Reason, tradition, decentralisation

In [ Tradition is Smarter Than You Are](https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/08/tradition-is-smarter-than-you-are.html), Tanner Greer reflects on Joseph Heinrich and James C. Scott. One way to think about the challenge of modernity: the pace of change is so fast that once-adaptive traditions are now failing all over the place. But, it’s hard to understand all the functions they were serving, so it’s really hard to decide what to conserve/protect/revise/reject. We have two technologies, tradition and reason. Both serve us well, but sometimes fail catastrophically. What to do? One answer is: rely on diversity and selection effects. If we can’t know in advance what will work, let’s have lots of fairly independent groups, making different concessions to tradition and reason, each prospering in some ways and failing in others. Things that will work will spread. Some groups will get wiped out, but that’s much less bad than everyone getting wiped out. Decentralisation is about giving ourselves (as a collective) many chances to get it right, and avoiding “one shot” challenges as much as possible. But: to what extent is this actually an option for us? Firstly you need a way to get the rate of copying between groups right, such that good ideas spread while sufficient diversity is maintained. As our technological capabilities grow, it becomes more likely that a catastrophe for one group becomes a catastrophe for all. # Notes - To what extent can we control the pace of change? (Guess: limited) Should we slow down or speed up the pace of change, insofar as we can? (No idea. Tempting to say slow down but... that is only truly tempting if you think the status quo is acceptable rather than a hellscape… ngh.). - I would like to read the good discussions of how decentralised systems can address issues that seem to require a high degree of coordination between groups (e.g. regulating biotech, reducing Co2e emissions, geo-engineering). Where are they? @TODO Found this on the EA Forum…. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328720300720?via%3Dihub > The nature and level of individuals’ exposure to technological systems has been explored previously and is briefly restated here. This paper demonstrates how the concept of technological exposure can be extended to generic needs of individuals, and further to the needs of populations of individuals and even as far as “existential threats” to humanity. Technological categories that incur high levels of population exposure are explored, and categories are described. A theoretical basis for reducing population exposure is developed from the basic concepts of technological exposure. Technological developments that potentially enable less centralised societies having lower levels of population exposure, are considered for practicality and effectiveness as are the factors that could allow and cause transition to a less technologically centralised model. Some conclusions regarding practicality, triggers, and issues arising from a decentralised society are considered and include the key conclusion that a higher level of decentralisation and exposure reduction is both desirable and possible. * I’ll throw this vaguely related quote here… it gestures at a further theme that seems worth touching on here but I’m out of time for now. @TODO > educated Westerners are trained their entire lives to think that behaviors must be underpinned by explicable and declarable reasons, so we are more likely to have them at the ready and feel more obligated to supply “good” reasons upon request. Saying “it’s our custom” is not considered a good reason. The pressure for an acceptable, clear, and explicit reason for doing things is merely a social norm common in Western populations, which creates the illusion (among Westerners) that humans generally do things based on explicit causal models and clear reasons. They often do not. > <cite>Joseph Henrich</cite>