Re: virus: Taking Over the World (was: Sign Off)

D.H.Rosdeitcher (
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:45:05 -0400

Tim Rhodes wrote:
I wrote
>> Speaking of taking over the world, does attempting to bring the world
>> under one rule interfere with naturally emerging complex order?

>Does the attempt increase the complexity of the system or undermine it?

The attempt I have in mind increases the complexity of the system.
Here are 2 different socio-political theories about how to increase
The libertarian-oriented paradigm holds that trying to impose order on
the world by creating a world government only gets in the way of a
spontaneously emerging order, which naturally yields the most profitable
results. In this paradigm, the key to greater complexity does not
consist of any collectivized attempts to govern people, but an attempt to
leave the free-market alone so that complexity would develop from the
constantcompetitive market struggle to increase the quality of all goods
and services while decreasing costs. This competition would not only
improve the quality and quantity of goods and services, but would improve
global policies, since those who hold the power to make globally important
decisions, would be those who are competent to make them--those who succeed
in the marketplace as opposed to those who simply win votes.
From a memetic evolutionary paradigm the key to increasing complexity of
the system is not necessarily laissez-faire competition, but whatever
accelerates memetic evolution. The progress of our memes determines
scientific, technological, and other kinds of progress toward greater
compexity. The memetic paradigm would imply that a new world government
might be useful to redistribute wealth so that more and more people could
devote their minds to some type of network which makes progress toward
memetic evolution.
I'd say that the memetic paradigm that supports a new world government
leads to greater complexity than the libertarian system since people could
afford to spend more energy on the trial and error process required for
progress as opposed to having to spend time on basic survival actions and
monetary success. And there would be less energy spent on the cycle of
needless production and consumption cycle which doesn't always seem to lead
anywhere. But, is it complexity at a cost? For instance does an individual
give up his independence, self-sufficiency and freedom by giving up his
mind to a collectivized neural network which is part of a system he didn't
necessarily choose?

--David R.