In the totality of our recorded history, societies functioned in a straightforward manner. Whether it would be the monarch's order, the God's word or the oligarchical polyphony, there was none but one source of truth.

This is not a bad thing per se, as - in my opinion - revolutionary ideas appear only where constraints have been established. One needs to identify the rules, before challenging them.

Nevertheless, we are somehow convinced that the components of modern life are anti-fragile. I believe that this conviction originates in the fact that we collectively assume that behind our societal, technological and belief systems there is someone that could be held accountable for any mishaps. We think that even if something went terribly wrong, someone will fix it. A "deus ex-machina" kind of deal.

That is invalid.

That's simply because the entities we perceive as accountable for our delicate functioning order are, in fact, untouchable. If we lack the ability of pressuring them, why put our trust in them in the first place? The reason couldn't be anything but pure traditionalism and immaturity.

What if we, for the first time, designed a tool so heavily constrained, that it could not derail from its original purpose? An algorithmic slave, if you will. I find that notion extremely liberating.

I think we could be close to obtaining the maturity required to start putting our collective trust in non-sentient, non-supernatural entities. In constrained technological mechanisms that will behave in a certain, immutable way. Systems that wield the power of a world-conquering empire, but have the apathy of a lifeless rock.