can't we all just... get along?
i have found that serious intimacy often breaks down severely with more than six or seven people in a group, unless there is some seriously heroic level of commitment to structured cooperation. i have always conceived of this immediate level of social grouping as a "hearth," in the context of a home, as a vital creative center, and with respect to the goddess hestia.
personally, when i plan parties or performances, for instance... i prefer to work with not more than around 60 people. sure, i'll participate in larger events, but i have found that it is difficult to keep more than 60 or so people really interacting in a dynamic way for very long before distractions ensue (the spectacle effect). perhaps this level of social grouping is something like what the CAW calls a "nest?" (also q.v. the tradition of paratheatrical research begun by Jerzy Grotowski)
this number between 40-60 at the most seems approximately equivalent to the largest size that one usually finds in traditional reciprocal cultures, like the orang asli...
or, as mentioned below in the comment by pturing, "the Monkeysphere (is) the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number larger than 150." (aka Dunbar's number).
the upper limit on size of societies which are capable of working cooperatively in general is certainly a valid question. the impact of modern human society has in many cases outpaced our response to the indicators of sustainable communities.
i had previously sought for examples of reciprocal behaviour in human society and came up with these three modern examples:
the Israeli Kibbutz, anarcho-syndicalism/collectivist-anarchism in Spain during the civil war 1936-39, & Norway after 1994 (social individualist anarchism)
one might also consider freecycling, gift economy in general, the international co-operative movement, ecovillages, and intentional communities in general, not to mention numerous communal cults, or even the lifestyles associated with nomadic festivals like the rainbow tribe, and burning man.
i just found a fascinating page, called the ethical spectacle, which considers applications of the Prisoner's Dilemma to a number of specific real-life situations. also, here's a chapter called, "Exchange and Gift," from "The Revolution of Everyday Life," by Raoul Vaneigem. and with inspiration from a post by tacit concerning the nature of cooperation, it's time for me to return to my studies of reciprocal altruism, and game theory in general, to put these ideas back into perspective.
amusingly enough, there is a theory offerred in this nature article (requires purchase to view: _Altruistic punishment in humans,_ by Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, Nature 415, 137-140 (10 January 2002), doi:10.1038/415137a), which according to michael bluejay, "suggests that humans cooperate with each other out of a desire to punish freeloaders."
...silly me, and here i thought i was just doing my will without lust of result!
personally, when i plan parties or performances, for instance... i prefer to work with not more than around 60 people. sure, i'll participate in larger events, but i have found that it is difficult to keep more than 60 or so people really interacting in a dynamic way for very long before distractions ensue (the spectacle effect). perhaps this level of social grouping is something like what the CAW calls a "nest?" (also q.v. the tradition of paratheatrical research begun by Jerzy Grotowski)
this number between 40-60 at the most seems approximately equivalent to the largest size that one usually finds in traditional reciprocal cultures, like the orang asli...
or, as mentioned below in the comment by pturing, "the Monkeysphere (is) the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number larger than 150." (aka Dunbar's number).
the upper limit on size of societies which are capable of working cooperatively in general is certainly a valid question. the impact of modern human society has in many cases outpaced our response to the indicators of sustainable communities.
i had previously sought for examples of reciprocal behaviour in human society and came up with these three modern examples:
the Israeli Kibbutz, anarcho-syndicalism/collectivist-anarchism in Spain during the civil war 1936-39, & Norway after 1994 (social individualist anarchism)
one might also consider freecycling, gift economy in general, the international co-operative movement, ecovillages, and intentional communities in general, not to mention numerous communal cults, or even the lifestyles associated with nomadic festivals like the rainbow tribe, and burning man.
i just found a fascinating page, called the ethical spectacle, which considers applications of the Prisoner's Dilemma to a number of specific real-life situations. also, here's a chapter called, "Exchange and Gift," from "The Revolution of Everyday Life," by Raoul Vaneigem. and with inspiration from a post by tacit concerning the nature of cooperation, it's time for me to return to my studies of reciprocal altruism, and game theory in general, to put these ideas back into perspective.
amusingly enough, there is a theory offerred in this nature article (requires purchase to view: _Altruistic punishment in humans,_ by Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, Nature 415, 137-140 (10 January 2002), doi:10.1038/415137a), which according to michael bluejay, "suggests that humans cooperate with each other out of a desire to punish freeloaders."
...silly me, and here i thought i was just doing my will without lust of result!