"Rivalrous dynamics, multiplied by exponential technology, self-terminate." Or: how not to go extinct, by Daniel Schmachtenberger
“Sense-making” has become the phrase of the moment for many in the A/UK networks. We need to “make sense” better than we’re currently doing, say many thinkers and activists. That’s compelled by both the information and knowledge overload that our networked world brings, and also by the compounding crises of environment and technology, that threaten to be entirely “out of our control”.
Do we - meaning the citizenry, not just the expertocracy - need to be able to step back and comprehend the whole picture? How seemingly distant elements actually interconnect? What are the ways of seeing patterns, thinking about causes, that can reinforce our “sense-making” of this mess?
The video above is a classic example of this new practice of “sense-making” - which the Financial Times covered in 2019 - and its voice-over is from its leading exponent and advocate, Daniel Schmachtenberger. Essentially, in his many essays, podcasts and lectures, Schmachtenberger invites people to think about the systems we live in, and how they incentivise certain behaviours.
The phrase at the head of this blog is a classic example of S’s phrasing: “rivalrous dynamics, multiplied by exponential technology, self-terminate." If we furiously compete with each other geopolitically and commercially, and the tools of our competition are powerful computers and annihilatory nukes, then we will destroy ourselves. So for Schmachterberger, the challenge is: how can we design new systems with different, non-rivalrous dynamics?
One concrete answer that Daniel has dived into is, bluntly, the linking of education and news media. How might you invite people with “the reading and thinking capacity of a smart 16 year old” (as S puts it) into a new, post-competitive understanding of the world, and then have them read the daily news based on that understanding, thus creating a demand for a different news (which itself points to the need for a different world)?
This is what Schmachtenberger is trying to build with his Consilience Project. They’re beginning with papers, but will expand out into memes, videos and animations. Their three categories are:
Foundations Series, which will “explain the systems of social organization that brought us to this point—and what might need to come next”
Situational Assessments, which “present a view of world events that generates a clear understanding of how the social theory explored in the Foundations series is manifesting in reality”
MetaNews is “a new way to process the news in response to a chaotic and polarized media landscape. [We] use analytical and computational tools to clarify what happens when news breaks. We’ll analyze thousands of stories in order to understand important moments in recent news cycles, producing a detailed analysis of representative stories from across the political spectrum.” At the bottom of the page they examine Trump’s scare stories about Tik Tok as an illustrative example.
In the Project’s summary of what is is not, its purpose is very clearly expressed:
We are not a news organization. Helping people understand the issues of the day is a critical function for the world, but it is not our goal nor within our capacity to try to do justice to the entire space of current events.
The appeal of each piece is not that it is a trending story – its appeal is the importance of the content enduringly, for the particular situation addressed as well as for its cross-applicability elsewhere. We are not a news organization looking for newsworthy stories; we are looking for real epistemic opportunities and cultural leverage points.
We aren’t optimizing for clicks or total reads or downloads; instead, we want readers to feel that each piece of content mattered and increased their understanding of the world. And that across many pieces, they feel an increasing capacity to make sense of the world in general being developed.
We are not a science journal. We will talk about world issues that require making sense of the science, which involves a multitude of studies, disciplines, conflicting opinions and interpretations, politics, economics, etc. But we are sensemaking around scientific topics rather than conducting or producing original “science.”
We are not driven by the size of our audience, journalism prizes or favorable coverage. Instead, success for us is the emergence of a truly decentralized cultural renaissance that elevates collective intelligence and cooperation to a level commensurate with the issues humanity faces.
The essence this project hopes to imbue is
an increased feeling of hope that individuals can make sense of things;
an increased desire to learn and understand more;
a desire to think more clearly and critically and holistically;
a seriousness about the issues we face and a deepened desire to contribute meaningfully;
a sense of a way forward that is not partisan, that doesn’t serve class or market interests, that has both wholesomeness and capacity;
that has the kinds of virtue and intelligence that can inspire people to develop themselves and transcend cynicism;
greater clarity on what a healthy culture is and why it is upstream from all the problems that need to be addressed;
a desire to find ways to authentically engage.
These are the markers of success for The Consilience Project.
Regular readers will see the echoes here with A/UK’s interest in “A Better Media”. And the overall question of what knowledge communities need to empower themselves, and what structures (including media and education) can turn that awareness and discourse into action.
If you want a deep audio exploration of the Consilience Project, try this episode of the Jim Rutt Show (podcast and transcript).