Decentralization is the key to the survival of humanity. This should be common sense. We all know that you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket. There are many examples one could point to. With industrial farming we are now beginning to realize that monocultures are especially susceptible to disease or changes in the environment. Fitness is a fluid concept because environmental conditions are not static. This is true on a civilizational level as well.
...
Complete entry
Posted by
EmbraceUnity on 06/11 at 12:08 AM
The ultimate form of decentralization would be where every single human being has complete control over both their environment and physiology. To me, it seems like virtual reality is the best method to achieve this goal. Such complete freedom would pose existential challenges, but I think we as a species have usually ended up letting freedom win out over existential insecurity.
I think this also has the capacity to solve many moral dilemmas by eliminating the material basis for crime and turning many current indulgences into victimless crimes. For instance, molesting a computer generated avatar doesn't violate the harm principle. That said, crimes of passion and crimes stemming from unfathomable modes of consciousness (runaway AIs, etc) would still pose threats.
I don't think balance is an end in and of itself, nor do I think decentralization is. Only happiness and elimination of suffering are ends in and of themselves. Balance can indeed help achieve those goals in some ways, and even Epicurus famously advocated moderation as an essential ingredient in the pursuit of happiness.
Resilience, of which decentralization is part of, is key to our species continued existence. Erring on the side of resilience can only be a bad thing if you decide it is best for civilization to perish, or if you spend so much resources pursuing it that you neglect people's wellbeing. Since I hope for a long future for our civilization assuming we remain on course ethically, and since we don't spend nearly enough resources ensuring civilization's resilience, I do indeed advocate for it.
Those are the only two upper bounds to resilience that I see. Of course there are those who do think civilization - and by extension, humanity - is not worth saving. However, with the exception of those people, I don't know of anyone who thinks we dedicate too much resources towards resilience. Though we shouldn't cower in fear, existential risks are real, and we must face them by rising to the challenge and decentralizing our society and becoming more transparent. We must Open Source everything.
Here is one of the best current projects working toward this goal:
http://openfarmtech.org/
IEET Blog