Though when we hear the term “singularity” we most often associate it with the technological singularity sermonized by techno-utopian-futurists at TED conferences, there are in fact an innumerable number of phenomena to which the term singularity can apply.
Take for instance the Occupy movement, which was a profound moment of social singularity whereupon a cluster of individual actors spontaneously converged upon a specific time and place, both in the digital and literal physical sense, to produce a singular event in the history of human social cooperation toward a shared collective goal.
In essence, the term “singularity” can apply to any type of scenario wherein a cluster of seemingly unrelated points converge upon a single event, or event horizon. Whereas the prior interests responsible for motivating the initial movements of each actor are individualistic, it is during that moment of convergence upon the common event that the motive becomes a collective one.
Given this broader definition of the phenomena of singularities, the event that this blog post seeks to explore in substantial detail is that of market singularity. Following the basic tenets of Friedrich Hayek’s “spontaneous order” and the more vaguely attributed precepts of the “self-organizing principle,” I will attempt to convey a brief outline of this concept’s basic structure before delving into its finer details in subsequent posts.
The concepts of spontaneous order and the self-organizing principle can be difficult to distinguish from one another, as both refer to achieving a state of “order from chaos.” In other words, a state of ordered equilibrium is arrived at through processes that are entirely spontaneous, anarchic, self-directed, and self-initiated. In this context, centralized and top-down approaches to achieving ideal states of organization for any system are not only unnecessary, but harmful to the organizing process itself.
From my perspective, it seems that the difference between the self-organizing principle and spontaneous order is that one is the cause, and the other the effect. The self-organizing principle is the cause behind which the state of spontaneous order results. I’m sure that other scholars will disagree and be quick to point out that drawing such distinctions is somewhat arbitrary if not outright tedious; but because I am specifically applying these concepts to market forces, I contend that splitting hairs may prove useful.
The concept of the self-organizing principle in particular often applies to biology, whereas the phrase spontaneous order is most often used in the field of economics. In the case of biology, not only is self-directed growth the natural order of things as an immutable law of biology, but it is likely also the only means to an organism’s growth and participation in genetic evolution. To intervene in the natural order of self-directed biology is to interfere with the progress of evolution itself.
And so it is the same with the markets and social groups that manifest from the human biological sphere. Markets and other collective social phenomena flourish best when independent of any external forces that seek to redesign, redistribute, legislate, curb, control, or in any other way inhibit the natural evolution of untamed biological processes. Just as all natural living organisms on Earth experience self-directed growth driven solely by the DNA that contains the entirety of information needed for their survival and fulfillment of purpose as a species, so too do humans fulfill their inherent biologic and social destinies best through self-directed means alone.
Taken to its extreme, the self-organizing principle might allow unregulated market forces to combine with the tools of advanced internet technologies such as quantum and cloud computing, resulting in exponentially increasing speeds between economic transactions until they culminate into a moment (or several diverse moments) of unified market singularity. The stock market twitter phenomena of 2010 may in fact hint at some preliminary rumblings of an approaching social event horizon that I believe will have the potential to unleash the mechanisms of global market anarchism is such a way that it will no longer be possible to deny the beauty of the self-organizing market.
In the case of markets, the term “singularity” has the potential to be misread as an implication that all known market forces will converge upon a single culmination point, past which no further innovation or market evolution could take place. Where a static sort of idealism is achieved and no further meaningful innovation is thought to be possible. Yet this point, once reached, would not result in the end of economic activity itself, nor the final summation or goal of all prior economic activity leading up to this point. Rather, it would become a new starting point from which everyday economic transactions hyperdrive into an era of exponentially increasing returns upon the original investment of time and labor.
Before this hypothetical market event horizon, we were living in a world mired in regulation where the State constantly sought to monitor, control, and constrict the natural flow of human progress. Whereas the State cannot create – it can only regulate and redistribute – this was also a world afflicted by needless entropy, by endless penalties that stunted the full flowering of human potential.
It is very possible that in the near future we will live as one global society under an entirely voluntary system of social constructs created from the beneficial confluence of science, technology, and unregulated market forces alone, and where the traditional centralized social contracts once forced upon us by independent nation-states become the historical relics of a bygone era.
The event horizon is fast approaching where technology and markets will replace the need for centralized governance entirely, if they have not already done so at the moment of this blog posting. And it is the express purpose of this blog to attempt to speed up this inevitable process through the power of suggestion alone.
Note: This blog post was first published on Dec 9, 2013. When I logged in today to make some minor adjustments and add category tags, I discovered that an article claiming just about the opposite of everything I’ve just written was published just yesterday, Dec 12, 2013, on an exceptionally pessimistic concept termed the “econgularity” – a term apparently coined by a banker and finance professional that reads as a near-parody of my own hypotheses. Oh the irony of the timing. Is this further proof of the fast-approaching singularity, whether technological or otherwise? Only time will tell.
Related articles
- Cosmos and Taxis (marginalrevolution.com)
The Digital Anarchist 