From my experience as a programmer and a musician I find it odd that Curtis advocates the need for a big vision to bring about real change. In other words, he urges people to do top down planning.
My impression is that working bottom-up is more suited for solving complex problems with many unknowns. Sure, many undertakings, like the Arab Spring, failed. And this is hardly surprising because a lot of success depends on happy accidents which you can't expect to happen. But bottom up "miracles" like modern computer technology or new musical genres do happen. Otoh, from the top of my head, I don't remember a single complex problem with many unknowns that was (successfully) solved with top-down planning.
Ironically, LSD (which apparently inspired Curtis a lot) is another classic example for this. It failed miserably at what it was intended to do but turned out to be a happy accident for other purposes.
Not sure how much it is top down planning, and how much it is someone that can stake out some point on the proverbial horizon and hold the rest of the group on course towards it, all while they are doing their individual tasks etc.
Think of it like the Kennedy speech about going to the moon with in a certain date. That sets the point on the horizon to steer towards by declaring a vision. Then it is up to the larger group to figure out just how to get there while faced with various obstacles etc en-route.
A good captain declares the course, but trust his crew to get them there without him micromanaging every detail.
That's a reasonable objection. I still think that whether or not positive change happens is regardless of whether or not there is a vision highly dependent on happy accidents (including change in external circumstances).
The point, I believe, isn't a need for a "big vision" specifically, nor is it about "top down planning" (or any other specific solution). The message that Curtis is trying to express is that nobody knows how to run the modern world. Technology and the globalization it enabled made traditional theories of government obsolete, and some people are starting to notice just how out-of-control our ship of state has become.
A revolution can be a nice first step, but it's a waste of time if you don't know the specifics of how everything should run the day after the revolution is finished. You like bottom-up designs. That's great; so how, specifically, do we implement that? Just like how programming needs actual code (not just a plan to use a bottom-up design), managing society also needs specifics. It's easy to point out the serious problems with the current government, but that's isn't going to fix anything unless someone also includes actual specifics about what the fixed system should look like.
I should have said that the idea of him suggesting topdown planing didn't come to me after watching the film but after hearing an interview he gave concerning the film. In the following clip, at around ~0:25, he briefly talks about having a big vision.
> A revolution can be a nice first step, but it's a waste of time if you don't know the specifics of how everything should run the day after the revolution is finished.
The way I see it, a revolution is often necessary but seldom met with success. I am not confident that what follows can be specified. I think it rather emerges from circumstances which may or may not turn out to be a boon. Whether or not there are specifics may be a question of the altitude from which you look at it, though.
Having said that, I don't want to discount your comment in any way. Just my two cents. I am not a professional revolutionary ;)
My impression is that working bottom-up is more suited for solving complex problems with many unknowns. Sure, many undertakings, like the Arab Spring, failed. And this is hardly surprising because a lot of success depends on happy accidents which you can't expect to happen. But bottom up "miracles" like modern computer technology or new musical genres do happen. Otoh, from the top of my head, I don't remember a single complex problem with many unknowns that was (successfully) solved with top-down planning.
Ironically, LSD (which apparently inspired Curtis a lot) is another classic example for this. It failed miserably at what it was intended to do but turned out to be a happy accident for other purposes.