【本章提要：递进自组织可以解决代议制难以解决的Vetocracy、民族主义与消费主义。】
Chapter synopsis: Recursive self-organization can solve the problems that is impossible to solve for the representative democracy, such as vetocracy(veto politics), nationalism, and consumerism.
政治长久以来被认为无良无德、遭人厌恶，其中一个重要原因是党争。古希腊的城邦政治毁于党争；从卢梭到联邦党人都把防止派系争斗当作前提；精英对民主的恐惧和厌恶一大半也是因为分裂与冲突。麦迪逊（James Madison）认为“党争的原因无法排除，只有用控制其结果的方法才能求得解决”——共和、宪政、代议、分权、法治等都是用来“控制其结果”的，但是至今并不理想。Vetocracy 是升级的党争，同时带来的是陷入低效与无执行力的政治衰败。看来从根源解决问题，还是得靠排除党争原因。但是真如麦迪逊所说，党争的原因在于人性，因而无法排除吗？
Politics has long been seen as unscrupulous and disliked by many, with one significant reason being party strife. The politics of ancient Greece was destroyed by factionalism; from Rousseau to the Federalists, preventing factional disputes has been considered a prerequisite. The fear and aversion of elites towards democracy are also partly due to division and conflict. James Madison believed that "the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects" – republicanism, constitutionalism, representation, separation of powers, rule of law, and others are all means to "control its effects," but they have not been ideal so far. Vetocracy is an escalated form of party strife, bringing with it political decay characterized by inefficiency and lack of execution. It seems that to address the root of the problem, it is necessary to eliminate the causes of party strife. However, as Madison questioned, if the causes of factionalism are rooted in human nature, can they truly be eliminated?
从人类学家描述的上古图景中看到，当人处身于不同规模的人群时，显现的人性并不一样。人在小规模群体内彼此是合作的，在不同群体间则相互杀戮。应该说二者皆为人性，是不同规模导致的沟通充分与否，决定了人性展现出不同的面向。
From the anthropological descriptions of ancient societies, it is evident that human nature varies when people are in groups of different sizes. In small groups, people tend to cooperate with each other, while in interactions between different groups, there is a tendency towards mutual aggression. It should be noted that both cooperation and aggression are aspects of human nature, and the degree of communication, influenced by the scale of the group, determines the specific manifestation of human behavior.
先排除生存资源的影响。如果资源紧缺到不能同时生存，哪怕只有两人也会互相争夺。但今日生产力已可满足所有人的生存，因此本文只从沟通角度看党争原因。
Excluding the impact of survival resources, if resources are so scarce that only one person can survive, even with just two individuals, they would compete with each other. However, given today's level of productivity, which can meet the survival needs of everyone, this text will only examine the causes of party strife from a communication perspective.
现实人类组织皆会自然地围绕充分直接沟通的限度划分单元。如果一个单元的人数超过限度，就会有“派”、“伙”一类无形单元出现。“拉帮结伙”并非出自人们常说的窝里斗劣根性，在超出充分直接沟通的限度时，人们有“亲”有“疏”——即有的人之间沟通充分，有的人之间沟通不充分——再正常不过，是帮派产生的最初基础。
Real human organizations naturally revolve around the limits of sufficient direct communication, resulting in the division of units. If the number of individuals in a unit exceeds these limits, factions or groups may emerge. The tendency to form cliques and alliances is not rooted in an inherent tendency for internal conflict, as commonly portrayed. When communication exceeds the limits of sufficiency, individuals naturally form connections with some while remaining less connected with others. This normal behavior lays the initial foundation for the formation of factions.
如果这种自然产生的帮派之间没有明确规则和机制协调，全凭自发互动，轨迹和结果可想而知——为了追求本帮派意志或利益的最大实现，必须压倒其他帮派。扩张、吞并或消灭对方的争斗逐步升级，不义和暴力自然随之而来。扩大到社会也同样，当缺少一种能让社会成员充分沟通的结构，亲疏之分的圈子便会在历史演进中生成各种团伙、党派、族群……争斗不断扩大，变成世界不安的根源。
If these naturally formed cliques lack clear rules and mechanisms for coordination, relying solely on spontaneous interactions, the trajectory and outcomes can be anticipated. In order to maximize the realization of their faction's will or interests, one must overpower the others. The conflict escalates through expansion, annexation, or elimination of rival factions, naturally leading to injustice and violence. Similarly, on a societal scale, when there is a lack of a structure that enables members to communicate fully, circles of affiliation based on varying degrees of closeness will evolve into various factions, parties, ethnic groups, and so on. The ongoing conflicts expand, becoming a root cause of global unrest.
对此解决分两条路径，一是麦迪逊指出的，让规模变得更大，以产生更多元的力量形成相互牵制—— “党派的种类较多，能更好地防止一个党派在数量上超过其他党派而且压迫它们”（程逢如、在汉、舒逊译《联邦党人文集》）。然而这种方法不是解决党争，只是避免一党独大，结果往往形成两党轮流执政。若两党针锋相对，照样撕裂社会。
To address this, there are two paths. One, as pointed out by Madison, is to increase the scale to generate more diverse forces that can mutually check each other — "There are many different kinds of factions, and, by better aligning with each other, they prevent any one faction from becoming numerically dominant and oppressive to the others" (Translation of "The Federalist Papers" by Cheng Fengru, Zai Han, and Shu Xun). However, this method does not resolve party strife; it only avoids one party dominating, often resulting in a cycle of two parties taking turns in power. If these two parties are in opposition, they can still divide society.
另一条路径是从缩小规模入手，如递进自组织，保证所有层块内部实现充分直接沟通，而在层块之间建立规则明确的协商机制，再把机制扩大和覆盖到整体。
Another path is to start by reducing the scale, such as in recursive self-organization, ensuring that there is sufficient and direct communication within all layer blocks. Meanwhile, establish clearly defined negotiation mechanisms between blocks and then expand and extend these mechanisms to cover the entire system.
生活中，可以充分直接沟通的熟人圈内往往互助互让，古道热肠，面对缺乏沟通的外部便冷漠计较，争执不已。这和上古时代人群规模不同所显现的人性差异相似。递进自组织要求基层层块进行自由组合且可自由脱离，就是为了排除基层层块内部的派系之争，容易达成高共识度的向量求和，维持亲和，相当于从源头排除产生党争的原因。
In daily life, within close-knit circles where there is sufficient and direct communication, people often assist and support each other, displaying warmth and generosity. However, when dealing with external factors that lack communication, individuals may become indifferent and calculative, leading to disputes. This phenomenon is similar to the differences in human behavior observed in ancient times due to variations in group size. Recursive self-organization mandates that grassroots blocks engage in free association and can freely disassociate. This is done to eliminate factional disputes within grassroots blocks, facilitating the achievement of high consensus in vector summation, maintaining harmony, and essentially eliminating the root causes of factional struggles from the outset.
自由组合也可视为是一种派系。组织结构中的单元有各自的本位和利益，与派系有相似处。但这不是问题。按规则形成的共同体相互之间按规则为各自的利益进行协商，正是民主的过程。党争是为己方利益损害对方利益，递进自组织的机制却非零和，也不提供损人利己的可能。递进自组织的每个层块之所以要形成自组织，是为合作而非为竞争。在这种结构中，合作的好处惠及每个成员体，僵局的坏处也殃及每个成员体。其中没有谁能从滥用 vetocracy 得到好处。每一层块的成员皆为下级层块的当选者，其故意制造 vetocracy 的僵局将不会得到其选举者支持。因为选举其的并非是轻易受政客蒙骗的大众，而是与其素质接近，经验得以延伸，能准确判断利弊的同层块成员。他们要的不是发泄情绪而是解决问题，并且可以用随时选举将当选者更换。
Freedom of association can also be seen as a form of factionalism. Units within an organizational structure have their own interests, similar to factions. However, this is not a problem. Communities formed according to rules negotiate with each other according to rules for their respective interests, which is precisely the democratic process. Party strife involves damaging the interests of others for one's own gain. In contrast, the mechanism of recursive self-organization is non-zero-sum and does not allow for actions that harm others for personal benefit. Each layer in recursive self-organization forms itself for cooperation rather than competition. In this structure, the benefits of cooperation extend to every member, and the drawbacks of a deadlock affect each member as well. No one benefits from the misuse of vetocracy. Members of each layer are elected by the lower layer, and intentionally creating a deadlock with vetocracy will not receive support from their electors. The individuals electing them are not easily deceived by politicians, but rather, they are close in qualities, their experience extends, and they can accurately judge the pros and cons as members of the same layer. What they want is not to vent emotions but to solve problems, and they can use elections to replace elected officials at any time.
递进自组织将改变有史以来的竞争政治，转为合作政治。政治从此不再是谎言、背叛、勾心斗角和阴谋诡计的代词，而须是诚信、忠实和道德的典范。在转型阶段，历史遗留的矛盾、怨怼、积习等无疑不会立刻消失，但是递进自组织的自动调节机制会逐步将其化解，最终形成新的政治文化。
Recursive self-organization will transform competition-based politics throughout history into cooperative politics. Politics will no longer be synonymous with lies, betrayal, intrigue, and scheming but must embody honesty, loyalty, and morality. During the transitional phase, historical conflicts, resentments, and ingrained habits are unlikely to disappear immediately. However, the automatic regulatory mechanisms of recursive self-organization will gradually dissolve these issues, ultimately giving rise to a new political culture.
普通社会成员对宏观事物的认知和判断往往要依赖精英。民族主义是精英以自身意志主导的一种数量求和。精英给民众提供的民族问题认知，在大规模范围进行数量求和而成为民众的民族主义。这种民族主义看似属于民众，其实出自精英。然而民众只有在面对宏观的数量求和结构中，才用精英构建的民族主义看待民族关系，只要离开数量求和结构，回到个人生活，民众便会摆脱精英的主导，也会告别民族主义。
The ordinary members of society often rely on elites for the perception and judgment of macroscopic matters. Nationalism is a form of scalar summation dominated by the will of elites. The awareness of national issues provided by elites becomes nationalism for the masses through scalar summation on a large scale. This kind of nationalism may seem to belong to the people, but it actually originates from the elites. However, the masses only view national relations through the nationalism constructed by elites when facing the macroscopic scalar summation structure. Once they step away from this structure and return to individual life, the masses can break free from elite dominance and also bid farewell to nationalism.
在递进自组织的层块中，个人意志主要针对具体事务，从自身现实去感受和判断所处的社会局部，而不会用宏观概念笼统地套用。因此民族属性只有在发生了关乎自身的民族冲突和文化冲突时才会凸显，否则只是背景，不需要民族主义。而民族不会因为没有主义就不存在。当民族成员的个人意志不依赖精英，而是通过递进自组织向量求和为民族意志时，体现的民族特色反而更真实，同时能更准确地表达民族诉求和把握民族关系。
In the layers of recursive self-organization, individual will primarily focuses on specific affairs, sensing and judging the societal aspects from one's own reality, without broadly applying macroscopic concepts. Therefore, ethnic attributes only become prominent when there are conflicts related to one's own ethnicity and cultural clashes; otherwise, they remain background elements that don't necessitate nationalism. Ethnicity does not cease to exist merely due to the absence of an "ism". When the personal will of ethnic members is not dependent on elites but, instead, represents the ethnic will through the vector summation of recursive self-organization, the expression of ethnic characteristics becomes more authentic and, at the same time, accurately reflects ethnic aspirations and grasps ethnic relations.
这种向量求和形成的民族意志与出自精英的民族主义有很大差别。民族问题作为整个社会公平正义的组成部分，其中的共同人性高于不同的民族性。民族意志更主要的是追求社会公平正义，而不是纠缠于民族主义的对立和统独之争。
The ethnic will formed through this vector summation differs significantly from nationalism emanating from elites. Ethnic issues, as a part of overall societal fairness and justice, prioritize common humanity over ethnic differences. The primary focus of ethnic will is the pursuit of societal fairness and justice, rather than entangling itself in the oppositions and struggles of nationalism.
递进自组织的当选者作为“和载体”，其选举者首先关注的是本层块利益，而非民族问题，会使其决策行事无需从民族角度出发，不需要靠煽动大众情感争取选票。递进自组织的“议”、“行”合一使“议”必须与“行”一致并经受检验，不像代议制那样容易空口许诺或道德绑架，因此精英激化民族主义的动力会减少很多。而“隔层保护”又能使得当选者不受来自基层数量和的压力，敢于直面民族冲突的不利和危险，理智行事，主动抑制民族主义。
In the context of recursive self-organization, elected representatives, functioning as "sum carriers," prioritize the interests of their respective layers over ethnic issues. This approach allows decision-making and actions to proceed without necessarily framing them from an ethnic perspective, eliminating the need to leverage public emotions for votes. The integration of "deliberation" and "action" in recursive self-organization ensures that decisions align with actions and undergo scrutiny, reducing the likelihood of empty promises or moral manipulation common in representative democracy. Additionally, the "compartment protection" mechanism shields elected representatives from pressure stemming from the scalar summation at the grassroots level, empowering them to address ethnic conflicts rationally, actively suppressing the forces of nationalism.
对于少数民族，这种理性不仅是因为与多数民族对抗的代价太大而不得已，更是因为递进自组织已经能够充分保证少数民族的权益。按民族划分，既然多数民族是多数，一定具有对少数民族的优势。递进自组织却是把人群分为多层、多个自治体，而非民族。任何自治体都是寻求自身利益，而非自身之外的宏观目标。递进自组织由此相当于对民族进行了分化，以众多相互对等的自治体取代了民族，从而改变了多数民族对少数民族的优势。
For ethnic minorities, this rational approach is not only driven by the significant costs associated with confronting the majority ethnic group but also because recursive self-organization effectively ensures the rights of minority groups. By transcending ethnic divisions, where the majority ethnic group holds an advantage due to its numerical superiority, recursive self-organization organizes people into multiple layers and autonomous entities rather than ethnic categories. Each autonomous entity seeks its own interests rather than pursuing macro-level goals beyond itself. In this way, recursive self-organization effectively breaks down the concept of ethnicity, replacing it with numerous mutually equal autonomous entities, thus altering the advantage the majority ethnic group may have had over minority groups.
人口流动的现代社会往往形成不同民族“大杂居，小聚居”——即同一地区并存不同的民族，生活社区却是按民族聚居，相互交错。这种状态容易出现民族矛盾。尤其在外来多数民族的人口超过原住民时，实行代议制会造成原住民的弱势甚至边缘化，导致矛盾进一步加深；民族同化政策则矛盾会更加激化。而在递进自组织中，“小聚居”的社区可以充分自治，延续民族文化，保护民族成员，充分发扬异质性； “大杂居”的不同民族自治体则相互平等，由各自的“和载体”在具备更高理性和妥协性的高层块进行协作。
In modern societies with dynamic population movements, there often exists a situation of "ethnic diversity in a larger context and ethnic concentration in smaller communities." This means that different ethnic groups coexist in the same geographical area, while residential communities are organized along ethnic lines, creating an intertwining pattern. This arrangement can lead to ethnic tensions, especially when the population of an incoming majority ethnic group surpasses that of the indigenous population. Implementing a representative system may result in the marginalization and disadvantage of the indigenous population, deepening conflicts. Assimilation policies can exacerbate these conflicts. In contrast, within recursive self-organization, communities organized along ethnic lines (the "smaller communities") can enjoy substantial autonomy to preserve their ethnic cultures, protect their members, and celebrate diversity. At the same time, the various ethnic autonomous entities within the "larger context of diversity" can collaborate on an equal footing, guided by the higher-level blocks that possess higher rationality and adaptability.
那时，不同自治体之间的分歧将主要不是因为民族，而是利益，相互关系也更多从利益定位。既然同一层块内的每个自治体对于整体决策的形成都是影响要素，彼此便不会把民族属性放在前，而是从影响决策的角度尽量拉拢对方，以有助于通过自己属意的决策。
At that point, the primary source of disagreements between different autonomous entities will be based on interests rather than ethnicity, and their mutual relations will be more oriented toward interests. Since each autonomous entity within the same hierarchical block is a factor influencing the formation of overall decisions, they are less likely to prioritize ethnic attributes but rather seek to engage with each other from the perspective of decision-making influence. This approach is aimed at aligning the interests of different entities to facilitate the adoption of decisions favorable to their own preferences.
其实，对少数民族更有利的不是把自己抬升到与多数民族一对一的位置，那只会使其少数变得更为不利，而是利用递进自组织把多数民族分割为诸多自治体，进行“合纵连横”。同样道理，递进自组织中的多数民族也不用担心少数民族联合在一起进行分裂，因为少数民族也被分化为多个自治体，分别追求各自利益而非宏观的民族理念。因此无论对哪边，递进自组织都有利于解决民族问题。
In fact, what is more advantageous for ethnic minorities is not elevating themselves to a one-to-one position with the majority ethnic group, as that would only make their minority status more disadvantageous. Instead, it is beneficial to use the recursive self-organization to divide the majority ethnic group into numerous autonomous entities, engaging in a strategy of "coordinating horizontally and connecting vertically." Similarly, within the framework of recursive self-organization, the majority ethnic group does not need to worry about ethnic minorities uniting to promote division because ethnic minorities are also divided into multiple autonomous entities, each pursuing its own interests rather than macro-level ethnic ideologies. Therefore, regardless of which side, recursive self-organization is advantageous for addressing ethnic issues.
理论上，实现公平是解决民族矛盾的根本。然而公平是一种主观判断，究竟什么算公平？由谁判断？立场不一致的判断可以截然相反，拿出再多例证也难说服彼此。如法律格言“正义不仅应得到实现，而且要以人们看得见的方式加以实现”，民族之间的公平也要以看得见的方式实现——那就是所有个人意志的向量求和。现实的复杂与多变，决定了公平与否不能出自任何外在的判断，只能以程序正义的方式形成当事人的共识。个人意志的向量求和既是程序又是目的，在这种程序中得到的求和结果也一定公平。因为不达公平，向量求和的各个环节就不会通过。由此可说，向量求和的程序所包含的正义价值就是向量求和本身，与其他的程序正义不要求实质正义不同，向量求和的程序正义本身就是实质正义。
In theory, achieving fairness is fundamental to resolving ethnic conflicts. However, fairness is a subjective judgment, and what constitutes fairness can vary depending on who is making the judgment. Judgments from different perspectives can be diametrically opposed, and no matter how much evidence is presented, it may be challenging to convince each other. Like the legal maxim "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done," fairness among ethnic groups must also be realized in a visible way—that is, through the vector sum of all individual wills. The complexity and variability of reality dictate that judgments of fairness cannot come from any external authority; they can only be achieved through the procedural justice of forming consensus among the parties involved. The vector sum of individual wills serves as both the procedure and the goal, and in this process, the resulting sum is inherently fair. Because without achieving fairness, various stages of the vector sum process would not be approved. Therefore, it can be said that the procedural justice embedded in the vector sum process is the justice itself, unlike other procedural justices that don't necessarily guarantee substantive justice. The procedural justice of vector summing is substantive justice in itself.
认为多数人追求消费，就断定社会意志只能是消费主义的——那是数量求和的思维。人的完整意志除了追求消费，还有对环境、生态、安逸、审美等方面的多种追求，以及对自己和家庭的长远愿景。例如在经验范围，人们尽管有欲望，但懂得量入为出，不浪费，有储备，打扫卫生，房间空气要新鲜，宁愿花钱喝干净水，前院种花，屋后种树……对此无人强迫，完全自由，正是在这些看似鸡毛蒜皮的日常操持中，自我节制保护生态的各种因素都有。谁家水缸被他人撒尿，一定不会容忍。对人们在经验范围的这种明智、节制和守护进行向量求和，形成的社会意志一定不是消费主义的无尽索取，而会是善待地球和考虑后代的。
Believing that the majority pursues consumption leads to the conclusion that societal will is only consumerism—that is a mindset of scalar summation. The complete will of individuals encompasses not only the pursuit of consumption but also various desires related to the environment, ecology, comfort, aesthetics, as well as long-term visions for oneself and one's family. For example, within their empirical range, people, despite having desires, understand the principle of balancing inputs and outputs, avoid wastefulness, maintain reserves, keep things clean, ensure fresh air in their rooms, prefer spending money on clean water, plant flowers in the front yard, trees in the backyard, etc. No one forces them to do these seemingly trivial daily chores; they do them out of complete freedom. It is in these seemingly mundane daily practices that various factors of self-restraint and ecological protection are present. No household would tolerate someone urinating in their water tank. When you sum up the wisdom, moderation, and guardianship exercised by people in their empirical range, the societal will formed is certainly not an endless pursuit of consumerism, but rather a disposition to treat the Earth kindly and consider future generations.
代议制把人放在关系疏远且作用渺小的宏大规模中，转化成同质的数量进行求和。面对宏观事物，个人过于渺小，无论是破坏还是保护，作用似乎都可忽略不计，利害也无足轻重。有人往太平洋撒尿，自己能被污染多少？挺身阻止而发生争执是否值得？对于个人，自我是完整的“一”，在代议制中是百万千万分之一。当民主对个人进行简化，个人也会对民主进行简化——对自身而言百分之百的事放在前，百万千万分之一的事放在后。从计算成本与效益的理性角度，搭便车是个人面对宏观公共事务的最好选择，结果却会让社会整体趋向无所作为的纳什均衡。
The representative democracy places individuals in a vast and impersonal macro-scale, transforming them into homogeneous scalars for summation. Faced with macroscopic issues, individuals seem too insignificant, and their impact, whether destructive or protective, appears negligible, with interests seeming inconsequential. If someone urinates in the Pacific Ocean, how much does it personally affect them? Is it worth getting into a dispute to prevent it? For individuals, the self is a complete "unity", while in the representative democracy, they become one in a million or even one in a billion. When democracy simplifies individuals, they also simplify democracy—putting matters that concern them directly at the forefront and relegating issues that are one in a million or one in a billion to the background. From a rational perspective of calculating costs and benefits, free-riding becomes the individual's optimal choice when facing macroscopic public affairs. However, this results in an overall societal tendency towards a Nash equilibrium of inaction.
因此，建立社会的自我节制，首先需要把数量求和结构变成向量求和结构。让个人从经验范围做起，即把交给个人负责的问题放进类似自家水缸的范围。水缸对世界虽再小不过，对靠它吃水的人却是全局，一定精心守护，不容污染；再通过逐层向量求和，把每人对自家水缸的守护聚合成对村庄水井的保护，扩展到对地域河流的保护，最终汇集成人类对大洋大海的保护。
Therefore, to establish social self-restraint, the first step is to transform the structure from scalar summation to vector summation. Individuals should start from their empirical range, placing issues that they are personally responsible for within a scope similar to their own household water tank. While the water tank may seem small in relation to the world, it is crucial for those who rely on it for water, necessitating careful protection and preventing pollution. Through recursive vector summation, the individual's guardianship of their own water tank converges into the protection of the village well, expands to safeguarding regional rivers, and ultimately combines into humanity's preservation of the vast oceans and seas.
以往的历史进步一直是推动自由和解放。在生态问题日益突出、资源逐步匮乏的今天和未来，仅靠自由和解放不能解决面临的新问题，必须对无度扩张进行节制。环保人士的呼吁，心灵教育，少扔一些垃圾多保护一些鸟，不足以消除生态危机的前景。呼吁科学家尊重伦理也阻挡不住人类科技发展可能制造的灾难。根本解决只能是建立人类社会的全面节制。那节制当然不能出自老大哥的铁腕，而是递进自组织提炼的理性——随着递进自组织每上升一层，选举人和当选人理性更强一分。这种递进“提炼”形成的社会意志才会把保护地球家园和人类安全放在首位。那时即使普通民众尚未感受气候变化的直接危害，科技似乎只带来利益未造成灾难，递进自组织的高层也敢于实施抑制生产和消费的政策，划定科技不得逾越的禁区。隔层保护使他们不怕“得罪”大众， 那不是出于专制，而是向量之和优先于数量之和——唯有这种机制才能摆脱以往的两难，做到既有自由又有节制，让生态主义从口号变成价值体系，从哲学变成全民实践的生活方式。
Historical progress has always been driven by the promotion of freedom and liberation. However, in the face of the increasingly prominent ecological issues and gradually depleting resources today and in the future, solving the new challenges requires more than just freedom and liberation; it necessitates restraint on unbridled expansion. Appeals from environmentalists, spiritual education, and the simple act of reducing waste and protecting birds are insufficient to eliminate the impending ecological crisis. Calls for scientists to respect ethics also cannot impede the potential disasters that human technological development may bring. The fundamental solution lies in establishing comprehensive restraint in human society.
This restraint should not come from the iron fist of a "Big Brother" but should be derived from the rationality refined by recursive self-organization. With each ascending layer of recursive self-organization, both the electors and the elected become one step more rational. The societal will formed through this recursive "refinement" prioritizes the protection of the Earth and human safety. At that point, even if ordinary people have not directly felt the hazards of climate change and technology seems to bring only benefits without disasters, the higher levels of recursive self-organization would dare to implement policies that curb production and consumption. They would delineate forbidden zones that technology must not surpass. The compartment protection mechanism would make them unafraid to "offend" the public. This is not due to authoritarianism but because the sum of vectors takes precedence over the sum of scalars. Only this mechanism can break free from past dilemmas, achieving both freedom and restraint. It transforms environmentalism from a slogan into a value system and from philosophy into a lifestyle that is practiced by the entire population.
节制须是对所有社会成员的平等节制。具体的节制是什么，现在无法预见。递进自组织不会主动追求结果平等，但因为每个社会成员的个人意志是等值的，对等值的向量求和会导致整个社会趋向平等。那种平等并非是事先确定的目标，而是自然达到的结果。这必然涉及财富和分配方式的变化，会引起对“计划”再现的担心——毕竟节制、平等、正义的概念似乎都有计划的基因。然而无需对计划闻之变色。现实世界中比比皆是计划。计划在本质上是一种沟通，自由市场一样存在种种计划。对计划不信任的理由主要在于单中心不可能准确模拟市场，无法形成合理的价格成本体系，从而无法实现资源的最优配置。但是什么都不会比覆盖整个社会的递进自组织有更多中心，其无所不知，因为需要知道的正是其自身，全部资讯也产生于其自身。由所有社会成员组成的感应系统不存在任何死角，没有比其更充分的信息来源和处理能力，加上信息时代的互联网和物联网，形成的计划完全可能比市场更有效地配置资源。
Restraint must be equal for all members of society. The specific nature of this restraint cannot be foreseen at present. Recursive self-organization does not actively pursue equal outcomes, but since the individual will of each member of society is of equal value, the sum of equal-value vectors will naturally lead the entire society toward equality. This form of equality is not a predefined goal but rather a naturally achieved result. This will inevitably involve changes in wealth and distribution, raising concerns about the re-emergence of "planning" — after all, concepts of restraint, equality, and justice seem to have the genes of planning.
However, there is no need to react negatively to the idea of planning. Planning is ubiquitous in the real world. Planning is fundamentally a form of communication, and the free market itself involves various forms of planning. The main reason for mistrusting planning lies in the fact that a single center cannot accurately simulate the market, unable to form a rational price-cost system, and thus unable to achieve the optimal allocation of resources. However, nothing has more centers than recursive self-organization covering the entire society, which is omniscient because it needs to know only itself, and all information originates from itself. The sensory system composed of all members of society has no blind spots, offering more comprehensive information sources and processing capabilities than any other system. With the advent of the information age, the internet, and the internet of things, the plans formed by such a system could potentially allocate resources more effectively than the market.
举例，交通的自发秩序是行车者根据经验和行车所见各自选择路线的结果，却仍会有的路塞车，有的路空闲。当所有车的数据被车联网联在一起，电脑系统根据每辆车设定的导航目标和即时方位、速度等，随时算出会在什么时间和路段形成拥堵，据此调整交通灯时间长短和潮汐车道数量，同时给行车者分别规划更快捷的路线，将车辆平均分散于各条道路。这种计画的秩序既优于自发秩序，却对自由没有任何妨碍，只让人更加自由——此例说明即使被广泛认定会导致极权主义的计画系统，也可以是自由的，而非一定通往奴役。
For example, the spontaneous order in traffic arises from drivers independently choosing their routes based on experience and the current traffic conditions. However, some roads may still experience congestion while others remain free-flowing. When all vehicles are interconnected through a vehicular network, a computer system can analyze data from each vehicle, taking into account navigation goals, real-time positions, speeds, and more. It can predict congestion at specific times and locations, adjusting the duration of traffic lights and the number of tidal flow lanes accordingly. Simultaneously, the system can provide individualized, more efficient routes for drivers, evenly distributing vehicles across various roadways. This planned order is superior to the spontaneous order but doesn't impede freedom; rather, it enhances individual freedom. This example illustrates that even a planning system, often associated with the risk of leading to authoritarianism, can coexist with freedom and not necessarily result in oppression.
市场经济并非是“历史的终结”。利用递进自组织有计划地改变消费主义，最终形成一个人们共同走向自由平等、实现公平正义、物质富足而不奢侈、从摇篮到坟墓皆有保障的社会。那时的社会发展动力将从物质追求转为审美追求，人类将从物质人变成精神人，完成堪舆动物变成人相比的又一次文明越迁。
The market economy is not the "end of history". Utilizing recursive self-organization to systematically transform consumerism, it will eventually lead to a society where people collectively move towards freedom, equality, achieving fairness and justice, material abundance without extravagance, and comprehensive security from cradle to grave. At that time, the driving force of social development will shift from material pursuits to aesthetic pursuits. Humanity will transition from being materialistic beings to spiritual beings, marking another significant leap in civilization, akin to the transformation from primitive animals to humans.