Toward Collective Sensemaking

Part 1: Introducing Applied Human Governance as a Discipline

Polis Labs

Preliminary note: Polis Labs is starting with a hypothesis. Our hypothesis is that governance can be improved through experimentation, and this hypothesis should be tested. Until now, there has been no real or true experimentation in governance.

Democracy was invented in ancient Athens and resurged during the Enlightenment in the United States. At the time, democracy was considered a beautiful experiment, overthrowing the tyrannical monarchies of the day. However, other models of governance were not tried or tested. Instead, a representative version of democracy was copied and pasted worldwide.

With the modern parallel society and network state movement, we are rethinking the status quo and transforming our world. We can now challenge and test our social premises. We can craft neverbefore-seen governance structures. This social transformation heralds the invention of collective sensemaking.

---

Ending Hubris in Governance

A key insight from the parallel society movement (which we will discuss in future pieces) is that governance should not be an arbitrary or random design to inform human organization and collective sensemaking. Arguably, until modern times, governance — typically called “government” — has been established by a ruling class or elite. They have decided what is best for their citizens based on caprice and happenstance. Governance models have not been selected based on empirical evidence or what unequivocally results in human flourishing and betterment.

Governance models have typically emerged like this: an elite hands down rules they think are the fairest, or more realistically, what is in their interest rather than in the interest of individuals and their communities. This mentality is the height of folly and hubris. These biased, ad hoc governance implementations result from people believing they can build Utopia, which Thomas More wrote satirically about in 1516. Overall, formulating rules for governance has been an exercise in central planning mixed with the chutzpah of a bureaucratic class.

This article aims to reimagine how people and societies think about governance. People the world over must begin to view it as an ongoing, adaptable experiment. We are undergoing an evolution of governance, with the opportunity to pave a path to a better tomorrow. With this notion in mind, we propose a new field of inquiry: Applied Human Governance (AHG).

We will explore the field's initial ideas and assumptions. In later pieces, we will examine the parallel society movement within which AHG will thrive and the preferable futures the discipline anticipates.

”There is nothing as powerful, as capable of transforming itself and the planet, as the human imagination.”

-Terence Mckenna

Applied Human Governance (AHG)

AHG is our proposed scientific inquiry. It focuses on understanding human organization and governance within emergent societies, such as network states or parallel societies. As an interdisciplinary field, AHG draws from game theory, political science, architectural design, social psychology, information theory, blockchain governance, economics, panarchist literature, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other diverse wisdom traditions.

We define AHG as a methodology to understand what governance frameworks function optimally for the betterment of humankind in the physical world and cyberspace. The discipline's related focus is determining what governance structures hinder or prevent zero-sum games and Moloch dynamics. We will operationalize and expand the components of this definition to grapple with the full scope of our inquiry. The following are AHG's core assumptions. We necessarily start with assumptions that can and will change during experimentation.

Core Assumptions

• Optimal Governance: Governance should not (nor can be) be a one-size-fits-all solution. Each governance experiment should “optimize” for different features or outputs for eclectic, culturally unique communities. What is “optimal” for a governance model or framework will be what benefits the individuals and the groups who have opted into that model. So, metrics will be “human” focused.
  
  For instance, a “GDP,” or gross domestic product, is a metric used by modern governments. It is a data point we consider “inhuman” because it benefits a ruling elite and their systems more than the people. “GDP” as a metric demonstrates a government's economic health and power. It is too abstracted from everyday living; indeed, economic growth does not necessarily equate to happiness. In a previous article, we mention that the focus on human happiness is what we refer to as “humanware.” We hope to calibrate our models to empower and uplift people to maximize their incentives to cooperate and live peacefully.
  
  Optimal governance will typically be informed by metrics like what the Kingdom of Bhutan calls “GDH,” or Gross Domestic Happiness. Other metrics could include emotional well-being, governance fairness calculations, civic liberty, etc. Optimal governance metrics are all about aligning incentives based on the needs of the communities that have opted into a given social experiment. As a note, optimal governance will also vary based on culture, mores, and trends.
  

• Collective Betterment: We use the term “betterment” often. The idea of collective betterment or flourishing means that whatever metrics governance models optimize for, they result in a net positive gain for individuals who opt into a given model. The term is not subjective or concocted creatio ex nihlio. Instead, we have operationalized “collective betterment.” It suggests that the metrics we optimized for are being implemented and result in a member’s desire to stay in a specific community. In this sense, AHG is a catalyst for creating healthier, happier, liberated societies.
  
  We shamelessly borrow the term “betterment” from the work of the Civilizational Research Institute, started by Daniel Schmactenberger. He and his colleagues sometimes use the term to differentiate authentic progress from naive or immature progress. “Naive progress” refers to the illusion that we progress as we develop sophisticated technologies and expand our national economies. In “Development in Progress,” Schmactenberger and his team summarise their perspective:

  ”The way we understand what progress is and how we achieve it has profound implications for our future. Ultimately, it shapes our most significant actions in the world — it affects how we make changes and solve problems, how we think about economics, and how we design technologies. Whatever is not included in our definition and measurement of progress is often harmed in its pursuit. Its side effects (or externalities) occur in a complex cascade, often distributing harms throughout both time and space.”

  

  
  We are still working within a framework for immature progress as a society. Many governments and institutions are causing untold downstream harm via technological advancement, unending bureaucratic logjams, and runaway corporate excess. Under the sway of the naive paradigm, we erroneously believe we are building a better future. The reality is we are self-destructing. We perpetuate this self-destruction by advancing forward with myopic techno-optimist efficiency.
  
  Here is a fictitious example of naive progress: a company produces a novel quantum communicator device. The device allows people to connect with each other holographically, suffers from zero signal distortion, and takes our communication capabilities to the next level. However, in producing the gadget, its components are made of biohazardous material, which leeches toxins into a nearby stream or reservoir. The fallout from this mass production may not be seen until later, causing the destruction of local fauna and inciting the development of disease in children. This spillover effect example exposes a “downstream” consequence of developing the new device. It is an “externality.” This example is fictitious, but real-life examples are ubiquitous. Read the “Development in Progress” piece for a complete analysis.
  
  On the other hand, “authentic progress” carries us into the future without self-annihilation. It is a type of progress imbued with wisdom. It means we have addressed and rectified the delusion and pains of naive progress. It denotes building technologies and moving into a future without creating spillover effects. It anticipates and addresses black swan scenarios. It suggests not being reactionary but understanding what produces the most peaceful, happiest, and liberated societies while preserving ourselves and the health of the planet. AHG is specifically geared toward solving the problems of immature progress by focusing on governance, cooperation, and organizational sensemaking. This focus is what leads to collective betterment and brings us into a mode of authentic progress.
  

• Moloch Prevention: AHG also aims to understand and prevent Moloch dynamics. We touched on this in a previous article because we view comprehending game theory as critical for improving our world and preventing the destruction of ourselves, resources, and the planet.
  
  Moloch Dynamics are game-theoretic scenarios in which everyone in a community or society optimizes for short-term benefits over collective well-being and betterment. These situations lead to races to the bottom, arms races, tragedies of the commons, and various zero-sum games that cause massive harm, potentially leading to the fall of civilization and planetary despoliation. We aim to achieve governance models that minimize or entirely negate Molochian impacts.

  

  
  Our “communication device” example is a great illustration of a race to the bottom. The company's ambition to maximize profit disincentivizes it to consider downstream or long-term harms caused by the production of such a device. The irony of Moloch dynamics is that those involved in this zero-sum game know what they are doing is harmful but feel as if they cannot escape its clutches. They feel “trapped,” which is why these scenarios are also referred to as “multipolar traps.” However, potential climatological harm or environmental degradation is only one aspect of multipolar traps run amok.
  
  A more salient fear is that Moloch becomes pronounced within ecologies of power. Many of those who are embedded in bureaucratic offices do not care about the citizens they serve. They become incentivized to increase their power at the expense of everyone else, which provides the rationale for why all legacy government architectures naturally and endemically go morally bankrupt and corrupt, causing the widespread planetary harms previously referenced. In her pivotal work “Governing the Commons,” Elinor Ostrom said:

  “What we have ignored is what citizens can do and the importance of real involvement of the people versus just having somebody in Washington make a rule.”

  At Polis, we won’t ignore what people in communities can achieve. We focus on discarding the dynamics of all inept governmental structures. Instead, we envision AHG as the methodology that would set the stage for studying governance to prevent zero-sum games from overtaking our most valued institutions. As Suzanne discussed in her previous article, we want to prevent our systems from becoming stupid. We aim to minimize zero-sum competition within human organizations on a fundamental, structural level.

Conclusion: Sensemaking over Politics

The stated goal or outcome of AHG is to create a world where competing governance models adapt to human needs based on empirical evidence, data, and attunement to cultural wisdom and knowledge. We are witnessing the start of a new era and the diminishment of politics as usual.

The idea of collective sensemaking is a new way to solve problems without relying on political action. Leveraging governments and hedging bets on power has only resulted in continual zero-sum games and self-destructive activities.

Instead, the key to escaping our governance quagmire is to focus on experimenting with models that incrementally erode Moloch dynamics and produce happier, more liberated communities.

AHG is a field of inquiry that foreshadows the cultural turn. It prepares us to learn more astutely how our governance models affect our societies, individual lives, and planetary ecosystems. This transition toward collective sensemaking overtakes “politics” as the dominant form of social problem-solving and rulemaking. It is the key to shedding all of our ineffective, destructive routines, subroutines, and habits as a species.

---

In the next piece, we will delve further into the emergence of the parallel society movement and how AHG enhances the governance outputs of those cyberstates and parallel ecosystems.