Dunbar's number, sometimes known as the Monkey-sphere, is a theoretical number denoting the amount of social connections a primate (like us) can reasonably maintain based on the size of the neocortex.
What does this mean? It means you can only see a certain amount of people, somewhere around 150 on average, as actual people. Everyone else is a thing that serves a purpose, fills a role or doesn't, in your mind, exist as a true being. I mentioned yesterday that you could order a hundred strangers to 'take that hill!', knowing full well most of them are unlikely to make it back alive. But doing the same with your family or people close to you is not the same thing.
The movie "The Box" provides an interesting example of an extreme of this; in The Box is a button. Press the button, you receive $1 million. However, someone you don't know dies. Do you do it? I haven't seen the movie, but I saw the Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode it was based on, so I can't speak for it's quality. The idea is awesome. I would do it in a heartbeat. It has nothing to do with greed or anything, I could use the money, there are no negative effects on me, and I place no inherent worth in any single human life (other than the cool mil this button would fetch me). My friends and loved ones have worth, but beyond that you're just another number taking up space and resources that could possibly be better spent elsewhere.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like this and I'm betting a lot more people than would ever admit it agree with me, deep down in those places Jack Nicholson says you don't talk about at parties.
The Dunbar's number theory makes a solid attempt at explaining why we are this way. The above links go a lot deeper than my little examples, but I think I touched on the broad strokes. It's interesting reading either way.
Another controversial theory based on generational warfare concerning the fourth generation of warfare, claims that the best defense against this type of warfare is small, tight-knit communities where everyone recognizes everyone else and is trained in what to do in case of strangers. It seems a little extreme, but if that's the way the world goes, then we need to be prepared to adapt. Generational warfare isn't a totally accepted concept, but I think it has some merits. There are a lot of arguments within it's supporters as to what denotes a generational shift and other facets. Still, fascinating.
Now that our background is semi-established, I'll move on to my point.
If we possess only the capacity to view, at most, a couple hundred other primates as actual people, perhaps the entire notion of nations needs to go the way of the dodo. We could take 50 males, 50 females and make little self-sufficient communities that would have significant room to grow and thrive. When things get too big, people can split off, taking what they need to start anew and leave. Every community could have diplomats who move between settlements and trade goods, make exchanges of personnel to avoid the problems inbreeding cause and share scientific and other advances.
It sounds a little crazy, but after one generation of births, people would be used to it and it might just make for a better future.
What we're doing now is essentially what we've been doing since the dawn of civilisation. Things have changed and grown somewhat, but the general idea is still the same. With the internet we could continue to communicate as a species and it would provide another way to share advances.
Travel could still be allowed; a picture, itinerary and bio of the travelers could be sent ahead and people whose entire job is to play tour guide could show them around, teach local customs and make sure all the best sights aren't missed.
I haven't thought it all the way through, and I'd like to have some sort of software simulation to run and see how it might turn out.
It seems like too big of a shift in what we know for it to happen, as resistant to change as our species is. It was a fun thought exercise, though.
Thoughts? Questions? Refinements?
Interesting post. First, I'll address "The Box" issue. I think the biggest problem with this is that you have no control over who dies as a result of your action. Sure, it could be a nobody whose life really didn't make much of a difference one way or another to you or to society, but you'd also be taking the chance that it was someone who was important in some way. I think that over time that would wreak havoc on the conscience of most people....the uncertainty of knowing which mother, father, doctor, teacher, or child had to pay the price. That being said, a lot of people would push the button anyway.
ReplyDeleteAs to the societal model you discuss...it does seem like a workable idea. I think that humanity as a whole would be a lot happier living that way, but it has the distinct disadvantage of preventing any one person or group from amassing a great deal of wealth or power. I say disadvantage because so many people find wealth and power so attractive that they will do almost anything for it. For that reason I think your proposed model would never be accepted. Even if it worked initially there would be some dictator, charismatic figure, etc that would bring multiple groups or villages together in order to increase their productivity and influence so that he/she can benefit from it. In the end, we'd end up back where we started. At least those are my thoughts on the issue.
I'm half tempted to delete your comment since it pulls the curtain back and shows my plan for what it is. People broke up like that I could quickly take the whole settlement over with force of personality and move on our neighbors, recruiting those who were willing to be caught up in the tide and executing those who resist.
ReplyDeleteBeing a free speech advocate, I can't do that. Damn you, Peaches!
Kidding aside, you're right on why it wouldn't work. Beyond the near impossibility to get everyone to change everything they've ever known for an experimental new way of life, even non-capitalist societies seem to be in a constant search for more money. I can't imagine changing minds on that scale.
Maybe I can find 50 like-minded couples and throw together our own little paradise. This known by many names, depending on your preference. You can call it a commune if you prefer the hippie variety. It's known as 'gulching' by followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. I'm sure there are others, but it's late(ish) and I'm not digging that deep into my mind for a third example.
Oh, and as far as The Box goes... I don't feel feelings like normal folks, so I'm sure I could walk away with the million and continue to sleep at night.
ReplyDeleteDo you read much Malcolm Gladwell? Seems you would enjoy some of his ideas.
ReplyDeleteI read Tipping Point, B&N hooked me up with it on my nook for free. Well researched and brilliantly presented. I've been meaning to read more. I'm pretty sure I have Outliers laying around somewhere.
ReplyDelete