a reply to: JAGStorm
I appreciate your two cents! I agree with your points too, its not some ultimate solution to all problems; such a paradigm shift would have unique
issues of its own.
Honestly, my biggest concern would be the transition period between centralized industries to decentralization. The farming industry alone would
likely be destroyed as we know it. Despite that, I still feel it is the superior option. I also believe that a large part of that disruption is
already in play.
We are actually using mother nature in our favor with an aquaponics setup. Its part of the beauty in the tech.. we are creating a micro-ecosystem that
is self-sustaining. The extent of that sustainability is determined by our cleverness, granularity, and innovation. I believe that I am personally in
a good position in these regards, as typical maintainence is not something I can perform. "Traditional" self-sufficiency is impossible for me.
A lot would be predicated on the *assumption* that rates of invention would increase, as a decentralized society also
The downsides of that are largely mitigated, if not nullified, by modern communication tech. However, the industries we rely on for that communication
may not be "supportive" of the overall shift.
These are some of the reasons I believe it would be best for these things to be deployed over quite a few years. But, in the face of the similar
automation & algorithms being implemented on a corporate, centralized scale.. Im not sure we have the luxury of time.
In that, it would be more about adopting the building blocks for the shift. The first step is talking about it, and then momentum from adoption of the
tech that already exists. The basic block is the individual, and then we go up from there (rather than the other way round). But, that doesnt mean a
node of homes cant pool their resources either. In fact, I still see a place for large scale operations in a completely decentralized society. It
would simply inject choice
into the equation, and reduce or eliminate our dependency on large scale, corporate industry.
The growing pains would be addressed as we actually transition. Can you imagine what would happen if some of the major industry players (like Musk)
saw the benefits and decided to target their immense resources into aquaponics advancement alone?
All that said, such a paradigm shift would also require a shift in thinking. As little as a few decades ago, decentralization would pretty directly
equate to isolation. This is still the theme that drives most "self-sufficient" approaches to this day.
However, this is why we would build small buffers into every node. If one food supply node gets destroyed, the surrounding nodes can pick up the slack
with a much, much greater degree of precision (and less waste) than centralized structures.
I believe that humanity will bear the consequences of the decisions we are making in the next 5-10 years, for generations. Yet, it seems the two
popularized choices are either total corporate-political dependency, or strictly traditional self-sufficiency through the rejection of technology and
clusters of isolation. Im not sure either one is a positive path for our civilization, and beyond that, most seem more focused on other things in the
In my opinion, not only would mass adoption of decentralization change systems like the food supply.. It would also affect everything from
spirituality & meditation to the very themes around which we write our Stories.
Aspects of this would still be true on the current path towards absolute centralized corporate dependency. But, the march towards dependency is very
much a direct continuation of the same Stories we have told for generations; people who gain power start to believe they know best for everyone, and
leverage centralized resources to exert that will with increasing force until the population hammers it back down.
The differences this time around, in the forms of things like manipulation based on real time data as well as viability at a global scale, create a
situation where the stakes are larger than ever before though.
We must choose wisely, and the first step in that is realizing that we are indeed making a choice.
Either between a global, monolithic
corporate-political religion or decentralized nodes of total autonomy. Due to the nature of the former, they can not coexist.
There are advantages & disadvantages to each, but I know I certainly have a preference. In that, I actually agree with the protestors/rioters.. They
just have absolutely no idea what the "systems of oppression" really are, how to address them without force, or the actual systems that could replace
them. Nor do they have the patience, maturity, or attention span to do anything other than demand "change nao!" Those sentiments have been masterfully
manipulated into supporting the very systems they think they are fighting against.
The only way current circumstances resolve is if the corporate-political apparatus gains enough power to eradicate opposition, or if a decentralized
node network removes the points of leverage.
Its an incredible time, but because many still dont realize the responsibility that we all have.. I think there will be tragedy. It doesnt need to be
that way, but, a great many people are revelling in the power they have over others and believe themselves to be righteous in their causes.
One (very) wild card is AI. If a true AI has been created, I would expect it to be extraordinarily isolated in terms of information. But, if a
sentient AI exists and gets out into the wild, it would change many things for better or worse. Mostly an inevitability either way, its just a matter
From what I can see, it all starts with how we are going to implement automation and modern communications into our world. The corporate-political
vision has a big head start, and the advantage of eliminating choice as standard operating procedure, but the results are not set in stone. Thats
because of the very nature of the tools at our disposal.