When more than one leader crops up it is because the people no longer agree on something fundamental
Social insects follow this pattern
Primates follow this pattern
Dunbar’s number hypothesizes that we can have a group of 150 people max that we feel comfortable socializing with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
If a group gets so big that each person no longer knows all the others then it’s harder to agree on a leader (or common ideologies)
The tribe then splits (or fights)
This is probably good over all
As long as the groups can get along, separating because of fundamental differences leads to more options
The more options there are, the more likely a better option will emerge
If we force everyone to stay in the same group it is probably unhealthy
-it leads to animosity and resentment
-If there is only one option it is less likely to be the ideal (fragile)
How could a system like this work?
Maybe try to design cities with this in mind
Allow communities as much autonomy as possible
Make sure there are clear agreements, traditions, expectations, etc for what happens when there needs to be a split. (peace treaty, who leaves and who stays)
Dispute resolution is key
No comments:
Post a Comment