Re-architecting Society in the Digital Age

1800s:

Dominant Leviathan: God. Religious institutions hold significant power, shaping moral codes and social order.
Emerging Force: Culture (as defined by Jacob Burkhart) – peer-to-peer interactions and cultural exchanges start gaining influence.

1900s:

Dominant Leviathan: The State. With declining religious influence, the state rises as the primary enforcer of laws and societal norms.
Key Conflict: The clash between atheist, state-centric ideologies (like the Soviet Union) and the combined power of religion and state (like in the US).
Technology: Emergence of mass media, giving the state greater control over information dissemination.

2000s – Present:

Dominant Leviathan (Emerging): The Network. The internet and digital technologies foster a decentralized power structure, challenging the state’s authority.
Key Examples: Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies challenge state control over monetary policy; social networks empower individuals and communities, often bypassing traditional media and state narratives.
Network States: The concept of the Network State arises, leveraging technology to create new, digitally native, and geographically dispersed sovereign entities.
Key Conflict: The Network and the State grapple for power, leading to events like the deplatforming of political figures, debates over cryptocurrency regulation, and the rise of alternative media ecosystems.

Future:

Increased Polycatism: A more fragmented and diverse world with multiple competing power centers and ideologies.
Network States Solidify: Network States gain greater recognition and influence, potentially competing with or cooperating with existing nation-states.
Technological Advancements: AR/VR technologies blur the lines between physical and digital, further empowering Network States and digital communities.

From God to State to Network: The Shifting Locus of Power

Throughout history, different “Leviathans”— dominant forces that shape social organization and compel pro-social behavior — have emerged:

God: Religious institutions once held immense sway, dictating morality and shaping individual and collective behavior.
State: Nation-states arose, claiming authority over defined territories and populations.
Network: With the advent of the internet and digital technologies, a new Leviathan, the Network, has emerged, challenging traditional power structures and offering alternative models for governance.

This shift to the Network is driven by the increasing digitization of our lives. As people spend more time online, the Network gains influence, shaping our perceptions, behaviors, and even our physical world.

The Network Flexes its Muscles: Challenging the Status Quo

The Network’s capacity to challenge the state is evident in various examples:

WallStreetBets: This online community demonstrated the power of collective action in influencing financial markets, challenging established financial institutions.
Amazon HQ2: The online campaign to attract Amazon’s second headquarters showcased how the Network can influence economic decisions, bypassing traditional political processes.
Instagram vs. Kodak: The success of a small team of Instagram engineers against a much larger Kodak workforce underscores the Network’s ability to disrupt legacy industries through rapid technological innovation.

These instances highlight the Network’s growing influence and its potential to reshape the physical world, prompting us to re-examine traditional notions of power and governance.

Defining Network States: A Blueprint for a New Society

Srinivasan defines a network state as “a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states.” This definition emphasizes several key features:

Highly Aligned Online Community: This is not just any online group; it’s a community with a strong sense of shared purpose and values, guided by a “one commandment” that sets it apart from mainstream society.
Capacity for Collective Action: This community must be able to act in unison, moving beyond passive online engagement (“popcorn action” like liking or sharing content). Srinivasan stresses the need for tools and platforms that enable and incentivize effective collective action.
Crowdfunding Territory: Network states aim to materialize their online presence in the physical world by crowdfunding real estate. These territories, starting as “network archipelagos,” can range from co-living spaces to entire towns, strategically located across the globe.

Building a Network State: A Seven-Step Path to Sovereignty

Srinivasan outlines a seven-step roadmap for building a network state:

Found a Startup Society: This initial stage involves establishing an online community around a shared vision or “one commandment.”
Organize into a Network Union: Building trust and developing mechanisms for collective action are crucial in this stage.
Crowdfund Physical Nodes: The community pools resources to acquire physical spaces, ranging from apartments to houses to entire towns, creating “network archipelagos” distributed across the globe.
Digitally Connect Physical Communities: Technology plays a vital role in connecting these dispersed physical nodes, fostering a sense of unity and shared identity.
Work Remotely and Pay Taxes Online: Cultivating a digital-first economy is key, enabling members to work remotely and contribute financially to the network state.
Seek Diplomatic Recognition: As the network state grows in size, influence, and economic power, it can pursue diplomatic recognition from existing states, achieving a level of formal sovereignty.
Network State Achieved: This final stage represents the realization of a network state, blending the strengths of both the physical and digital realms.

Case Study: Disrupting Biomedicine with a “Post-FDA Society”

Biomedicine is a compelling example of how network states can address systemic failures and unlock human potential. He criticizes the FDA for stifling innovation and limiting access to potentially life-saving treatments, highlighting the urgent need for a new paradigm:

FDA as a Barrier to Progress: Srinivasan criticizes the FDA’s bureaucratic processes for slowing down medical advancements, citing examples like the delay in approving HIV/AIDS treatments during the ACT UP era, which cost countless lives.
Challenge Trials as a Catalyst: He advocates for “challenge trials,” where volunteers consent to participate in expedited drug testing, as a way to accelerate the pace of medical innovation.
Envisioning a “Post-FDA Society”: Srinivasan proposes a network state focused on medical sovereignty, where individuals have more control over their healthcare choices and access to cutting-edge treatments. He envisions a system of decentralized “cloud regulators” to ensure safety and quality, offering a more agile and accountable alternative to the FDA’s centralized model.

Evidence Over Confidence: The Startup Analogy

Srinivasan draws parallels between startups and startup societies, emphasizing the power of evidence-based approaches over blind faith in existing institutions. Network states, like successful startups, can:

Demonstrate Alternative Models: They can serve as living laboratories, implementing their vision and providing tangible evidence of new and better ways to organize society.
Force Reform from Without: The success of network states in specific areas, such as biomedicine or self-driving cars, can exert pressure on existing institutions to adapt and reform.
Scale Up from Humble Beginnings: Just as startups begin with a small team and a bold idea, network states can start as niche communities and gradually expand their influence.

Addressing Potential Concerns and Criticisms

Srinivasan acknowledges potential concerns about network states, including:

Elitism: Critics may perceive network states as havens for the wealthy, excluding those without the resources to participate. Srinivasan counters this by arguing that, like the early United States, network states can attract diverse populations and drive global change even with a small initial population.
Regulation: Questions arise about how network states will regulate various aspects of life, from education to taxes. Srinivasan envisions a system of decentralized “cloud regulators,” accountable and transparent entities that offer alternative regulatory frameworks to those imposed by traditional nation-states.
Scaling: Skepticism exists regarding the ability of network states to achieve the scale and impact of existing nation-states. Srinivasan draws parallels to historical examples, such as the United States, which evolved from a small group of colonies into a global superpower, to illustrate the potential for exponential growth.

Beyond the FDA: Unlocking Innovation Across Domains

While biomedicine serves as a powerful illustration, the concept of network states extends beyond a single domain. Srinivasan envisions a world where network states tackle a wide array of challenges:

Self-Driving Cars: Imagine a network state built around a commitment to accelerating the adoption of self-driving vehicles. This community could acquire land and design infrastructure specifically for autonomous vehicles, creating a “self-driving car zone” that showcases the technology’s potential and pushes the boundaries of innovation.
Digital Sabbath: Concerned about the pervasive nature of technology and its impact on well-being? A “digital Sabbath” network state could prioritize time offline, establishing physical spaces with limited or no internet access, encouraging members to disconnect and reconnect with themselves and their communities.
Keto Kosher: A network state focused on health and nutrition could embrace a “keto kosher” approach, restricting sugary foods and promoting healthy eating habits. This community could create environments where healthy eating is the norm, demonstrating the benefits of a sugar-free lifestyle.

These are just a few examples; the potential for network states to address diverse societal challenges is vast.

Building the Future: One Commandment at a Time

Srinivasan emphasizes the power of starting with a clear and compelling “one commandment” — a moral innovation that defines the community’s purpose and sets it apart from the mainstream. This singular focus allows the community to:

Attract Like-Minded Individuals: A clear moral premise serves as a powerful magnet, drawing in people who share the community’s values and are willing to commit to its vision.
Build a Strong Foundation: Starting with a shared moral commitment fosters a sense of unity and purpose, providing a solid foundation upon which to build a thriving community.
Drive Action and Innovation: A compelling one commandment can inspire collective action, empowering the community to tackle challenges and pursue innovative solutions.

The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

The concept of network states is still in its early stages of development, and many challenges remain to be addressed:

Building Trust and Cooperation: Creating a highly aligned community requires establishing mechanisms for building trust, resolving conflicts, and fostering cooperation among members.
Navigating Legal and Regulatory Hurdles: Network states will need to navigate complex legal and regulatory landscapes, potentially facing resistance from existing nation-states.
Ensuring Sustainability and Scalability: The long-term sustainability and scalability of network states will depend on their ability to attract and retain members, generate economic value, and adapt to changing circumstances.

Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of network states are significant. By leveraging technology, innovation, and collective action, they offer a path toward:

Increased Individual Choice and Autonomy: Network states empower individuals to choose how they are governed, offering alternatives to the limitations of existing nation-states.
Accelerated Innovation and Progress: By fostering experimentation and competition, network states can drive innovation and accelerate progress in various domains.
More Responsive and Accountable Governance: Decentralized and community-driven, network states have the potential to be more responsive to their members’ needs and more accountable for their actions.

A Glimpse into the Future: A Fractalized World

Srinivasan believes that network states represent a potential path toward a more fractalized world, where individuals have greater choice in how they are governed and how they live their lives. He argues that:

The US Establishment Faces Declining Legitimacy: While still powerful, the US establishment, according to Srinivasan, faces growing challenges to its legitimacy and competence.
Network States Offer an Alternative: Network states offer a viable alternative model for governance, leveraging technology and collective action to address societal challenges and provide choice in a rapidly changing world.

The future of governance is uncertain, but the concept of network states provides a thought-provoking framework for exploring the possibilities of technology, community, and innovation. While many questions remain unanswered, the potential for network states to reshape the world is undeniable.

Join our Telegram community