From: jimruttshow8596
New governance theories are crucial to address the complex, large-scale problems facing the world today, which existing processes cannot solve [00:03:13]. These challenges span multiple generations and cultures, involve numerous actors, and operate in complex domains like ecosystems [00:03:26]. Attempting new initiatives within old structures often leads to failure, as existing structures were designed for different purposes [00:04:44].
The search for effective governance models involves understanding and integrating three archetypal decision-making structures: consensus, meritocracy (or hierarchical/executive), and democracy [00:05:32]. These three are believed to span the total space of human governance and coordination [00:06:29].
Archetypal Governance Models and Their Limitations
The distinctions between these models are based on notions of equality and inequality in group relationships [00:07:20].
Consensus
In a consensus model, everyone operates at the same level, communicating as peers horizontally to achieve a common understanding and uniform agreement on a problem and its solution [00:06:44], [00:07:27].
- Strengths: Produces very high-quality choices [00:09:18]. Ensures that everyone in the community agrees, for instance, on a set of shared values or virtues [00:21:08]. Consensus decisions are “very sticky” because changing them requires agreement from everyone, meaning one objector can stop a change [00:39:01].
- Weaknesses: Requires very high communicative bandwidth [00:09:20]. If a group becomes too large, there might not be enough time to reach decisions, especially with many choices needed quickly [00:09:25]. The larger the group, the easier it is for conversations to be derailed by emotional dynamics and individual traumas [00:53:10].
Meritocracy (Hierarchical/Executive)
Meritocracy or hierarchical structures involve unequal ways of relating, typically with a top-down structure where a single person is elected or appointed as a leader, delegating roles and functions [00:06:56], [00:07:40]. This allows for specific roles to be responsible for defined scopes of choices [00:08:26].
- Strengths: Can respond very quickly to a large number of choices, is relatively simple, and robust in emergency situations [00:09:39].
- Weaknesses: Highly vulnerable to corruption, where individuals make choices for private interests (e.g., self, family, friends) rather than the group’s benefit, leading to agency risk or the principal-agent problem [00:09:51], [00:10:04]. Can become ossified over time, making it non-adaptive to change, or lead to inefficient resource diversion [01:31:45].
Democracy
Democracy combines elements of both, often involving subgroups with internal equality but hierarchical relationships between them [00:07:02]. Decisions are made through debates followed by votes, distributing choices among individuals for a smaller, simpler set of options [00:08:48].
- Weaknesses: Susceptible to hidden and covert forms of power, as choices are framed and presented on ballots [00:11:02]. Voting can divide a group into two equally sized subgroups, limiting the community’s effectiveness and leading to political polarization [00:11:25], [00:11:48]. This divisiveness makes groups less resilient to external change [00:11:54]. The institutional structure of democracy can also corrupt how ideas are discussed and framed [00:12:40].
The Combined Model: A Small Group Governance Structures Practice
To overcome the inherent weaknesses of each archetype, a combined model can be used, particularly effective for groups up to 16 people [00:01:50]. This model convolves all three archetypes, using each as a check and balance against the others [00:16:16].
The core idea is to partition group activity into internal and external modes:
- Internal actions: Managed by consensus. This includes defining the group’s self-identity, values, membership, and overall coherence [00:19:18], [00:20:19]. Consensus ensures broad agreement on the group’s basis of choice [00:20:34].
- External actions: Managed by meritocracy. Once the group has achieved internal consensus on its values and purpose, it can transition to an external mode to interact with the world [00:17:50], [00:26:41]. This involves appointing individuals or structured executive teams by consensus to specific, scope-limited roles responsible for external communication and action [00:23:40], [00:25:53], [00:40:19]. The scope of authority and the person appointed are decided by consensus [00:25:55].
Democracy’s Limited Role
Democracy in this model serves a narrow, specific function:
- The “Red Button”: The democratic process is used to transition a group from a meritocratic process back to a consensus process via a “vote of no confidence” [00:27:56], [00:28:31]. This action entirely collapses the specific meritocratic structure, forcing the group to start from scratch for that role or function via consensus [00:30:35]. This is unlike traditional parliamentary systems, as each meritocracy could have its own “red button” [00:29:40].
- Suspending Consensus: Democracy can also temporarily suspend the consensus process on a specific issue if tempers are high and the group isn’t converging [00:35:32], [00:36:45]. This “timeout” can be initiated by a true majority (e.g., half plus one of the whole membership), allowing a period for things to cool off [00:35:10], [00:37:16]. This function serves as a relief valve, preventing group dysfunction [00:37:22].
This limited role of democracy ensures that the problems of a disgruntled minority (common in traditional voting) are mitigated because, once the meritocracy is collapsed, the minority has substantial input in the subsequent consensus process [00:33:00].
Scaling Challenges and the “Uncanny Valley”
While the combined model is effective for small group governance structures (e.g., 6 to 16 people) [00:52:47], it faces significant challenges when attempting to scale directly to larger groups.
Early attempts to scale by creating “groups of groups” or multi-layered structures, where smaller groups coordinate through representatives, have proven to be dead ends [00:55:51], [01:28:06]. This is due to instabilities caused by evolutionary dynamics in governance and the increasing complexity of relationships and communication paths as group size increases [00:53:26], [00:56:27].
Evolutionary Dynamics and Scaling
Evolution has three principal drivers:
- Point changes (mutation): Additive in effect [01:00:08].
- Survival selection: Multiplicative in effect [01:00:10].
- Mate selection (recombination): Exponential in effect [01:00:12], and far more powerful in influencing information flow and choice-making [01:00:27].
The challenge of scaling is rooted in these underlying mathematical forces of evolution [01:00:52]. Attempts to accrete smaller groups to create larger ones do not work because of these “unbounded pressures” [01:01:06], especially when considering the real-world finite nature of resources which eventually curb exponential growth [01:01:30].
The “Uncanny Valley” in Governance
There exists an “uncanny valley” between effective small-group governance processes (up to 16 people) and viable large-scale governance processes [01:02:08]. This means current institutional forms (businesses, schools, governments, religious organizations) exist in a “no man’s land” that doesn’t inherently facilitate effective large-scale problem-solving [01:02:51], [01:03:00].
The next viable solution for good governance architecture does not begin to work until a group size of at least 200 people, which is past Dunbar’s number [01:02:29], [01:02:32]. Such an architecture has never been attempted in human civilization [01:03:27].
Towards Large-Scale Governance: Beyond Current Limitations
Addressing complex, global challenges requires fundamentally new governance architectures that account for both principles of good governance and evolutionary dynamics in governance [01:04:03].
Current institutional forms and market-based processes are insufficient:
- Institutional forms: Overemphasize hierarchical thinking and categorically lack the communicative bandwidth needed for complex problems [01:04:25], [01:05:51].
- Market-based systems: Lack global awareness and coherence across time, acting as “local hill climbers” that cannot optimize for long-term issues [01:04:38], [01:05:04].
Solutions will not come from incremental improvements to existing systems, such as voting methodologies or financial instruments like cryptocurrency or NFTs [01:06:03], [01:06:32]. These “point solutions” fail to address the meta-systemic level, where culture, infrastructure, economics, and ecology are deeply interconnected and mutually influencing [01:15:35], [01:16:16].
Building Collective Wisdom and Conscious Sustainable Evolution
The next step involves creating a collective wisdom and intelligence that can balance the needs of sustainability (changelessness) and evolution (change) [01:07:01], [01:08:08]. This requires a form of group consciousness that determines when to prioritize stability and when to prioritize adaptation [01:09:00].
Key characteristics of this future governance must include:
- Non-representative models: Avoid the principal-agent problem and involve the entire community in choice-making [01:09:43].
- Culture-first approach: Start with healthy human dynamics and local ecology to allow culture to become aware of its values, articulate a vision, and implement strategy [01:11:14].
- Layered architecture: Enable different processes to support each other, collectively creating a responsive capacity for the whole group, similar to the organs of a body working together [01:12:40].
- Balancing forces: Account for the additive, multiplicative, and exponential aspects of real-world dynamics to create a system that is more than the sum of its parts [01:13:16].
- Self-identity discovery at the group level: Essential for a group to operate responsively to complex problems [01:14:23].
The ultimate goal is to achieve “conscious sustainable evolution” [01:22:25], a form of governance that not only protects land and people but also helps them thrive [01:22:42]. This requires bridging the “uncanny valley” between humanity’s current intelligence and the wisdom needed to responsibly handle technology’s impact on cultures and ecosystems [01:20:20]. This challenge is considered the most difficult engineering or philosophical problem humanity has ever faced [01:37:02].