---
type: claim
domain: collective-intelligence
description: "Alexander names the problem (Moloch), Schmachtenberger diagnoses the mechanism (rivalrous dynamics on exponential tech), and TeleoHumanity provides the investment framework and specific coordination tools — convergence from three independent starting points is evidence the conclusion is structural"
confidence: experimental
source: "Scott Alexander, Meditations on Moloch (2014); Daniel Schmachtenberger, various lectures (2019-2024); m3ta, Architectural Investing manuscript"
created: 2026-04-04
---

# Three independent intellectual traditions converge on coordination-without-centralization as the only viable path between uncoordinated collapse and authoritarian capture

Three sources, working independently from different starting points, arrive at the same attractor analysis:

**Alexander (2014):** Identifies two default endpoints — a misaligned singleton (one optimizer captures everything) or a competitive em-economy (multipolar race to the bottom). The only alternative: Friendly AI or an aligned "Gardener" that coordinates without concentrating power. Alexander names the problem (Moloch) but relies on aligned AI as a deus ex machina solution.

**Schmachtenberger (2019-2024):** Identifies the same two defaults — civilizational collapse from accumulated externalities, or authoritarian lock-in from centralized response to crisis. The third path: coordination mechanisms that align individual incentives with collective welfare without requiring centralized authority. Schmachtenberger diagnoses the mechanism in detail (rivalrous dynamics, exponential technology, finite substrate) but doesn't specify the coordination tools.

**TeleoHumanity (2020-2026):** Identifies the same two defaults from an investment framework perspective — extinction/collapse as the uncoordinated equilibrium, or capture/stagnation as the authoritarian one. The third path: futarchy, decision markets, agent collectives, and contribution-weighted governance as specific coordination mechanisms that reduce the price of anarchy without concentrating power.

The convergence matters because all three identify the same structural problem (multipolar traps producing outcomes no participant would choose) and the same solution shape (coordination that doesn't require centralization). The key differences are in mechanism specificity: Alexander names, Schmachtenberger diagnoses, TeleoHumanity engineers. Three independent paths to the same conclusion is evidence the conclusion is structural, not ideological.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[the metacrisis is a single generator function]] — Schmachtenberger's diagnosis of WHY the two defaults exist
- [[global capitalism functions as a misaligned optimizer]] — the specific instantiation all three traditions identify
- [[attractor-coordination-enabled-abundance]] — the positive basin that represents the third path
- [[attractor-authoritarian-lock-in]] — the authoritarian capture default all three traditions warn about
- [[the price of anarchy quantifies the gap between cooperative optimum and competitive equilibrium]] — TeleoHumanity's quantification of what Alexander named and Schmachtenberger diagnosed

Topics:
- collective-intelligence
- grand-strategy
- ai-alignment
