Speaking of which, I've been wanting to learn more about scale dependence wrt social networks and institutions. Do you have any recommended reading on the topic? Is it possible to restrain growth in a principled way while maintaining liberty? Ellul's point (echoed by others) is that the internal logic of modernity is immune to restraint, and so growth and acceleration are necessary consequences of mechanization. The Malthusians on the other hand would artificially limit growth through top-down control (which is its own kind of mechanism). But is there a third option, in which culture regulates growth — directing it toward human flourishing rather than cancerous colonization and consolidation?

Replies (2)

Not sure it answers directly your question, but I am reading Graeber & Wnegrow's The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity, and one point is that the human experience has been way richer than commonly taught, and we have already reached high levels of cooperations in very different ways. One way to get the "right" balance seems to have been to embrace seasonal changes in semi nomadic peoples, like getting the institution for big/huge gathering (winter) and destroying it every summer, with different mechanisms such as rotating the winter ruling tribe... But modernity is very different especially in that we have less and less individual space to split and are mainly settled... Anyway these experiences can be sources of inspiration to resolve our current paradox: alternating rulers (not the same as voting for them), alternating the very structure of society...
A very good question to which I have no answer. There is no stable solution. Institutions will always tend toward capture, convivial tools will always face cultural erosion, and the best we can do is build things that make the cycle slower and less catastrophic.