True consensus and the power of the micro-minority

     Many people use the word "consensus" as meaning a general agreement -- but that is not the original, or primary, definition. The primary definition includes the UNANIMITY of opinion. In other words, everyone must agree. Within the Religious Society of Friends (Quaker), consensus does still mean that -- everyone must agree -- but there is also the concept of "standing aside" such that a person who is not convinced that the majority is correct but is also not convinced that they are NOT correct can allow movement. They "stand aside" so that some decision, or action, can be made.
     But, if they feel strongly that the decision, or action, is the wrong one, then they can stop the action -- true consensus must happen. Throughout history, this situation has stopped Quakers from taking action on some items for a period of years or even decades. Sometimes, the final action is the opposite of what was originally expected -- the minority disappears as it is absorbed within the majority.
     Although the basis for this practice within Quakers is religious, the principle of the majority not always being correct applies throughout society. This is parallel to the stereotypical parent asking their child "if everyone decided to jump off a bridge, would that mean it was right for you to do it?"
     In fact, looking through history and science, this is the "normal" process. One person decides that slavery is wrong but the rest do not. Then a group shifts their viewpoint (and starts becoming vocal about their view) and more and more people change their view and -- at the end of the process -- almost all think that slavery is wrong. One person examines the solar system and skies and applies mathematics to the movements and decides that the Earth really isn't the center of everything -- starting with a minority of one and now almost (rarely ever everyone) everyone understanding that view.
     It isn't easy to be that beginning minority of one. Even in situations where such is explicitly allowed and encouraged, it takes a firm grasp on an individual position to stay there. This applies to scientific, business, and social situations. Failure may sometimes be considered a path to learn how to succeed but most people would rather be part of a supporting group than being the dissenting opinion.
     Those ultra-minority opinions are often suppressed -- sometimes with legal mechanisms -- more often with disparagement and attacks against the person and ideas. This can be done with the best of motives -- and it may be that the "majority opinion" proves to be the "correct" one such that that ultra-minority opinion SHOULD be removed. Various tricks and movements may be made to suppress the minority, or ultra-minority, opinion. Of course, it can also be done with malicious intent -- such as, within the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter's trial's time and location being changed and Dumbledore is "accidentally" overlooked to be informed.
     We often think of people being of majority/minority voices. If 5% believe X, then we think that 95% believe non-X. It seems to make sense, but it is more likely that 5% believe X, 15% believe non-X and 80% follow along with the perceived greater voice. This situation can be looked at as a silver lining or as a forecast of doom. Is it a matter of 80% being "sheep" and unable to make their own decision or is it a situation where 5% only have to convince another 6% in order to move the fulcrum to change the balance? Perhaps both are true. It is even possible that the 5% can shift part of the 80% and change the balance in that manner.
     Within a large group, a single individual can always have the potential to see things the most clearly.

Out-of-sync: When social evolution lags technical innovation

     Humans, as a whole, are very capable intellectually. They're "smart". They can figure out how to take something and improve it. They can take two or more, apparently unrelated, items and figure out something completely new that can be done by using all of them together in a way that has never been done before. This is called "technological advancement" or "technical innovation".
     This is good. It has allowed us to move from caves to weather-secure buildings with running water and toilets and to be able to go from point A to point B in hours rather than weeks or months. It has allowed us to be able to feed 100 people, for a year, from an acre of land rather than 20. In most areas of the planet, it has helped us to be able to spend some time each day doing something other than trying to survive.
     What humans, as a whole, are NOT very good at -- is using technology consistently for constructive purposes. We invent ways to initiate, and control, fire and some individuals start burning down forests, or houses, or even tying alternative health specialists to stakes and burning them. We figure out ways to communicate at the speed of light across the planet and use it to spread false information more quickly. We work on methods to cure disease and help those who have incurable problems to live more easily and efficiently -- then we use those same methods to create diseases that kill millions. These are examples of "social evolution" (or lack thereof 😢).
     This is an example of being "out-of-sync" (or out of synchronization). Technology becomes capable of certain actions before people have matured sufficiently to consistently make use of the technology for good. Another way of putting it is that technology advances faster than people's ability to use it properly -- and the spread between these two appears to continue to widen.
     In order to curtail this problem, of course, one of two solutions can be applied. The first would be to slow down technical innovation. This is unpopular and unenforceable. As stated at the beginning -- humans, as a whole, are very capable intellectually. If one government, or group of people, agreed to slow down technological development in one area then another group of people will be completely willing, and able, to proceed on the development path on their own. A similar method could be done on an individual basis (since usually there is someone who is first with a technical innovation) with that person deciding to slow down, or withhold, research or results. This might work for a while but it disrupts many social policies of reward and competition.
     The other thing to do would be to accelerate social development. This sounds great but it also has problems. One problem is there no way to accelerate social development universally. In other words, if you have a nuclear bomb it only takes ONE finger to "push the button". And, within current economic patterns, there is no incentive to devote the resources (time, people, energy, "money") to help people to develop socially; there is no direct, short-term, "profit" from a more mature, socially capable, human.
     So, we have a problem. The problem doesn't appear to have a solution. They why talk about it? Because awareness of the problem is, in itself, an approach to a solution. If most scientists and engineers and tinkerers keep this problem in mind then technology can be presented in such ways that constructive ideas are promoted before destructive ones. This doesn't stop abuse but it does reduce it and slow it down. Such awareness can also avoid the social problem of technical abandonment -- "I just invented it -- it's not my responsibility how it is used". A true, but very lazy, excuse.
     Do you have any suggestions as to how to keep technical innovation and social responsibility at the same point?