来自 Terence Tao，HN上讨论很热烈

Some loosely organized thoughts on the current Zeitgeist. They were inspired by the response to my recent meta-project mentioned in my previous post https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/115254145226514817, where within 24 hours I became aware of a large number of ongoing small-scale collaborative math projects with their own modest but active community (now listed at https://mathoverflow.net/questions/500720/list-of-crowdsourced-math-projects-actively-seeking-participants ); but they are from the perspective of a human rather than a mathematician.

As a crude first approximation, one can think of human society as the interaction between entities at four different scales:

1. Individual humans

2. Small organized groups of humans (e.g., close or extended family; friends; local social or religious organizations; informal sports clubs; small businesses and non-profits; ad hoc collaborations on small projects; small online communities)

3. Large organized groups of humans (e.g., large companies; governments; global institutions; professional sports clubs; large political parties or movements; large social media sites)

4. Large complex systems (e.g., the global economy; the environment; the geopolitical climate; popular culture and "viral" topics; the collective state of science and technology).

An individual human without any of the support provided by larger organized groups is only able to exist at quite primitive levels, as any number of pieces of post-apocalyptic fiction can portray. Both small and large organized groups offer significant economies of scale and division of labor that provide most of the material conveniences that we take for granted in the modern world: abundant food, access to power, clean water, internet; cheap, safe and affordable long distance travel; and so forth. It is also only through such groups that one can meaningfully interact with (and even influence) the largest scale systems that humans are part of.

But the benefits and dynamics of small and large groups are quite different. Small organized groups offer some economy of scale, but - being essentially below Dunbar's number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number in size - also fill social and emotional needs, and the average participant in such groups can feel connected to such groups and able to have real influence on their direction. Their dynamics can range anywhere from extremely healthy to extremely dysfunctional and toxic, or anything in between; but in the latter cases there is real possibility of individuals able to effect change in the organization (or at least to escape it and leave it to fail on its own).

Large organized groups can offer substantially more economies of scale, and so can outcompete small organizations based on the economic goods they offer. They also have more significant impact on global systems than either average individuals or small organizations. But the social and emotional services they provide are significantly less satisfying and authentic. And unless an individual is extremely wealthy, well-connected, or popular, they are unlikely to have any influence on the direction of such a large organization, except possibly through small organizations acting as intermediaries. In particular, when a large organization becomes dysfunctional, it can be an extremely frustrating task to try to correct its course (and if it is extremely large, other options such as escaping it or leaving it to fail are also highly problematic).

My tentative theory is that the systems, incentives, and technologies in modern world have managed to slightly empower the individual, and massively empower large organizations, but at the significant expense of small organizations, whose role in the human societal ecosystem has thus shrunk significantly, with many small organizations either weakening in influence or transitioning to (or absorbed by) large organizations. While this imbalanced system does provide significant material comforts (albeit distributed rather unequally) and some limited feeling of agency, it has led at the level of the individual to feelings of disconnection, alienation, loneliness, and cynicism or pessimism about the ability to influence future events or meet major challenges, except perhaps through the often ruthless competition to become wealthy or influential enough to gain, as an individual, a status comparable to a small or even large organization. And larger organizations have begun to imperfectly step in the void formed by the absence of small communities, providing synthetic social or emotional goods that are, roughly speaking, to more authentic such products as highly processed "junk" food is to more nutritious fare, due to the inherently impersonal nature of such organizations (particularly in the modern era of advanced algorithms and AI, which when left to their own devices tend to exacerbate the trends listed above).

Much of the current debate on societal issues is then framed as conflicts between large organizations (e.g., opposing political parties, or extremely powerful or wealthy individuals with a status comparable to such organizations), conflicts between large organizations and average individuals, or a yearning for a return to a more traditional era where legacy small organizations recovered their former role. While these are valid framings, I think one aspect we could highlight more is the valuable (though usually non-economic) roles played by emerging grassroots organizations, both in providing "softer" benefits to individuals (such as a sense of purpose, and belonging) and as a way to meaningfully connect with larger organizations and systems; and be more aware of what the tradeoffs are when converting such an organization to a larger one (or component of a larger organization).

读完之后很惆怅。双亲+子女组成核心家庭 里Michelle Obama说的那句话犹在耳畔。

人存在的意义和价值是什么？大多数时候，是由TA所在社会群体里的（某种形式的）地位决定的。

大集团往往是纯粹的经济价值来源和利益机器

小组织给人归属感

个体的结局只有一个——孤单

想到这里，突然又手痒想键政了。秦汉公民兵的崩坏，被世家大族吸收消化；六镇府兵制的隋唐，不过是回光返照，最后不得不换成雇佣兵和藩镇。到了大怂国感觉汉人是完全不会打仗了，这也跟山河四省彻底原子化，科举这个上升通道沦为「个体」刷分机器有莫大的干系。小组织（户）和大集团（族）都完蛋，加上打压工商业，无法形成新的行会 - 商团 乃至财富汇集托举的 文艺 - 科学 团体，整个社会结构要么是男耕女织的这种极端原子化的小农家庭，要么是皇权这种巨无霸；文官集团彻底被以个体利益出发的党争玩坏。整体民心是个什么状态呢？一个民族，一个国家里的每个个体，既无法从组织里得到利益，也无法得到归属感，反正生活都是苦和累，今朝有酒今朝醉，天子换谁来当都一个屌样，那么结论很容易得出：整个汉地的「自然组织度」约等于0 。朱88的军户制度，也是行政和官僚手段强行拉高组织度一种无奈，但是最后还是被更高组织度的八旗吊打。

不得不说老外的 civil society 这一套说法 还是很有道理的

要说这一切的罪恶之源是什么呢？先来想去，铁犁+纺车，从井田制崩坏就开始了？

为啥孔老二崇周礼？因为当年的农业生产是纯纯人力，得分工和群体劳动才能生存，国君祭天是一件严肃的生产分配大会，而不是后来流于礼节形式。为啥游牧部落总是能找到机会在某一个点突破防线？因为轮牧制度是根本，只要部落之间平息仇杀一致对外，就可以凭借天生的高组织度完成更复杂的战术和战略目标。

所以21世纪的铁犁是什么呢？AI？

不敢想不敢想。看着孩子现在 pad 上安装了豆包、千问、deepseek等众多app，我寻思，可能人类社会连父母和后代的养育联系，可能在未来某一个时刻都要断掉了吧。

呃，网上其实现在已经是这个风气了，原生家庭的“罪”罄竹难书，老登只有爆金币一个用途了。