Hoarders Among Us
By: Max Druthers
Tags: Society, Politics, Psychology, Blockchain, Sociology

“Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility.” ~ Robin Morgan

Do you know a hoarder? You know, someone who has amassed so much materialistic shit without purging anything to the point their premises is an overflowing homage to chaos? I do. My aunt is a hoarder. She has a thing for dolphins. I like dolphins. Who doesn’t? But she loves dolphins. Imagine thinking you’re walking into a kind, elderly woman’s house only to realize you’re drowning in an epic dolphin orgy.

Why do people do this? Many believe it’s not about the things, but a matter of control. There’s some obsessive need to gain and retain ownership; think Schmiegel in Lord of the Rings. If we dig deeper, the case can be made this need for control is rooted in fear. Fear that, if we don’t gain control, the consequences will be dire. Fear of being insignificant. Fear of losing ourself in the void of the chasm.

The thing is there are hoarders among us that are hoarding things way more crucial to society’s growth than dolphins and their oversized libidos. What happens when large corporations and governments are allowed to hoard information, resources, etc? Think of governments hoarding gold reserves. Take a moment to think about how Google, Facebook, Amazon, and the like have amassed mind-blowing amount of our personal data on their server farms. Microsoft has a data server farm that spans 1.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET.

Microsoft Data Center — West Des Moines, Iowa

Yes, we should all strive to be non-judgemental, and I’m as pro-capitalism as the next (the chrony-less version, mind you), but as long as they’re not hurting others, why should I care, right? I believe a case could be made that companies who hoard data create unintended consequences — existential threats; what if aforementioned companies cease to exist? Sure, other companies would fill the holes, but think of the second and third order effects of lost privacy. That would lead to giant holes in markets. No Google to search for dolphins nicknacks? No Amazon to purchase said nicknacks? No Facebook to share photos of aforementioned nicknacks.

Really though, I’m not here to rag on the FANGs; their structures are symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. To give credit where credit is due, they’ve taken the internet and either transformed or totally created their respective niche. But their underlying motivations and methods of maintenance is the focus of this article. It’s about why they leverage their power. The disease is the innate need to hoard; they gotta let go of their dolphins, but, obvi, they ain’t gonna do that.

I’m not one who thinks we should regulate them out of existence (or at least out of their monopolies). Doing that only transfers the power from them to another source such as governments, which, as history shows, leads to similar results. You can’t solve a problem via transference just as you can’t clean the environment by putting your trash in someone else’s yard just as you can’t remove real estate risk by packaging it into Credit Default Swaps just as...

But what it there is a better way? What if there is a way to spread out data from these centralized sources? When things go south, risk evenly distributed generally leads to a better outcome than risk centralized. What if there was a technological way to give ownership of data to the individuals? That way, if a Google server farm (and subsequent backups) gets burnt to the ground, all of that data is not lost. That way, the current monopoly constructs we have in the FANGs would be dismantled leading to a more evenly distributed society. The true cloud can remain in the ether. Allow me to reel this back in.

I want to help my aunt, but, ultimately, I can’t. Dolphins be damned. I’m sure we all have someone we want to help that has a power or control issue. It may manifest itself in hoarding. It may manifest itself in a variety of ways. It could innocuously be an influential community member finding political means to reserve resources that could help others. It could insidiously be overly-aggressive company that crafts regulations in order to retain power over others. It could be as subtle as an introverted genius withholding a potentially society-changing thought due to the perceived potential pain from allowing one’s self to be vulnerable.

The crazy thought is — maybe those with control issues are actually out of control? What if the energy it takes to control in these ways is comparatively less than the energy it takes to surrender? What if we flipped the so-called script and started viewing people, companies, and with this mindset as having an underdeveloped amygdala? Or, more specifically, having an underdeveloped amygdala compared to their frontal cortex.

In that light, it’s probably better if we had a more decentralized form to various aspects of society. Militaries have implemented decentralized structures from as far back as the Prussians (check out Auftragstaktik). This provided those closest to the action with the autonomy to implement specific actions necessary for success (as opposed to following a doctrine or decree). Think of how the printing press decentralized information from the hands of the few royalty & religious privileged to the masses. Same thing goes for the information and the proliferation of information across the globe.

Technology is evolving blockchains and various formations of decentralized finance. Anyone with internet access can now create bank accounts and receive financing and lines of credit without the fear of oppressive government control. People can not only share data but also retain ownership of data without fear of companies manipulating, repackaging, and selling said data. Imagine instead of having to worry about the motives of benevolent dictators, we can spend our time and efforts focusing on improving the lives of our loved ones and those in need.

Einstein thought we should consider “whether we believe we live in a friendly or hostile universe”. I’ve teetered back and forth on this thought. There’s certainly enough evidence to support both sides. I believe to achieve the friendly universe side of the spectrum, we must control our innate desires to control — others, information, resources, power, etc. Relief can be found in spreading out risk, sharing the ever-growing pie of the collective subconscious, which has the potential to equalize the ever-growing gaps in various aspects of society. The paradox is that this doesn’t happen by external control; it happens by internal restraint. Let’s control our dolphins before they turn our existence into an unrestrained gang bang of hoarding.