Decentralized Or Extinct
Decentralization and non-violence are two principles that are closely related and often intertwined. The concept of decentralization refers to the distribution of power and decision-making authority across a wide range of individuals or groups, rather than being concentrated in a single central authority. Non-violence, on the other hand, refers to the absence of aggression or coercion in achieving one's goals. Together, these principles form the foundation for a more just and equitable society, where individuals and communities have the autonomy and agency to determine their own futures.
One of the key arguments for decentralization is that it is more effective than centralized governance. This is because the human mind can only focus on one thought at a time, and a concentration and division of labor makes us more effective. In a decentralized society, individuals and groups can focus on their specific areas of expertise, leading to greater efficiency and productivity. Additionally, decentralized systems are less prone to the problems associated with centralization, such as corruption, inefficiency, and lack of accountability.
Centralized governance, on the other hand, was an early adaptation of human societies to external environments when resources were scarcer due to underdeveloped technologies. Centralized states were able to quickly mobilize large numbers of people to force more disorganized societies into submission. However, as technologies have progressed and our ability to self-sustain our existence has improved, the need for centralized authority has diminished. The communications revolution of the late twentieth century has also made it possible for decentralized groups to coordinate and cooperate with each other, further reducing the need for centralized power structures.
Another important aspect of decentralization is that it is non-violent. In a decentralized society, individuals and groups have the autonomy and agency to make their own decisions, rather than being coerced or forced into submission by a centralized authority. This allows for a more peaceful and harmonious society, where individuals are free to pursue their own goals and interests without fear of repression or violence.
As human beings, we are constantly faced with our animal nature and must continually fight against our primal instincts of greed and fear. These instincts are integral to our humanity, and any attempt to deny or suppress them only leads to the imposition of totalitarian doctrines, in which a benevolent ruler is positioned to constantly monitor and guide us to prevent us from causing harm to ourselves.
Despite this, most humans are unable to resist social pressure, which ultimately leads to the formation and preservation of state power. Such power relies on propaganda, long-term social habits, and military force to maintain control over the majority for extended periods of time.
External conditions specific to certain geographical regions play a significant role in shaping the unique traits of individuals from those regions. This process is not unique to humans and can be observed in other animals as well. However, our exceptional intellectual abilities and thirst for knowledge and innovation set us apart from other species, particularly our drive for socialization, which is, however, much more pronounced among insects.
Therefore, it is imperative that we strive to build societies that allow us to retain both our individual ingenuity and emotional connections with others. In this way, we can preserve the fundamental qualities that make us human, while also addressing the challenges posed by our animal nature.
Throughout human history, prior to the technological revolution, conflict was a constant feature as different homogeneous population centers engaged in battles for dominance. The outcome of these conflicts was determined by the relative strength and aggression of the opposing forces, with the largest and most dominant populations eventually collapsing under their own weight or being destroyed by newer, more dynamic national entities.
However, the technological revolution brought about an unprecedented ease of movement, providing even the smallest and most technologically advanced groups of humans with the ability to invade and subdue these homogeneous entities. This marked a significant shift in the balance of power, as previously dominant populations found themselves vulnerable to incursions from smaller, but more technologically advanced groups.
This new reality, enabled by the advancements in technology, has fundamentally altered the dynamics of power and conflict throughout human history, and has had far-reaching implications for the structure and organization of societies. As we continue to advance technologically, it is likely that this trend will continue to shape the course of human history in new and unexpected ways.
Historical examples of successful decentralized societies are plenty: from Greek Polices of the 5th and 4th centuries BC to Italian city-states of XJV-XVI century.
The Italian city-states of the 15th and 16th centuries were characterized by a high degree of decentralization and autonomy, which allowed for a unique combination of economic development and security. The decentralized character of the city-states allowed for the development of a competitive market economy, as well as a system of governance that provided for the protection of individual rights and property.
Economically, the city-states were able to leverage their autonomy to promote trade and commerce. They were able to establish trade networks and alliances with other city-states and countries, which allowed for the exchange of goods and ideas. This led to the development of new technologies and the growth of industries such as banking, textiles, and shipbuilding. Additionally, the competitive market economy of the city-states led to the development of a merchant class that had a significant role in the economic development of the region.
In terms of security, the decentralized nature of the city-states allowed for the development of a system of governance that protected individual rights and property. The city-states were able to establish a system of laws and institutions that protected the rights of citizens and provided for the resolution of disputes. Additionally, the city-states were able to establish alliances and alliances with other city-states and countries to provide for their security. This helped the city-states to become some of the most prosperous and influential in Europe at that time.
Another example is the Greek city-states of the 5th and 4th centuries BC
The autonomy helped the city-states to become some of the most prosperous and influential in the Mediterranean region at that time. This is exemplified by the fact that many of the city-states like Athens, Corinth and Thebes, had their own currencies, army and navy, and some of them like Athens even had a powerful fleet that helped it to establish its empire in the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea.
As the global population continues to grow at an exponential rate, the scope for direct military confrontation between nations becomes increasingly limited. This necessitates the need for peaceful coexistence between large, nationally homogeneous groups of humans and their more technologically advanced, educated, and individualistic counterparts.
The solutions currently proposed by national states are not sufficient to address this issue. One approach is the assimilation of these groups under the umbrella of federal authorities, who use a complex and inadequate system of political representation to try to mediate between opposing interests. However, this approach often leads to new conflicts and increased polarization, as neither group is satisfied with the compromise.
Another solution, offered by centralized authoritarian governments, is to cultivate a uniformly perfect and homogeneous population through unified educational programs and different forms of indoctrination. This often results in the creation of a monstrous, technocratic, totalitarian machine that constantly strives to recreate itself by suppressing all individualities that deviate from its ideal. This, in turn, leads to the militarization of society and to war.
The only alternative to these two tried and failed methods is the disintegration of national states into multiple homogeneous groups, distinguished by nationality, religion, technology, ideology, physical characteristics, and other unique factors. These groups would then gradually establish a state of equilibrium through a series of skirmishes.
Despite the fact that minor conflicts may still occur, they would be less intense and disruptive due to the fact that none of the involved parties possess sufficient resources to maintain them for an extended period of time. Additionally, the exterminating a potential commercial ally do not align with the interests of all parties involved in the conflict.
While this solution is not ideal, the alternatives are either a global nuclear conflict between a few super-states or a prolonged period of stagnation and deterioration due to the violent attempts of federal bureaucracies to eradicate political, cultural, and technological "extremism."
To maintain the constant speed of innovation, it is important to either artificially create immigration within a country or to decentralize it among different socially innovative or "extreme" groups. This is particularly relevant in a world where immigration is often restricted, as it is the only way to sustain the constant flow of new ideas and technologies.