The drawbacks of extensive centralization (globalism) have been discussed previously, including the fact that it empowers the wrong individuals.
However, as proponents of global centralization continue to advance their positions - see e.g. the discussions around the WHO’s new pandemic treaty, it is high time to remind ourselves of more of the downsides associated with centralization.
In this text, I present three additional reasons why the idea of large-scale and centralized solutions should be rejected. They increase the risk of disasters, undermine knowledge production and economic development, and should also be dismissed on ethical grounds.
The consequences of experimenting on a large scale are well illustrated by China’s Great Leap Forward, where an estimated 30 million people perished due to famine. Fewer would have died if China had engaged in small-scale experiments first. However, this is what centrally planned and large-scale “solutions” prevent. Rather than consolidating more power into organizations like the UN, EU, or WHO, it is wiser not to put all our eggs in one basket.
Large-scale centralization “one size fits all”-solutions, has significant implications for knowledge production worldwide and in the business sector. After all, insights into the nature of things don’t originate in spreadsheets; they emerge when hypotheses are tested in reality, and one observes the results. The more hypotheses that can be tested, the more knowledge will be generated. Centralized large-scale systems test fewer hypotheses and, as a result, will experience stagnation in terms of knowledge compared to decentralized systems. Since economic development relies on human ingenuity, centralization will lead to lower sustainable growth, possibly outright stagnation. Biologists recognize that small groups in isolation undergo rapid evolution, and the same concept applies in this context.
No comments:
Post a Comment