Yesterday’s post was an extensive quote from another blog arguing that we’re free to choose what society looks like in the long term. When we imagine humanity’s path over the next 100 years or so, we’re too often either just extrapolating from what it’s like right now, or we imagine a dystopia inspired by our past. Either way, we’re far from having imagined all the different way in which humanity may evolve.
What’s possible for human societies is typically discussed among very few dimensions: How much government involvement in the economy should there be or how much focus on creativity should there be in children’s education?
There are many more dimensions that could be considered but mostly aren’t because we take them for granted. For example, it’s possible to imagine societies where all children are reared by the government instead of individual families, or where most of the world is a national park, or where all meals are cooked and eaten communally, or where most personal transport happens by self-driving car-like trams on rails. By systematically exploring all dimensions of society, we can imagine ways of organizing societies that have never been tried in human history.
There would be two parts to this project. In the first part, the dimensions of society are systematically listed and explored. In the second part, a selection of societies in different parts of “society space“, as defined by those dimensions, are imagined in depth. The only two criteria for those societies are that they are different to any society that ever has existed and that they are plausible, i.e. compatible with logic, science and human nature. Imagining those societies includes “big picture” aspects such as how their economies function, but also their look and feel, including fashion, communications, beliefs, transport and architecture.
By creating fictional societies, we could show that we are limiting ourselves too much in imagining what is possible and inspire more experimentation and diversity in how we organize ourselves.
Nehaveigur 
One response to “Possible Societies”
[…] We’re far from having imagined all the different ways in which society may evolve. One recurring complaint about America is its atomization. Have we taken individualism too far? There seems to be a pervasive yearning for a return to stronger communities. Scott Alexander on Astral Codex Ten asks why so few are acting on this, joining or starting their own tightly knit communities. What’s preventing this? It’s not politics. As Francis Fukuyama so eloquently says, Liberalism is not intrinsically opposed to community; indeed, there is a version of liberalism that encourages the flourishing of strong community and human virtue. The curated comments on Alexander’s post are as informative as the original post. […]
LikeLike