Randomness is important. Naturalness is also important.
When we talk about policies for communities, we may focus a lot on structures, rules, and acceptable behaviors. One of the things we constantly use in my country is "freedom". This, it turns out, is a buzzword that can, and has been used for a fantastic range of good to atrocious policies and actions. Be careful of the fits-all concept. Power mongering politicians, therefore, tend to like the term "freedom", with aware representatives careful and aware of its problems, and many careless ones just accepting them to survive. But part of the value of this "freedom" is to let each individual add to a randomness of things. As an organized society we push for structure that provides for the efficiencies of the economies of scale pattern, but for economic safety, which is not as easy a pattern to fully parse for many, we need randomization.
Random functions allow for a distribution over behaviors, over use, over presence and travel. Tastes are bent by awareness, but they also are guided by personal tastes in face of surroundings, and as such a community tends to naturally, from these two, most of the time distributes itself so that everyone is not all in the same place at once, does not want all the same things all the time, and doesn't, most of the time, fail in the exact same way. This reduces the costs of governing, and personal living.
Such randomness can contribute to the mathematics in infinite things we see and experience. In a world not organized by humans or some other creatures like ants or beavers, the ecosystems we would see might often be referred to as a jungle, a swamp, or a forest or desert. These are places which are self-regulating; whose denizens all contribute to equilibrium states which, in the net allows for a stasis which their lifes depend, and one could say enjoy. The jungle has its virtues. It fixes things on its own. Eventually, a jungle may evolve to be something else. It may burn down, evolve from one ecosystem to another where one set of plants, fungi and animals at first dominate, then a thousand years later something completely different is at equilibrium there. If it goes hundreds of years without much change we might call it stable.
In herds of ruminants, in the wild, one sees males butting heads with each other. In these herds a dominant male tries to garther up a group of females and procreate with them until it tires enough that it can no longer dominate. Humans sometimes do this too, as to other simians in more natural ecosystems. Psychologies and others often use the term alpha male for such a dominant.
What we call modern society, it seems to me, is a jury rigged accommodation of this behavior which tries to make sets if isolated procreating families in their own boxed living spaces where the male can feel, while in that family box, some of the satisfactions of being the alpha male. He may leave the boxes in some kind of wheeled exoskeleton, or sometimes through other travel, to places where he is less respected, but where he may gather means for paying for the family boxes, and sustinence and diversions. But in that box, he has this odd fiction of some kind of high sexual status. Rather than talking about Capital, or control, I think this is the most vital aspect of how much of the modern world is trying to do things. But there are still higher dominants. There are alphas that can get satisfaction from higher control, and abstract management of these lower kingships, where they can feel even more power to their satisfaction. This is a problem. Such top alphas want to exercise their power, and if communities have come up with equilibriums using hierarchies of below the alpha, the only thing that alpha can do is break what works, and often make things worse. If that is the ability, of course, the only way to generate supporting information for the activity is fabrication; concoction of reasons; lying.
Now, a well regulated government, with diverse controls, will tend to keep this behavior to a minimum. However, if the sexual alpha perpetrator is under threat, the other drive he has is scaling up the randomization so that any working network engaging policing and regulation cannot keep up, and he can thus keep changing; keep demonstrating his power; keep the juggling balls in the air. This behavior may be harder and harder to limit, and may only break down, not from community feedback, but from the effective destruction also degenerating the perpetrator himself.
Copyright © May 2026 Xeno Campanoli