“Tech makes conversations at scale possible”
3 notes from the book ‘Nexus’ by Yuval Noah Harari, leading to the take-away quote.
1.
Dictatorial information networks are highly centralised: Nazi Germany, Roman Empire, Soviet Union
Their centre carries most information and decision-making
No robust self-correcting mechanisms
Media and academics’ search for truth are seen as threats that destabilise
Base assumption
infallibility: the centre is always right
there is no ‘conversation’
Democratic information networks are highly distributed: Belgium, US, France
The centre stores a lot of information, but many important decisions are made elsewhere
Robust self-correcting mechanisms
Academic institutions, media and the judiciary check and correct one another
Base assumption
autonomy: individuals decide/choose for themselves
inclusivity: minority groups are accepted
there is a constant ‘conversation’
2.
In the stone age, democratic networks were the basis in tribes. A constant conversation was possible.
However, as communities grew, into cities, into empires, the constant conversation became less feasible (e.g. Roman Empire went from democratic to dictatorial).
Conditions to ‘hold a conversation at scale’:
Freedom to talk
Ability to listen
To be within hearing range of one another
An understanding of what we’re talking about, even when we haven’t experienced it first hand
= media & education system
The technology to facilitate this discussion at scale was non-existent. Distributed democratic networks became incompatible with large-scale societies.
3.
Democracy at scale became possible in the modern age when mass media changed the nature of large-scale information networks.
Take-away from 1-3.
& thoughts.
The current business climate is more dictatorial than it is democratic. The question is whether this is a ‘technological’ constraint or a ‘power’ one.
If the landscape as a whole is evolving to a more inclusive landscape, more democratic methods could be installed.
[Assumption] When businesses grow, they have no choice but to be more inclusive.
Democratic methods would lead to a conversation at scale:
The C-suite carries a lot of information, but important decisions are also made elsewhere.
Autonomy and inclusivity: freedom of choice/action and differing opinions are able to co-exist.
This would require:
Technology that facilitates
to be within hearing range
freedom to talk
ability to listen
and a trust in that technology
An understanding of what we’re talking about
education system, aka ‘training’
communication system, aka ‘media/internal comm.’
and a trust in these systems
The main constraint:
Ideology: is the democratic ideal a desire? Is C-suite willing to delegate decisions and give up control, which is a powerful need and go-to in times of uncertainty.
Can a society be compared to business? It is assumed that people can leave businesses, but people cannot leave societies. Although even those assumptions become once again a modern question mark.
The intermediate solution:
Not strive for the ‘democratic ideal’ as a whole, but choose one of its requirements as a goal.
E.g. install the technology that facilitates conversations at scale. But then also understand the risk that the trust in this technology may be eroded if no ability to act follows.
