> But my key insight here is that many of ills of modern society arise from the idea that things should in fact 'scale'
Somehow, one way or another, dispute resolution has to scale to the number of people in the world. That isn't a chosen scale, it is the scale determined by present conditions.
For that to happen, given how many disputes exist between 8 billion people and all their groups and subgroups, there is going to be non-direct decision making.
You can point at subgroups with direct decision making, which is great when it works well, but that only works between those people, and they will invariably care about many things that extend beyond their group.
> Somehow, one way or another, dispute resolution has to scale to the number of people in the world.
This isn't the case today. A small number of superpowers resolve territorial disputes mostly through court cases and negotiations, sometimes through violence. In all of these cases a tiny number of people are involved in the decision making process. What's happening is not dispute resolution at scale, its capricious and stochastic decision making corrupted by the same forces of transnational capital that put those decision makers in charge.
The global south isn't making any of the key decisions around climate change, AI, international trade etc. Neither are most developed countries. It's at most a cohort of G8 leaders and billionaires. It doesn't work, and moreover its failing - as the collapse of the liberal political order demonstrates. Our choice is to allow it to collapse into a new form of feudalism, or to actively participate in replacing it at every level of governance through civil dissent, and consensus based approaches.
And even more disputes are settled in very indirect implicit ways. i.e. military capability is an implicit threat that tilts all kind of disputes in one direction or another.
I agree that global decision making isn't keeping up with the world's needs and problems. But pointing out something isn't working well is the easy part.
Improving on it, as apposed to simply critiquing it, is the first hard part. Or worse, tearing down what we have that works because it is imperfect, without a better system to replace it. As happens throughout history.
Much more difficult to design an alternate system that works - so unless someone has a serious alternative, improving what we have is best/only path forward. What does work today took millennia of slow progress.
Then the second hard part is the challenge of getting changes accepted and implemented. Since in the short run, everything is pushed and pulled by vested economic interests. Non-direct decision making not in the open, not any agreed upon process, and with little accountability.
The latter is the biggest problem. Especially when it corrupts what we have, as far as open and formalized decision and accountability systems. I.e. when it corrupts our politics, politicians, justice system, etc. Creating dense areas of hidden self-interested decisions trading in misdirected public power.
The most basic answer for most global problems is to start removing corruption. You can't do much if you don't get good sleep and healthy food and water. Likewise, massive global problems being mismanaged are going to need a less corrupt environment to make faster headway.
Otherwise, reality will eventually convince enough people to solve problems. That is a cost maximizing path, but surprisingly popular.
Somehow, one way or another, dispute resolution has to scale to the number of people in the world. That isn't a chosen scale, it is the scale determined by present conditions.
For that to happen, given how many disputes exist between 8 billion people and all their groups and subgroups, there is going to be non-direct decision making.
You can point at subgroups with direct decision making, which is great when it works well, but that only works between those people, and they will invariably care about many things that extend beyond their group.