From: jimruttshow8596
Human history and societal evolution can be viewed through the lens of shifting governance structures, particularly the tension between hierarchical (Game A) and decentralized (Game B) systems [09:31:00]. This perspective suggests that humanity is currently at a critical juncture, requiring a fundamental shift in its collective intelligence toolkit to survive present challenges [10:08:00] [10:08:00] [10:08:00].
The “Band Level” (Pre-Game A Society)
Approximately 75,000 years ago, a significant transition occurred with the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens, leading to what is called the “upper paleolithic transition” [10:01:00] [10:03:00]. This era saw the perfection of a collective intelligence toolkit centered on “tribal coherence,” enabling small, tightly-bound groups (hunter-gatherer bands) to work together effectively [10:16:00] [10:47:00]. These groups were typically limited to around 150 individuals, a concept known as the Dunbar number, beyond which they tended to fission into smaller units [12:06:00] [12:40:00].
A key characteristic of these band-level societies was their strong adaptation against hierarchy [20:33:00]. Unlike chimpanzees, which exhibit rigid hierarchies, early human bands developed an “allergy to bosses” [21:03:00] [21:07:00]. This was possibly enabled by the development of weaponry, allowing individuals to collectively resist any attempts at dominance [21:15:00]. They were exceptionally effective at policing defection (e.g., free riders or hierarchical abuses) within the group, maintaining a robust “collective intelligence” [22:11:00] [22:20:00].
The Emergence of “Game A” (Hierarchical Society)
The pressure for a new societal structure emerged as human populations increased and available land became scarce, leading to competition primarily among human groups rather than solely with nature [13:35:00] [13:40:00]. This led to the “neolithic transition,” marked by the development of agriculture and larger, more sedentary settlements around 10,000 years ago [13:32:00] [17:00:00].
This new collective intelligence toolkit, termed “Game A,” addressed three primary problems:
- Survival in nature: Extracting resources for the group’s well-being [15:20:00].
- Competition with other human groups: Enabling victory over rivals [15:35:00].
- Internal defection: Managing large populations beyond the Dunbar number [15:47:00].
Game A introduced formal societal structures and specialized roles (e.g., priest or king) [26:01:00] [27:05:00]. This transition overcame the anti-hierarchical ethos of earlier bands by establishing formal authority, often backed by a loyal military caste [21:32:00] [21:37:00]. In Game A, society is seen as a “complicated” system, meaning it is finite, bounded, and in principle, can be fully mapped and understood (like a Boeing 777) [32:05:00] [32:26:00]. Individuals within Game A adopt formal “identities” that correspond to these roles, distinct from their complex individual uniqueness [29:04:00] [31:38:00].
The Inherent Flaws of Game A (Why Hierarchy Collapses)
Despite its success in scaling human cooperation, Game A fundamentally faces three recurring failure conditions:
- Internal Defection and Corruption: Game A structures are “fundamentally vulnerable to defection” [25:27:00]. As societies grow, the complex reality of human behavior inevitably finds ways to game the complicated system. This leads to a breakdown of “collective sense-making” and “collaborative sense-making,” as individuals or groups prioritize self-interest over the common good [36:06:00] [1:02:09] [1:02:09]. Examples include the rise of corrupt political factions (e.g., late Roman Republic) or the normalization of dishonesty in public discourse [37:50:00] [1:03:09].
- Over-complication and Resource Addiction: Game A societies become “addicted to certain tools” and technologies [45:27:00]. As easier resources are depleted, maintaining the same level of supply requires increasingly complex and fragile infrastructure (e.g., deepwater oil drilling vs. early Pennsylvania wells) [43:57:00] [46:51:00]. This growing “carrying cost” drains resources and leads to an “s-curve” of diminishing returns on innovation [44:06:00] [47:10:00].
- External Competition: Societies must contend with external groups who can learn from and steal their technologies, potentially out-competing them, especially if the incumbent society is already weakened by internal corruption and over-complication [49:29:00] [50:25:00].
Historically, Game A societies have evolved through cycles of collapse and reboot. Each collapse allows for innovations in the “information domain” to be preserved and integrated into a new, more flexible social infrastructure [51:06:00] [52:00:00]. However, the current globalized and technologically advanced iteration of Game A is unique, as a collapse could have catastrophic, worldwide consequences due to widespread interdependencies and the destructive power of modern technology [56:02:00] [56:31:00].
”Game B” (The Proposed Decentralized Alternative)
Given the inherent limitations of Game A, a proposed alternative, “Game B,” aims to foster a new form of collective intelligence toolkit [1:10:10]. This paradigm shift would be as significant as the transition from pre-human to band-level intelligence, and from band-level to Game A civilization [1:10:16].
Game B must overcome the “problem of complication” that plagues Game A [1:11:07]. Instead of relying on formal “society” and “identity” structures, Game B would operate more in the “complex” domain, similar to how band-level societies functioned, but scaled to include vastly more people [1:11:18] [1:12:07].
Key characteristics of Game B include:
- Healing and Maturation: Addressing the psychological damage inflicted by Game A on individuals, fostering maturity and the ability to think (not just “simulated thinking”) [1:14:26] [1:13:50].
- Sophisticated Collective Intelligence: Utilizing new psycho-technologies to facilitate effective group collaboration, even among individuals with vastly different worldviews [1:15:35] [1:16:46].
- Emphasis on Meaningfulness: Providing a radical upgrade in the meaningfulness of lived experience, fostering better relationships and the ability to raise healthier children [1:28:21] [1:28:50].
- Truth and Reality: Basing its “metaphysics” on what is “actually real and true,” offering a competitive advantage over Game A’s reliance on “lying” and “propaganda” [1:30:00].
- Optimal Innovation: Game B conditions are theoretically optimal for maximal innovation and creative collaboration, offering an “escape velocity in techno utopia space” without the catastrophic consequences of unregulated exponential technology [1:32:40] [1:32:51].
The Transition to Game B
The transition to Game B is envisioned as a process of building complete, small-scale, and scalable “instantiations” of this new society, like “Mars colonies in Highland County” [1:23:30] [1:23:56]. These communities would:
- Be self-sustaining in terms of food, energy, and life cycles (birth, education, death) [1:24:50] [1:25:01].
- Interface with Game A with an “asymmetric advantage,” generating high-value products while seeking increasing autonomy [1:23:02] [1:23:05].
- Grow through a process of “fissioning,” where mature communities bud off to form new ones, similar to how hunter-gatherer bands or Mennonite communities expand [1:27:27] [1:27:38].
The challenge lies in managing the rate at which people can be healed, integrated, and scaled into these new coherent systems without destabilizing them [1:24:49]. While the path is difficult, the potential for a radically more meaningful and sustainable human existence serves as a powerful motivator for this necessary shift [1:28:21].