Hide table of contents

I read The Square and the Tower: Networks, Hierarchies and the Struggle for Global Power by Niall Ferguson a few years ago and was just thinking about it again recently since I thought it was very insightful. 

The Great Man Theory of History always seemed simplistic to me (that's particularly obvious to me since I'm a woman) and this book really captured the nuances of how power shifts better while still being readable (I'm a civilian not an academic).

I thought it would be helpful to share here.

The following is generated by GPT 4 and has been lightly edited by me:

Book Summary:

Ferguson's book delves into the historical relationship between:

  • networks (informal, decentralized structures like social networks or marketplaces) and 
  • hierarchies (formal, centralized structures like governments or corporations). 

The central argument is that the balance of power has oscillated between these two forces throughout history.

The key takeaway is that networks can be significant agents of change, but can also fall victim to co-option, control, or manipulation by hierarchies. In contrast, hierarchies can be disrupted, challenged, or subverted by networks. This dynamic is illustrated with historical examples, from the Roman Empire to the modern era.

Implications for Effective Altruism:

Importance of Networks: The EA movement largely operates as a network-based phenomenon. The book highlights the significance of cultivating and expanding these networks to enhance the movement's influence and effectiveness. Strategies include building connections with other organizations and individuals, sharing resources and knowledge, and fostering a strong sense of community.

Resilience Against Co-option: As the movement grows, it may attract the attention of established hierarchies. Ferguson's book serves as a reminder to be watchful against any attempts to co-opt, control, or manipulate the movement's goals and values. Maintaining a strong, decentralized structure and a clear focus on the mission can help ensure autonomy and capacity to drive positive change.

Leveraging Hierarchies for Impact: Recognizing the potential benefits of engaging with hierarchies is important. By building relationships with key decision-makers and institutions, the EA movement can potentially influence policy and allocate resources more effectively. This might involve lobbying, forming strategic partnerships, or providing expert advice to governments and corporations.

Learning from History: Analyzing the historical interplay between networks and hierarchies provides valuable insights into their strengths and weaknesses. Understanding the past enables more informed decisions about how to navigate the complex relationship between networks and hierarchies when working towards the EA mission.

In conclusion, "The Square and the Tower" offers intriguing insights into the relationship between networks and hierarchies that can help inform the EA movement's strategy for maximizing impact. By learning from history and striking a balance between embracing network-based strengths and engaging with hierarchies, the movement can better navigate the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

I would be really interested in your thoughts on the above ^^

11

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
Applications are currently open for the next cohort of AIM's Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program in August 2025. We've just published our in-depth research reports on the new ideas for charities we're recommending for people to launch through the program. This article provides an introduction to each idea, and a link to the full report. You can learn more about these ideas in our upcoming Q&A with Morgan Fairless, AIM's Director of Research, on February 26th.   Advocacy for used lead-acid battery recycling legislation Full report: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/reports/lead-battery-recycling-advocacy    Description Lead-acid batteries are widely used across industries, particularly in the automotive sector. While recycling these batteries is essential because the lead inside them can be recovered and reused, it is also a major source of lead exposure—a significant environmental health hazard. Lead exposure can cause severe cardiovascular and cognitive development issues, among other health problems.   The risk is especially high when used-lead acid batteries (ULABs) are processed at informal sites with inadequate health and environmental protections. At these sites, lead from the batteries is often released into the air, soil, and water, exposing nearby populations through inhalation and ingestion. Though data remain scarce, we estimate that ULAB recycling accounts for 5–30% of total global lead exposure. This report explores the potential of launching a new charity focused on advocating for stronger ULAB recycling policies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The primary goal of these policies would be to transition the sector from informal, high-pollution recycling to formal, regulated recycling. Policies may also improve environmental and safety standards within the formal sector to further reduce pollution and exposure risks.   Counterfactual impact Cost-effectiveness analysis: We estimate that this charity could generate abou
sawyer🔸
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Note: This started as a quick take, but it got too long so I made it a full post. It's still kind of a rant; a stronger post would include sources and would have gotten feedback from people more knowledgeable than I. But in the spirit of Draft Amnesty Week, I'm writing this in one sitting and smashing that Submit button. Many people continue to refer to companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind as "frontier AI labs". I think we should drop "labs" entirely when discussing these companies, calling them "AI companies"[1] instead. While these companies may have once been primarily research laboratories, they are no longer so. Continuing to call them labs makes them sound like harmless groups focused on pushing the frontier of human knowledge, when in reality they are profit-seeking corporations focused on building products and capturing value in the marketplace. Laboratories do not directly publish software products that attract hundreds of millions of users and billions in revenue. Laboratories do not hire armies of lobbyists to control the regulation of their work. Laboratories do not compete for tens of billions in external investments or announce many-billion-dollar capital expenditures in partnership with governments both foreign and domestic. People call these companies labs due to some combination of marketing and historical accident. To my knowledge no one ever called Facebook, Amazon, Apple, or Netflix "labs", despite each of them employing many researchers and pushing a lot of genuine innovation in many fields of technology. To be clear, there are labs inside many AI companies, especially the big ones mentioned above. There are groups of researchers doing research at the cutting edge of various fields of knowledge, in AI capabilities, safety, governance, etc. Many individuals (perhaps some readers of this very post!) would be correct in saying they work at a lab inside a frontier AI company. It's just not the case that any of these companies as
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
The belief that it's preferable for America to develop AGI before China does seems widespread among American effective altruists. Is this belief supported by evidence, or it it just patriotism in disguise? How would you try to convince an open-minded Chinese citizen that it really would be better for America to develop AGI first? Such a person might point out: * Over the past 30 years, the Chinese government has done more for the flourishing of Chinese citizens than the American government has done for the flourishing of American citizens. My village growing up lacked electricity, and now I'm a software engineer! Chinese institutions are more trustworthy for promoting the future flourishing of humanity. * Commerce in China ditches some of the older ideas of Marxism because it's the means to an end: the China Dream of wealthy communism. As AGI makes China and the world extraordinarily wealthy, we are far readier to convert to full communism, taking care of everyone, including the laborers who have been permanently displaced by capital. * The American Supreme Court has established "corporate personhood" to an extent that is nonexistent in China. As corporations become increasingly managed by AI, this legal precedent will give AI enormous leverage for influencing policy, without regard to human interests. * Compared to America, China has a head start in using AI to build a harmonious society. The American federal, state, and municipal governments already lag so far behind that they're less likely to manage the huge changes that come after AGI. * America's founding and expansion were based on a technologically-superior civilization exterminating the simpler natives. Isn't this exactly what we're trying to prevent AI from doing to humanity?
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
6
2 authors
· · 3m read