4 ms·
I agree with your point about bureaucracy being necessary when using a hierarchical model for society. This has a basis in our neurochemistry, in particular, Du
by Produce 15y ago
I agree with your point about bureaucracy being necessary when using a hierarchical model for society. This has a basis in our neurochemistry, in particular, Dunbar's number which puts a limit on how many individuals we consider to be people, where everyone else we know are lumped into 'the others' category. The majority of us treat 'the others' considerably worse than our friends, where we are more likely to lie, cheat and steal from them. Bureaucracy is necessary when such large organizations exist since it patches the bug. Unfortunately, as we can see from the results, it's a low quality patch which addresses the effects and not the causes.
An obvious solution is to go around the mountain. If such large monolithic structures come with such a burden then why not decentralize and cut them down to a reasonable size that our hardware can better handle? This is, ofcourse, also a patch, which, personally, I think would address the effects more efficiently. To address the root causes, we would either need to modify our neurochemistry or DNA or provide education so that individuals can overcome Dunbar's number.
- klenwell 15y agoAnd I agree entirely with what you identify as the premises of the problems. Can we decentralize to a level where hierarchy isn't implicit? An abusive father or tyrannical HOA seems a much more real threat for most Americans than an inefficient FDA. While I accept that a lot of the "less government" rhetoric around here, and even among many politicians, is motivated by sincere ideological conviction and a belief in the efficiency of decentralized organizations, the net effect of this ideological surge within the US over the last 30 years has been a redistribution of wealth and privilege that has sharpened the hierarchy.