is that was the intent.

I could be wrong. I would be happy to be wrong.

[Pæs]

I made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs... I won't attempt productivity here again.

For the record, this part of the post made me brace for shit-throwing.

[P3nT4gR4m]

From what I can make out of the OP, it won't work and here's why. Coincidentally - it's the same reason normal society doesn't and could never work, after all the world we live in is the ultimate anarcho-syndicate-whatever the fuck you want to call it - experiment, on a massive global scale. Whaddya know, when a couple of billion hairless apes find themselves in a situation where there are no rules and no one to enforce them, what happens? They make rules and ways to enforce them. This is anarchy (any flavour you fancy) take away all the rules and all the rulers and, almost immediately, there will be rules and rulers.

So back to the reason non of this could even conceivably work. Simple, say you have 1 person working solo, in their own self interests. There is a 0% chance that this person is not pulling his/her weight. Add a person, thus creating a team. There is now a chance of 1 person not pulling their weight. For each person added to the group the chance increases until there are enough people (for example sake let's say it's 100 - although it may well be much less or many more) in the group to guarantee a "bad apple" with 100% certainty. At this point the group is destined to slowly rot, unless the "pathogen" is rooted out. Fine, there's a good chance that this will happen and it'll be business as usual but how about we double the group size?

Now we have two rotten eggs in our barrel. Two threats to the survival of the group but now another factor emerges - every time we double the group size and add another villain, the chance increases of two or more of these ones forming an alliance. At this point forget your community, you are completely and utterly fucked. These wankers, working in concert will take over. They will lie, cheat, steal, frame, govern, enslave, kill and all the other bullshit that prevents society from functioning as one cohesive utopia.

Here's the rub - these bastards are actually saving you from something much worse

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Bruce Schneier wrote a book about free-riders and cheating from a game-theoretic perspective. I've read about half of it, because it's fairly dry, but it makes a good case for optimism based entirely upon self-serving individuals. It's called Liars and Outliers, because someone pointed out that the working title The Dishonest Minority could be misinterpreted. I'd recommend his work on the subject, if you want to read the ideas of an expert who gets paid to think about cheating all day.

He has a couple lectures that summarize his ideas.

My main problem with the plan is not that it depends upon teamwork; teamwork has plenty of failure modes, but it works unreasonably well. My main problem with it is that it's complicated, and thus difficult to implement and test.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I made an sincere attempt to communicating an idea because I thought this might be a place where productive dialogue occurs... I won't attempt productivity here again.

For the record, this part of the post made me brace for shit-throwing.

Yep.

Also, the guy uses a lot of jargon language while also using a lot of language wrong, which is a distressingly unreadable combination.  I assume it is largely because English is a second language for him, but it is exhausting to parse nonetheless and when you add the attitude (which I could be interpreting mistakenly, but which appears to be fairly well-communicated in the above quote) that he is believes that our difficulty parsing his writing is due to his academic and intellectual superiority, I definitely start to get a "fuck this" feeling.

I also am not sold on the argument that what he says makes perfect sense to a PhD level theoretical biologist. The problems I have noticed with language persist regardless of the educational level of the reader.