Is it true that larger enterprises are always.mote efficient at achieving the goals that they set out to accomplish? Be it to organize the world’s information or to deliver happiness, are they really good at it?

The surge and resurgence of tech stocks market capitaization would suggest that the answer, aseasured by a.modern human value system, is an resoundingly and enduringly yes. Yes, they do what they set.out to do very very well by synergryically harmonizing human means-of-production aggregates.

But if we look back at history, is it not true that most alterations to the earth (I mean to the environment and also infrastructure supporting human conditions) Scaling up production ala industrial revolution ultimately lead to large conglomerates that are composed of small units that operate in harmony towards a united goal–making kettles, cars, whatever. The computer and internet revolution (aka that which lead to the information age) was accomplished, Scaling up production and consumption of information, by organizing and merging the work of many many distinct entities. The free and open software that run today’s internet combined work output of a lot of people to create the behemouth complex known as the internet.

Although it is a far fetched comparison to make between industrial enterprises and the entire internet, their similarities are obvious: one person could not do any of it. Humans, being Humans, pride ourselves in having figured out how to combine the efforts of separate people into output that a single one could not achive. As an aside here, the distribution of this collaborative coproduction is one of the biggest controversy in human civilization. The consequence of this production has always been supernatural–items, machines, political power, physical energy, information that individual human being could not naturally produce. (And yes, many of us would even label bisexual reproduction as a devine manifeststion that is supernatural)

These supernatural products of human combinations produce items and powers that individual human cannot manage. For god sakes we have enough trouble just controlling our own bodies and minds, the product of our combined effort is almost always less controllable than our individual products.

The consequence of this is that the more we combine and produce, the more possibility of negative consequences. Due to our lack of control over supernaturally produced physical and psychological artifacts, we wreck more things, supernaturally, as we make more things, supernaturally.

The more information google organizes, the more problems we have with dissemination of (dis)information. The more we socialize on social network, the more we hate and envy and distance ourselves from other natural beings. The more cars we make, the worse the engiroent. And I would definitely hypothesize that clean energy, as a result of human produced supernatural production will surely have aspects that hams cannot control well enough to prevent new and worse supernatural damage–despite all the good intentions.

So one cannot help hut wonder. Would discouragent of large enterprises with united vision and goals ultimately improve the advamcent of our cilvilization? Is Jefferson’s idea of lots of small farms really salvation for out planet?

What about the side effect of reduced production? Wouldn’t people and economies all just starve to death without large corporations?

But our sciences are doing better and tech is better, we can control our output better than we could in the past. American Democracy is an example of improved control over supernatural political power with safety measures? Wouldn’t we expect control to improve as technologies have?

Say I am right, what would be the ideal size and distribution of smaller entities? (In the limit 1, every person is independently able to survive and thrive…) But really what size is not too supernatural?

?