Ever wonder what the next step will be in biological - and human cultural - evolution?
If you review our history, you'll instantly consider how we'll transition to massively multi-cultural aggregates, not just massively multi-cellular physiologies.
Are we there yet? Not even close, yet there are clear signs that we're bumping up against the limits of our old, cultural methods. Take academia, PLEASE! :)
So why are the stakes so small, and dwindling, not just in academia, but in many other necessary but not sufficient existing and constantly emerging disciplines too, each with diverging, academic training sub-professions?
This academia question is just a perennial one of a nested series of questions. Why do the past decisions of any complex system end up dictating subsequent adaptive paths?
It seems that we have "building codes," licenses & standards protecting every institution and discipline EXCEPT the institution of coordinating a whole greater than the sum of ALL regulated parts.
You couldn't make this problem up, partly because it's causes are so simple, well studied, and well-neglected.
Without universal feedback & regulation (everything connected to everything), it soon doesn't matter HOW MUCH local & regional cross-talk, feedback & self-regulation there is within silos. The mounting aggregate_dysfunction degrades all silos indirectly, no matter how much we overspend & overbuild some components, while letting aggregate coordination degrade.
And yes, we're full of contradictions. We've learned that lesson deeply for, say, manufacturing cars, but won't apply it to our own national policy and culture.
What was that Irish proverb?
"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live."And without that shelter, it doesn't matter how much we try to protect ourselves FROM one another? Right? Just like with cars. There's no point in building, say, SUPER-RADIATORS into cars, when it's so much more adaptive to simply adjust all the other car components, so that a mundane radiator never receives that much stress. Distributed tuning always trumps local heroics. Or, the return-on-coordination is always the highest return of all.
How is it that 7 billion people can no longer retain "knowledge" that all tribal sub-sections "knew" all along? Not to mention all the implicit corollaries, traditionally left unstated, as rather obvious?
Somehow, it's our own scale-dependent practices that are limiting us. Only ecologists (& internet engineers, & OpenSource chums, & circuit/chip designers) seem to teach that un-coordinated extensions cause more risk than reward to the parent system producing the spawn.
All other disciplines seem to live in a world blind to the fundamental need for recursive tuning of all our selves as a whole, not just our various parts in isolation. Why we're continuously tempted to allow ourselves to do that to ourselves ... is a mystery to me.
A bias to adapt = a bias to recombinant action .. CLOSELY COUPLED ... to a bias to recursive tuning.And yet that coupling is NOT as closely regulated as all sustainability theorems expect. Either Darwin missed a subtle point, and over-stated his case ... or combinatorial approaches to spawning/mobilizing/selecting/leveraging leave unexamined process-control challenges, which escalate faster than aggregates can - until the next novel breakthrough occurs.
Which leaves us with several, initial, intriguing responses to our initial question. The sky's the limit, folks.
First, maybe all human suffering, waste & lost output ... is simply the truly expendable noise in our selection process? Perhaps there's really not enough selective pressure to demand higher levels of performance. Thus maybe we're just not yet adequately prodded us to SELECT the next level of self-process-control invention? Not prodded? Or simply not motivated, or bright enough recognize and explore existing options? That reality cuts both ways. We can adapt voluntarily, out of curiosity & drive, or wait until we're forced to, kicking & screaming.
So far, most humans take the easy way out, and sit in over-built professions producing an excess of stuff which we really don't need .... while their pod of perceived safety inevitably (but slowly) degrades around them. Others go for broke, and are surfing disciplines more aggressively. Surfers have more fun? And trade more fun for less security, noting that "fun" = degeneracy = behavioral variance?
Second, some breakthrough organizational method will eventually occur, equivalent to cultural-siRNA, that will allow us to coordinate our growing numbers better/faster/leaner. Then we'll become a massively parallel multicultural entity, expressing recombination on yet another scale. Not just eukaryotes, but "eu-culturotes" too! :)
What will the cultural analogues of prokaryotes, archaea and eukaryotes be?
As one analogy, perhaps human tribes are "pro-culturotes?" Nation-states are "archae-culturotes?" :) And eu-culturotes are ..... ? Your guess is as good as mine.
So. How would we go about making and testing prototype eu-culturotes, out of prior pro-culturotes and archae-culturotes? We have theoretical options to build upon.
Has YOUR community engulfed a bankster, or entire banks, yet, and lived to tell about it? How about some lobbyists? Or a MICC? It'll happen, one way or another, if we're to survive. The only question is who will find new methods, and a way to make it happen.
The glory really will go to those communities that find a better way.
* lean, inhibitory Control Fraud Regulatory Method