I’ve developed this tendency to take contemporary leaders or companies or policies and do a historical comparative analysis, like… comparing the populist rise of trump to the rise of Roman emperors populist fascist regimes etc. examining the economic climate that lead to it, the policies that disenfranchised groups that lead to the inequality and inequity in the first place. Human nature has remained quite predictable and consistent throughout history, with little deviation, it seems to me, the more I learn, despite the technological advancements that seemed to have transformed society.
I am inclined to see Zuckerbergs vision of a more connected world much in the same way that the Catholic Church envisioned a more connected world.
There’s a tinge of imperialism to Zuck’s vision, though not the militaristic kind. Just a diplomatic imperialism of imposing this vision, of influencing the global community to embrace the values of Zuck and the institution of facebook.
Religion as it’s essence is an institution, just like any institution. It just so happens to be the first, and oldest, and most primitive, and the best (historically speaking) for providing a cosmic cohesiveness to our lives, a continuity of meaning and purpose.
The framework of institutions is utterly the same, whether it’s religion or business or government. How they are structured in terms of human organization to ensure stability and self preserve and mobilize and grow is always the same.
In college I did a little independent research assignment on the role of cultural capital for building the economies of developing societies.
Cultural capital is the glue to allows people to work together. It provides the necessary values to facilitate trust and mutual agreement of expected behaviors needed for transactions.
Religion, like facebook, is a network that provides people a place to connect and share in mutual values.
The problem is, unlike religion, there are no gatekeepers… there is no authority (except… I suppose Facebook is the covert authority, taking down posts and pages and people that violate its broad definition of ethics).
This is interested to think about. That facebook has a responsibility it can’t avoid, which is being the authority of values, or gatekeeper of what information is “best”, while also keeping in mind it’s so called commitment to “democracy” and open society.
The irony of all institutions is that, no matter WHAT their humanistic core values seem to appeal to, the number prerogative of an institution is::: Self preservation.
At any expense.
Til the death.
Throughout history this has undermined their value of freedom and human life, if there are groups who are at odds with the institution.
It’s not very Christian like to murder, except when something threatens the existential institution of church.
It’s not very American to torture, except etc
I’m curious how far Facebook’s benevolent vision will extend
It might not be an advantage to be totally globalized
I mean, schumpeters creative destruction comes to mind.
*
I think of “systems”
Systems are great until they’re not. Then they need to be revised and replaced, but systems are preserved and held into place by institutions
It’s organizational inertia which prevents these systems from evolving
It’s like tax code that gets so bloated it’s massively inefficient
The thought of dismantling and replacing is like… too ambitious, without dissolving the institutions that impose them
Or something
If that makes sense
I can imagine perhaps better systems that may develop if parts of the were developed independently, and maybe weren’t apart of a globalized standard.
William Dare 