Good post. This is something I have been worried about for some time. The reinforcement of ghettoization appears to come from the fact that it is simpler and safer (and probably more satisfying to many people) to attack someone who is an outsider in your local belief circle than to attack people whose beliefs differ widely from your own.

SF books have, of course, considered this. I found the term "belief circle" in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End. Karl Scroeder's Lady of Mazes describes a world in which virtual overlays are used to separate communities with different beliefs in the same way that raw bigotry does in China Mieville's The City and The City.
 

Why would anyone believe that increased communication between diverse groups would be useful? This "truism" just isn't true. If a group of libertarians meets with a group of socialists, you get arguments (not debate-type arguments but verbal warfare-type) and insults. "Yes, I understand your viewpoint; I just think its juvenile and stupid." Even better, have a group of atheists meet with a group of Muslims. That will be a great discussion that leads to mutual understandings between the groups. Right. Just remember to scan for weapons at the door.

If most people, most of the time, acted and reacted to others based on logic and reason, then communications between diverse groups could be fruitful. Instead, nearly all people act and react based on feelings, prejudices, peer pressure, and group pressure (mob rule). Thus, communications between diverse groups are rarely fruitful and often result in a worsening of dislikes and prejudices. Sometimes it's better to keep them separated.
 

I'm not as pessimistic.

Two reasons:
First, not reading tripe (i.e. most newspapers) could be evidence of sanity on the part of the populace rather than the opposite. Even could I abolish sleep, I only have 168 hours a week to work with; whyever should I spend it on what passes for newspaper reporting today?

More importantly, I think we need to be very careful in how we put together data on "diminishing range of contact."

Yes, anonymity makes it too easy to attack those outside our belief system/prejudices. Annoyingly so.

But do we not sometimes "fail to associate" in particular ways because, well, because we don't have enough in common? I'm hanging out on slashdot because I'm into nerdy things or samizdata.net because I'm interested in anarchist intellectual thought or surfing for new ideas for this fall's economic history class. Why should I feel guilty that I'm not attending sporting events at the high school a block away or always yakking about my lawn or Obamaism with my neighbors?

I can't help thinking of Tocqueville and his point about the genius of America and its multiplicity of associations.

It's easy to look at all the different little internet groups and see disconnected ghettos. But there is amazing social coordination working under the surface. Try the following: find a blog on something you are really passionate about. Click on a random link on that person's blogroll. Then do the same again. I'm willing to bet that within 2-4 links you'll find something really, really different. Is that evidence of ghettoization or evidence of the very kind of overlapping associations Tocqueville enthused about?

The internet's associational network is messy. It can't be shoehorned into the neat categories "social scientists"like me have been trained to use. But a spider web looks pretty flimsy, too.

The wildcard, of course, remains the "political" part of the system. Especially national/international politics, where the polarization, the ideologizing of everything, is depressing. Scary.

But I wonder. Might there be a good side even here? After all, how often do we support the American system because, to paraphrase the old dictum, the alternatives are all worse. A democratic state has been as good as it gets at ensuring social coordination.

Yet what if the internet allows us to coordinate those interests even better still? LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, a thousand thousand different overlapping associations.

Mr. Modesitt, I'm reminded of one of my favorite of your novels. Ecktor was the narrator/protagonist in Adiamante, but the real heroes were the people of old Earth who networked and did what had to be done. To be sure, their network drew strength from a not-available-yet technology, and, more importantly, from collective memory of previous near total destruction of their ecology. We have no such collective memory to unite us. Some of us have deep seated fears about what might happen, but that is not the same as memory of what has happened.

Yet might internet-based social coordination actually make it less likely that we'll ever have to acquire such a memory? Might the hidden social coordination of the internet, ghettoization and all, offer a way out to escape the limitations of commonocracy?

Sorry to be so long-winded in my first post on your blog, but you started a personal hobbyhorse rocking.

Best regards,
Wade Shilts
 

While I agree with Dr. T's point about actual communications between diverse groups, I'm still concerned about the decrease in communications between even similar groups indicated by the study, and by the polarization of viewpoints spurred by the fragmentation of the information industry in order to maximize profits by pandering to the viewpoints of each group... with almost no consideration of the fact that, like it or not, we all do inhabit the same planet, and some understanding and compromise might actually enhance the chances of life and survival.
 

I find the blog comments almost as informative as the reading - your novels and the cited works. Wade's comment on the lack of time to read newspapers - admittedly deficient in real quality journalism, but when wasn't this true? - points out the frantic pace of our society. I like the way you try to anticipate trends. I also like the plain old fashioned way that the Recluse characters have to earn a living, often at rather low-tech, high craft trades.

Perhaps much of the Net segregation reflects people's trying to make some sense of a world which seems to be changing at the speed of the technology curve. We're caught in it, but our brains can't process change that fast. We don't have time for what we don't understand, but we don't have time to learn enough to understand. Something will have to give...it always does.
 

I tend to concur with your view of the web, Wade (although that might be due to both of us browsing Slashdot.) My concern, and I think this is the point Mr. Modesitt is addressing, is that not enough people are making those two or three clicks to get a different look at things.

I've found it interesting to see what old friends from high school are talking about on facebook. I left my home town 12 or 13 years ago, but they all stayed. Our views on the world have diverged greatly over that time, and it's refreshing to occasionally see the things through their eyes, since their viewpoint is so different from that of many of the people I now associate with in "real life." I look forward to seeing more of The Economist's study because I'm curious if there is more of that going on (the intermingling of viewpoints through social networking) than a glance at the surface would indicate.
 

You make a good point, Iron Sparrow. It would be interesting to be able to look forward a century to see how personal contacts from all over have affected society. I guess the main point I had was that we seem too busy for everything, including communicating and researching. Even our own families are affected by this. I think that's why I find Mr. Modesitt's novels intriguing; they lay out a wealth of futures based on today's trends. I just wish he wouldn't pound on religion so much.
 

How can I resist hammering religion a bit? The latest studies show that 53% of all Americans would not vote for an atheist, while only 5% claim that they would not vote for a black. Religion is one of the strongest influences on political systems world-wide. Ignoring it is ignoring the elephant in the room. I've tried not to slam any particular religion too hard, nor have I ever named "real" names. I've just focused on fictitious religious faiths [if based on certain real-life examples]that seem to emphasize belief over facts to the contrary... or those that institutionalize one form of bias or another.
 

Haha. Certainly religion plays its part in determining how our culture evolves, but I'd like to point out that you named the Mormon religion in Archform: Beauty, Mr. Modesitt. I guess living in Southern Utah would make that inevitable, and I'm sorry to say that from reading your blog, it sounds like you've run into many less than stellar representatives of that religion.
 

I was given a copy of Haze by a friend after he read the project outline I am developing. After Haze, and after the comments above, I prefer to be proactive in trying to bring more people together via the internet, but most blogs seem to concentrate on a narrow focus. What might happen if my project catches on? I've just finished the first version of the web site.
http://www.constitution2011.com

I hope I'm not violating some principle of blogging by leaving my website; I am also leaving my real name.
 

I don't have a problem, either as a historian or as an evangelical Christian, with the "hammering on religion." Religion, and "Christian" religion in particular, has a lot to answer for.

I don't agree with everything your characters say about faith, of course. And, to my mind, one cannot reason well without taking various positions of faith.

But however many times I might disagree, in the end, I keep buying every book you write. And I keep telling my econ students to read them, too. All for the same reason I find it harder and harder to waste time with anything the national politicians or media say. Because, as with your and other blogs, and unlike the politicos, I keep learning from what you write.
 

Dahni --

You're certainly not violating any "principles" by giving your name and website. I'm obviously blogging under my own name and occasionally -- when it seems appropriate -- leaving my website name.
 

I'd also like to agree that Iron Sparrow is correct. I have named the LDS faith in several books, but not in those where I was attempting to raise "issues" -- or not that issue. In The Ghost of the Revelator, I was attempting an open minded straight extrapolation of where the LDS nation/culture would have gone had history been different, and in Archform:Beauty and in Haze, I was simply projecting into the future, based on past trends.
 

Just a note, as a member of the LDS religion I find Mr. Modesitt's views and commentary on my faith to be fairly accurate. I've yet to read Archform Beauty or Haze so I'm not sure how the subject is handled there, but I do see some foreshadowing of the Covenanters and the Revnant as I've been living in Utah for the last three years.

I've never looked at it as pounding religion, more the culture that can develop around religions.
 

Derek, there's a character in Archform Beauty that (in my mind) was a jaded Orrin Hatch. Not to say Senator Hatch isn't jaded in real life, I just don't know him well enough to determine how closely Mr. Modesitt's character matches him.
 

I should have thought through that better before hitting "publish."

I don't necessarily think that Mr. Modesitt has portrayed the LDS faith in a negative light in his novels, I just meant to say that he has mentioned them by name. I haven't read all his works, but I can't recall him mentioning any other faiths by name. That could simply be my Utah-centric reading bias though.

To be clear, I agree with the point that religion shapes culture.
 

The opportunity to mix doesn't eliminate the tribal instinct.

I'm a White nationalist. I am often called a racist, and the accusation might be true in some sense and to some extent. I've been kicked out of a lot of forums because I said things that I believe are true, even if some people don't think them polite to mention.

For example, a forum devoted to philosophical inquiry offered free and open debate on the "Nazi Holocaust," and, taking them at their word, I wrote some opinions contrary to those held by the majority. I was banned within a few hours of my first post.

Likewise, I've been banned from Yahoo Answers nine times for my racial opinions, though I can back them up statistically (and often do). I had an essay on the subject of censorship, "Debate Restrictions." Find it here:

http://jenab6.livejournal.com/12317.html

When I posted it on Yahoo Answers, the staff there censored it.

So the segregation you've noticed is partly the result of tribalism, an instinct of like to seek out like, and partly it's the result of non-conformists being kicked out of communities where their beliefs don't fit the standard.

Most forums require you to agree not to post anything defamatory or hateful. Defamation presumes falseness. Nothing true can be defamatory. If you're a thief and I call you a thief, then you have not been defamed, but described. And what is "hateful"? That's a matter of opinion. The questions, then, are

1) Whose opinion counts?
2) Why should THAT opinion be the one which counts?
3) How does anyone whose opinion doesn't count know in advance what is considered hateful by those whose opinion does count?
4) What does one do when provable facts are considered hateful?
 

This is for David's post. David, the reason you got kicked off those other blogs probably had more to do with not wanting to shut down blogs arguing about things most people don't want to hear anymore. They may be "provable facts" to you, but the rest of us have moved on. We started in one spot, then dispersed and diversified. The transportation and communications revolutions have shown us to have much more in common than we have differences. We are just not going back down that road. Mr. Modesitt's stories have that element in them - you go forward, not back.

Much of the discussion has been on the role of religion. I even suggested the Modesitt novels tend to bash religion. But religious beliefs are a culturally unifying force if not misused by individual members. In the movie "Contact" - based on a book by the late Carl Sagan, himself an atheist - a committee in the movie notes that about 97% of humanity believes in a deity of some sort. At least three of the five most influential religions of the world are very catholic. All ethnic groups, or races" are welcome in these groups. Like I said - in America at least - we are just not going back to one race being better or even truly different from another.
 

This is for David's post. David, the reason you got kicked off those other blogs probably had more to do with not wanting to shut down blogs arguing about things most people don't want to hear anymore. They may be "provable facts" to you, but the rest of us have moved on. We started in one spot, then dispersed and diversified. The transportation and communications revolutions have shown us to have much more in common than we have differences. We are just not going back down that road. Mr. Modesitt's stories have that element in them - you go forward, not back.

Much of the discussion has been on the role of religion. I even suggested the Modesitt novels tend to bash religion. But religious beliefs are a culturally unifying force if not misused by individual members. In the movie "Contact" - based on a book by the late Carl Sagan, himself an atheist - a committee in the movie notes that about 97% of humanity believes in a deity of some sort. At least three of the five most influential religions of the world are very catholic. All ethnic groups, or races" are welcome in these groups. Like I said - in America at least - we are just not going back to one race being better or even truly different from another.
 

Bob, the last time I heard the "We've moved on" argument, I arguing physics with a theologian. You might have "moved on," but that doesn't mean that you've moved in the direction which the facts indicate. It doesn't mean that you're closer to the truth than you were.

It does mean that you've settled on the explanation that seems best to you, but it doesn't mean that your standard of judgment had anything to do with the truth.

A great many people can be wrong. Sometimes the Galileo in the bunch is right, after all. There really is no authority that can decide what the truth is. Anyone can raise a question long ago regarded as "settled" and ask for all to be reexamined once again, to be considered in the light of new evidence, or ask whether too many assumptions were made in the past, or air suspicions that perhaps a deliberate effort at deception has been afoot.

In the case I mentioned, my getting banned from ePhilosopher, the administration themselves had approved of an open debate on the Holocaust, then reversed themselves and used censorship to prevent the debate which they had called for. Odd? Maybe not. What I've come to think was happening is that someone at ePhilosopher was hoping to pull off a "false flag" demonstration. A staged and scripted fake debate was planned, in which "doubters" would be "convinced" by stalwart forces of Holocaust orthodoxy, and the arrival of genuine skeptics was interfering with their plans.

In other words, your "we've moved on" argument isn't even relevant. I didn't instigate the Holocaust debate; I simply accepted what appeared to be an invitation to participate, then got kicked off because it wasn't really a debate, but more of a Hundred Flowers Campaign (see Chinese history).

Read my posts there for yourself. I began by defending another genuine holocaust skeptic after his posts were targeted for censorship by ePhilosopher's moderators.

http://jenab6.livejournal.com/16456.html

It's a common mistake to give improper weight to that part of history you live in, or which is still in living memory. It leads to popular fallacies like "We do things better now than any people in earlier times" and like "People in the past believed this, but NOW WE KNOW otherwise." Many people have a habit of confusing their own culture's success in one respect for wisdom in all respects. So don't be too quick to assume that democracy, capitalism, and racial tolerance are good things. History is the real judge, not our conceits. Nature writes the rules; ideologists do not.

The United States is a blip on the map of history. It won't endure, and one of the reasons is that it became racially mixed. All racially mixed countries will fission into several or else die, and all racially mixed religions will fission into race-based subsets, until they are no longer one faith, but several competing faiths.

Hominids generally will go back to race-based tribal groupings, after the fossil fuel era is done. The race that made so much possible, from modern medicine to moon landings, and which might have achieved so very much more, weakened itself biologically, crippled its political powers, adulterated its culture, and then gave itself social handicaps. And, despite all of its foolishness, it might still be the best race of hominids extant.

You might not ever go back in time, or return to exactly the same cultural state as that of a previous time, but you can indeed go too far in the wrong direction and crash, so that your circumstance are once again as poor as they were before you started out. And that's the sort of thing mixing races has been doing to countries since ancient Egypt's 25th Dynasty.
 

Sorry, it was "The Philosophy Forums" that banned me that time. I was banned from ePhilosopher, too, under similar circumstances, for similar reasons (to shut me up).

The leftists gain the power to write the rules in forums like these, and then they write cheater's rules that lets them "duly" (or "rulefully") censor arguments they find difficult to answer. It's sort of like being an employee in a company where the boss implements stupid policies, but if you criticize them you get fired.