Maximizing the indvidual difference: why radical change cause upheaval

Sometimes I wonder if the ultimate goal of existence is to maximize difference. Observing the world and the systems humans have built, it seems that the more pronounced the material and immaterial differences, the greater the rewards.

Take, for example, a university professor. The knowledge they accumulate sets them apart from their students, creating a difference that is rewarded. The more knowledge they acquire, the more this difference grows, and consequently, the more they are rewarded. This dynamic is also evident among students. Those who manage to distinguish themselves by accumulating knowledge or skills that set them apart from their peers increase their chances of future success, assuming these differences are positive and valued by society.

In essence, the lecture itself is an exercise in minimizing the knowledge gap between the professor and the students. However, if we could somehow eliminate this difference instantly, the system would collapse. The entire educational institution depends on the existence of this gap to function. If the difference were removed or if the minimization process were accelerated too much, the institution would become redundant, as its purpose is intrinsically tied to this difference.

Institutions are, paradoxically, designed to reduce differences while simultaneously conserving them. Any creative activity that directly challenges or reduces these differences will likely face resistance from institutions because part of their purpose is embedded in maintaining these gaps.

This phenomenon is not unique to human society. On a biological level, evolution works through mutations—small differences that, if they increase adaptability, are preserved and spread through the gene pool. Over time, these differences lead to significant evolutionary changes.

The most advanced civilizations, therefore, are those that have maximized the differences between themselves and more primitive societies. Closing these gaps would mean the end of advanced civilizations as we know them.

This brings me to an important point: impact and difference are closely related. A species or society that seeks to create maximum impact must also create maximum difference, which in turn increases entropy and leads to greater worldly results.

Consider Mark Zuckerberg, who, in the early days of Facebook, focused on universities—places already filled with competition and difference. He recognized that by tapping into these existing differences, he could create enough impact to triumph over the competition.

As quantitative differences accumulate, they can lead to qualitative shifts. This concept already gives humanity a sense of unease, as we see it manifest in areas like academic competitions. For instance, in a math Olympiad, the difference between a student who scores 1/20 and one who scores full marks is not just quantitative; it suggests a qualitative difference that might even be biological in nature.

To achieve progress, we must focus on maximizing these points of difference. By leveraging them, we can hold the system by its most fundamental pillars.

Thanks to Reda and Alex for reading drafts of this.