> 1/ When humans wield their power in the world, they are limited by the linear nature of their thinking. The best example of this linearization is the top-down planning of modern suburbs.

You can't demonstrate that humans cannot think linearly by showing an example where they didn't.

> Contrast this with how nations and states emerged in a bottom-up fashion.

Except in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East (European colonization) and Europe (Congress of Vienna, changes after the world wars). Australia is a special case (with only one souvereign state), I don't know enough about Asia.

> 2/ This transformation of what looks like random, irregular structure into more orderly structure is because the human mind is incapable of grasping non-linear, complex interactions. We comprehend information linearly and hence our planning of the world around us is linear too.

Would you please stop insulting my species?

> 3/ This tendency of making sense of the world dooms apparently well-intentioned projects. When we plant a new forest to “save” our earth, we transform an earthly, fractal landscape into a two dimensional monoculture.

Foresters are perfectly capable of planting a mixed forest. When they didn't, it's either because the forest was planted a long time ago when monocultures appeared to be a good idea or for economic reasons.

> 4/ Because our mind can only accommodate thinking in one dimension (time) or at best two dimensions (map),

I'm pretty sure my mind manages 3 dimensions. We also can deal with problems that have more dimensions, just not using spatial thinking.

> our designed objects ignore the messy intricacies of the real world.

Our designed objects ignore some messy intriaces because there are a lot of them.

> It’s apparent in all objects designed by humans, including the humble chair.

That humble chair is not excatly state of the ergonomic art.

> 7/ [...] Governments optimize what they understand and wellbeing, being a product of evolution, is a mix of factors is that cannot be intervened into in a top-down manner.

Doctors optimize what they understand and health, being a product of evolution, is a mix of factors that cannot be intervened into in a top-down manner.

> 8/ A revolutionary idea is that governments should leave people alone so they could pursue their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area. In fact, that’s how the world was before the advent of nation-state.

The modern concept of a "nation" is relatively recent, it has only been invented in the 19th century. Governments that do things other than leaving people alone have existed for millenia. In fact, "not leaving people (completely) alone" is kind of what governments do.

The idea that governments should leave people alone is called "liberty" which is derived from a latin word with the same meaning. So if it's a revolutionary idea, that revolution must have a long time ago.

Organizing the state in a bottom-up manner, giving the lower levels of government more power than the upper ones, isn't a new idea either. The Holy Roman Emperors didn't really rule their empire, at least in modern history.

Also, the absence of a state is perfectly compatible with top-down government. The chief of your tribe won't leave you alone. Chance are you cannot even elect them, making the tribe more top-down than a democratic state.

> 9/ Nation-state was inevitable because humans reasoned they could efficiently defend against enemies if they pooled their resources.

Maybe the state was, this is not really specific to nation states in particular. However defense from enemies is far from the only role of the state. Even hardcore classical liberals agree that it should keep the peace, major infrastructure projects require a major organization and sometimes eminent domain, Robin Hoods and charities cannot replace a welfare state.

> Notice what got lost in this optimization of defense: the complex, local web of interactions that everybody was a part of, and yet nobody understood.

If you don't have any social life beyond interacting with the state, you probably should get help.

> 12/ [...] Perhaps nature is able to do it because it has no foresight.

No one forces you to use your foresight. Forsight isn't incompatible with bottom-up design/emergence either.