The cost of a lack of community
One upon a time there was a tribe of 100 people or so. One member of the tribe was named UGGG and he made spears, another was SSSJ and she made nets. Now, SSSJ needed a spear and UGG needed a net so they decided to trade for it. One net for a spear, a simple proposition. Do you know where the story leads?
You may think about this as bartering and economics, supply and demand and the like but it isn't. This trade is a trade backed by morality and ethics and enforced by the community even though it is between two independent individuals.
Neither party need honour the agreement and each can attempt to cheat the other by non-compliance or lowering quality or the like but, there is a severe penalty for doing so as in a small community unit of 100 people, everyone knows everyone and being labelled a cheat or scammer is to commit a harm to the community and the community will enact its punishment.
Often, the punishment was ostracisation from the group and in a hostile environment, that meant death. Being a social outcast by extracting value from the community without return was very high as there would be no other community to take one in and most could not survive alone, nor would they want to as social desires would warn against it.
So if SSSJ decided to take the spear without providing a net, the community would arbitrate and she would either be forced to comply or, be cast aside as the cost of extractors in such a small group is high. If everyone acted the same and only took, the community would be unable to trust in others and would not cooperate and therefore, not be able to solve the problems too large for an individual. It is the community that backs this, not retribution from UGG for being cheated.
This cost to the individual meant that one would have to learn how to be part of the community to benefit from the cooperated problem solving of large issues outside of personal capabilities. This required to be a valuable member (useful) for the community and for the most part, that meant the community would grow without any particular member having a lot more or less than the next. This worked in such small groups.
But, society has been moving away from that position for a long time and the community backed social cost of being an extractor has been replaced by maximisation of the individual bound by laws created by authorities. The cost to the individual of being ostracised is no longer high as there is always another group to turn to that will take them in, another group that is filled with maximisers to support other maximisers.
This means even when SSSJ is caught scamming UGGG and not offering a net in return, she need not worry as her reputation in the community is spread to many smaller groups with many of those to either unknowingly keep supporting or, hold the same ethics. This is a diversification of reputation risk and incentivizes poor ethics over community growth, optimisation of individual wealth over distribution for the community.
In the times of nets and spears, it was the best net and spear makers who were incentivized and rewarded, not the scammers as after one or two poor performances, trust would be lost. The problems we face now of course is that with a low cost to the individual for not adding value means that there is little incentive to actually add value to the community that their own value is being extracted from.
The problem with the entire system is that if everyone only extracts it collapses but, there is very little cost to the extractors who are only able to operate because enough community orientated people choose to put in more than they take out or, forego their own extraction benefits.
The extractors have a massive advantage in this as in time, other extractors grow and band together to create a circle of extractors at the expense of the community.
Once upon a time, people would be ashamed and would hide if having the behaviour of an extractor but now, it is rewarded, a badge of honour of sorts. The ones incentivised are those who are able to do the least for the most personal gain, even at the expense of others.
In a community of 100 people, that could not fly, the group would fail and everyone would fail along with it. These days, the extractors just move onto the next community to bleed it dry without missing a step. Most likely, thinking they are clever for getting out before the collapse when it was they who collapsed it.
There is an eventual cost to greed and lack of community and it is one we will all pay, one way or another. For me, it is not about the punishment of bad actors, it is about the incentivizing of good as only when it becomes more valuable to build the community than extract from it will the community be able to really get back to solving those problems much larger than any one individual within can do alone.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Interesting premise. Of course, in order to apply your philosophy to a society, you would need to change the socio-cultural reference frame from focus on individual rights to concentration on communal benefit. The modern Western mindset is centered on the individual, from legal protection to economic/political incentives. As a consequence, the Western judiciary, theoretically, weighs more heavily on preserving individual previleges over state efficiency. Are you suggesting a cultural shift towards a communal mindset? Are you favoring an economic system of socialist leaning? Are you in favor of "fairness" over opportunity?
I didn't mention fairness but at the moment there is an asymmetry where the upside of individual maximisation is much higher than that of community thinking. Rebalancing where individuals are advantaged by adding to the group more than taking away would likely cause better distribution, wouldn't it?
The maximisation for an individual can only happen when there is a community to draw from so the individual does have a debt of sorts, it is not an individual effort.
I would have to think more.
you may enjoy talking to @citizenzero also and perhaps you could give him some tips to find more thinkers ?
Individual privileges vs. state efficiency. I don't think any degree of Eastern collectivism is going to help, at least not if the problem is extractors vs. creators. China, the birthplace of Confucius is corrupt to the core. Clearly, there is something about collectivism and authoritarianism that tends to make these problems worse.
There are several mechanisms in modern society that act as substitutes for reputation: criminal records and credit scores, for example. Transparency and accountability are long-held values in the West. They were given rise to by a lack of an all-encompassing central authority in society with powerful groups slowly learning to maintain an equilibrium through rule of law. Separation of powers was a key concept formulated by the French philosopher Montesquieu in the 18th century. Stiff international competition forced higher levels of co-operation within individual states in Europe. Egalitarianism has been particularly strong in the north of Europe. There was no tall and narrow social pyramid in the sparsely populated north. Everybody considered their birthright to be able to gun for the top spot in Viking society depending on their individual qualities. History has demonstrated that the "everybody is an alpha" mindset tends to give rise to the most egalitarian societies.
Very true. The corruption of the Qing reached unprecedented levels during the last days of the Empire, but corruption is an endemic feature in all human constructs, since man himself is a flawed, corrupt, sinful creature - to borrow from Western theology. Corruption is not only limited to centralized, authoritarian state, but equally endemic in supposed egalitarian republics/democracies: Athens of Pericles, Carthage of Hannibal, Rome of the Gracchi, Paris of le Directoire, to all current Western "democracies." The more interesting analysis would be to evaluate the features in various human constructs that functioned well, under certain circumstances.
The Kalmar Union collapsed due to political infighting among the nobility who envisioned themselves as "alpha." Here is a clear historical example of malfunction of "egalitarian" sentiments in political organization. Kalmar is not the only example, as one merely needs to be familiar with the political lunacy of the Holy Roman Empire, political farce of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the political fragmentation of Italian polis, and the political anarchy of the Revolution. One could easily argue that the lack of all-encompassing central authority in these areas of Europe left them backwards for centuries, until they were dragged into modernity by the sheer will of autarchs in the vein of Peter the Great of Russia, Frederick II of Prussia, the House of Savoy, von Bismark of Germany, and the demigod Bonaparte.
The fundamental reality of the world is that life is inherently unfair, men are created unequal in aptitude and abilities, and 20th century socio-cultural attempts at forcing equality and egalitarianism on a polity always resulted in mass slaughter and misery. Is the concept of equality a net positive or negative in human constructs? Is the concept of egalitarianism benefit or hazard in political operation? Is it moral to delude gammas and epsilon morons into thinking they are "created equal" as the alpha and betas? In short, why is the modern conception of liberté, égalité, fraternité the philosophical foundation of Western political thought? By what evidence of history, religious, or rational observations do the modern West cling to the aforementioned trinity of false ideas? Did not the central theme of Western theological thought begin with Adam and Woman reaching beyond their station allotted by the creator? Was it not the Western God who declared "Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them."
My point was that having a centralized authoritarian state is of no help in the fight against corruption.
I think the main driver of changes in power structures is technological development, mainly in communications. The development of central authority was probably inevitable, or maybe even beneficial from a broad perspective under certain conditions in the past but the existence of central authority alone does not make a society collectivistic. Modern states are all strong central authorities from a historical perspective but how those states are governed and how the states govern can be very different in different countries.
Totalitarianism of any brand will always result in mass slaughter and misery.
What about the Human Development Index? It is the highest in societies that believe in the dignity of all individuals and consider their welfare important. (There are other prerequisites to it as well but those beliefs are material.) Your concept of "gammas" and "epsilon morons" is a path taken by some parts of Western Civilization at certain times and many other civilizations in the past and is a tried and true method to achieve truly ghastly results.
My point is to illustrate that the propaganda of egalitarianism and democracy does not shield a society from corruption.
Human Development Index illustrates the hubris of the Leftist masters in assigning virtues to societies based on their arbitrary measures: 1) infant mortality 2) "education" levels 3) GDP. I can easily create another "index" to assign societal virtues based on different arbitrary measures -1) societal conformity 2) theological actualization 3) GDP growth - and make ISIS the ideal human development civilization.
The UN "infant mortality" specifically omits the willful destruction of the unborn in their statistical measures. As for "education" levels, Egypt under Mubarak had the highest PhDs per capita, but did not make that misbegotten society the utopian dream for workers.
The wholesale liquidation of gammas and epsilon morons were direct influence of deluded fools who either could not conceptualize their "egalitarian" society, whilst these existed, or imputed low quality of life to these individuals. Eugenics and euthanasia are more vehemently championed by social reformers who want human rights and egalitarianism. That the industrialized mass killings of gammas and epsilon morons occurred in the West, so enthralled by the lunacy of egalitarianism and human rights, demonstrates the pernicious danger of these false concepts inflict upon the human psyche.
You obviously didn't get the memo on what kind of reputation eugenics have had for the past half-century or so.
Nazis who engaged in industrialized mass killings of people they considered inferior did not do so in the name of egalitarianism and human rights. On the contrary, they believed precisely in the notion of "gammas and epsilon morons" unworthy of life precisely for the lack of any belief in basic human dignity or rights.
Human rights are quite simply a set of minimum standards by which everyone, even the most "unworthy" of individuals is to be treated. They include things like a ban on torture. If you are in favor of things like banning torture, then you are a supporter of human rights.
How did such muck as National Socialism gain traction in Germany? Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fürher. How can you ignore the egalitarian rot that underlie the Nazi propaganda of government legitimacy somehow deriving from the "Volk"/people? The poison of egalitarianism began with the Revolution, giving birth to the lunacy of human rights, or rather the "declaration of rights of man and citizen," with which the gammas and the epsilon morons overthrew their betters setting-up the Terror.
Any rational human being reflecting upon the consequences of gammas and epsilon morons grasping at that which is beyond their aptitude would recognize the fallacy of egalitarianism and human rights. The accomplishments of the Terror were only bested by the Nazis in their industrial killings, which in turn were outclassed by the communist muck in Russia by a factor of 5, Maoist meatbags by over a factor of 10, and equaled by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields.
People ought to know their social and political station. Superior men do not kill or hate those who are inferior; it would be as insane as man hating swine. The aristocracy did not scheme to cause more misery to their serfs because serfs did not enter into their minds. Only those who are driven by envy and insecurity born of their low station perpetuate the mass killings that baffle the rational human mind.
I agree with you in that our lack of community is distressing to humans as individuals since we are a herd species, but the tribal analogy you use here is needlessly complicated and reflects the psychopathic culture of modern society. True tribal culture is beautiful in its simplicity.
The net maker of the tribe made nets for the tribe, not himself, as did the spear maker, the potter, the tanner, the weaver, etc. They didn't own their wares or trade them. The products of their efforts belonged to the tribe. The hunter went out and shot a deer. He didn't come back and trade hunks of deer for what he needed. He gave the deer to the cooks and everyone in the tribe feasted. Everything the hunter needed was available to him through his tribe.
People followed their callings in their contribution to the tribe. Hunters didn't necessarily make pots, but they could if they wanted to. The medicine man didn't plant corn, but always had corn to eat because he was a member of the tribe.
To exhibit self-interest above and beyond the needs of the tribe was handled at the level of the culture. Children were shamed when selfishness arose. Lying was not a problem since telling an untruth was inconceivable and illogical. Your possessions were limited to what you could carry. If you set "your" basket down that meant you were done with it and it was available for another tribe member to use. When you needed a basket, you looked around until you found one that wasn't being used. If there weren't enough you went to the basket maker and informed her and she began the process of making another one.
Tribal leaders did not seek positions of power but were pushed into them by the tribe because of their proven wisdom in dealing with disputes. It was a position of honor, not of power.
Psychopaths now inhabit positions of power in finance, government, corporations, education, media and in all and every control structure. They promote policies that increase their power and control to assuage their irrational fears of scarcity. That is the very basis of civilization itself. It's hierarchical and psychopathic.
While the spirit of community is a far better solution to top-down centralized government, it is a poor substitute for true tribal solidarity.
When the granary is filled with so many rats that the stored grain becomes inedible, it's time to burn the granary to the ground and rebuild anew. Anything else is half-assed and is no solution at all. IMHO
Yes, I was about to message something along these lines to @soo.chong163 and I know that the analogy I used was not great but, I wanted to connect it to what is happening a little now. I will get back to this later I think when i have some more time.
Agreed, but the tribal system is bound by its size and that is not going to cut it in this day and age which is why places like Steemit should be working toward a hybrid system where small communities can flourish and add to the flourishing of the larger whole also. Not an easy task when each group thinks it is more important than the next.
I know and appreciate what you're trying to do on Steemit and the problems that the platform faces, that's why I want you to look at this writing on the wall from @yallapapi, an obviously good writer who joined only last December. Some of us want Steemit to become something it was never designed to do, apparently. It's quite chilling, a slap in the face really, but it's also a wake-up call for us idealists and a chance to reassess our prime motives for being here. Enjoy.
How is that to be done? In real life, or on Steem, any examples to visualize how to go about it? Thanks.
At some point soon I am going to attempt a model.. for now, just punish the bad heavily ;)
Ah! for a moment... I thought that the central figure that appears on his back in the picture above was you teaching your famous dance steps to the students. Until suddenly, I realized that he/she was wearing high-heeled shoes. (Now I have some doubts) :p }:)
On other hand my friend, a great well thought inviting and provoking post as always.
P.S. But, in sight of the heightness discussion and quality of the comments already offered on this post. Yeah!, this time I only limited myself to comment on what nobody had commented yet. :)
:)
It is Yanis Marshall.
Well thought out I am unsure of but, something to think about perhaps.
Ah yeah! we are a pair of wild and hungry beasts always sowing seeds with something to think on everyone heads eagerly awaiting to eat the fruits of our planting and harvesting later on. ¿Aren't we? :)
You are absolutely right, do you think steemit as community has a big problem because the difference between minnows dolphins and wales as well as the behavior of influential users is yet too unregulated?
Distribution needs to happen but, it needs to be controlled distribution based on those adding value to the system, not randomized. It should be to the best net and spear makers looking to build the community. It isn't going to happen though as the incentives are not aligned in this way.
It is tough to do and a pity. The system will have to be way ahead of its users because wherever there are financial gains to be made people will always seek to beat the system: those who perceive themselves to be at a disadvantage.
Saying that the market enforces "moral" codes is putting the horse before the carriage. in most exchange environments an existing, legal framework is necessary to facilitate trade. That's my two cents anyway. Good, thought provoking post.
Deep thoughts, evil destroys on the long run. This is one topic that will make me want to weep. We slipped and didnt retrace our steps on time Yeah, community/societal norms, family values are eroded. Who will put them back in place, uphold the incentives for good - is it the majority that now finds evil actractive, more rewarding, and deliveringing quicker returns? It's a dilemma.
Is there a way to incentivise the good?
It is unfortunate that we have these extractors everywhere . People who are bent on milking whatever community they find themselves in even on steemit here.
And like you rightly said, the worst part of it is that they are now being honored for doing so and that's very bad. Probably because the number of extractors are on the increase and so to gain power, they would need to empower each other at the expense of others.
This piece spills the sad truth but what can we do about it?
your philosophy of ideas is always interesting