Take for example, the physical universe. Without getting into too much detail, conventional scientific wisdom has taught us that all physical matter is made of atoms. Atoms themselves, however, are made up mostly of empty space, and it is only when they bond together that they form physical structures as we perceive them. Lastly, but not least, all matter is subjected to laws of physics, that dictate how they behave. In this example, atoms are nodes, atomic bonding forces are links, and the laws of physics are, well, the laws.

Upon close inspection of my original list, however, it may become clear that there are differences in how such "networks" are organized. While some of them are arranged in many-to-many relationships, some, like governments, often take hierarchical structures. Using the above categories as examples, I will describe how systems may first form hierarchical structures, and then evolve into more mesh-like networks. Finally, I will discuss what exactly this shift from hierarchy to mesh means for the system in question.

Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this evolutionary change in networking structure is the pier-to-pier (P2P) network. The earliest and most famous example of P2P networks was probably Napster, which saw its peak in the late 90's before they were shutdown at the hands of the music industry. The Napster network allowed people from all over the world to "share" files online via the Internet. Files were stored on individual users' computers, and transfers took place between users. This was in contrast to more conventional modes of file distribution, like HTTP or FTP, where content was distributed from one source to multiple destinations.

In actuality, however, Napster was not a true P2P network. It had still retained the one-to-many aspect of more traditional file distribution mechanisms, eventually leading to their demise. Even though actual files were hosted on individual users' computers, a central database was used to keep track of the location of all files. Since users could not locate, and thus access, files without querying this database, the overall structure was more or less a hierarchical structure. As such, a single node in the network, specifically the database, became more valuable than any of the other nodes combined, giving the record industry a single point to attack in order to incapacitate the entire system.

More recent incarnations of P2P networks, however, like the Gnutella network commonly used today, are truly pier-to-pier since no one node is significantly more important than any other. Even though not all nodes are directly connected to all others, all nodes are connected to a number other nodes, making them many-to-many mesh-networks. Since there is no single "head" node, it is also more difficult to harm the system by attacking just a few nodes. As a result, the music industry has begun releasing corrupted files to the network, thereby decreasing the quality of transferred files. This effectively lowers the reliability of individual file transfers, and thus amounts to an attack on the links, not the nodes.

Forms of government have also taken similar paths of "evolution" in the last several centuries. The feudal system in pre-Renaissance Europe was very much a hierarchical structure. There was often one head, and then multiple layers of increasingly larger number of members, or nodes, in a pyramidal or tree-like structure. Power, or control, traveled down the pyramid, but never up. The value of individual nodes also varied depending on the level within the hierarchical structure, with the bottom being most numerous.

The advent of democratic governments has changed this hierarchical structure, at least in theory. In an ideal democracy, every member in the society (that is, every node) has equal rights and powers. In practice, most so-called democratic governments are actually representative governments, where members of society are politically organized in hierarchical structures. However, unlike feudal systems, representative governments have certain traits that make them similar to mesh-networks, since every node has some influence in the over all structure. More specifically, because, at least in theory, every member of society (node) can choose who represents him or her (or become a representative), there is some semblance of bi-directional control.

Another prime example of this network paradigm shift can be seen in the evolution of the World Wide Web. During the early years of the web, content distribution was strictly unidirectional, that is, a few websites disseminated content to a relatively larger body of web viewers. There was a strict rift between those who published content, and those who viewed them, since the threshold of entry was relatively high. In order to publish content on the web, people had to learn HTML or learn to use GUI based website creation software, then learn about how to upload files to web servers and so on. Even after getting to the stage of putting material up on the web, it was difficult, if not out right impossible, to get much traffic. As a result, the vast majority of web traffic went to a few of the sites.

With the advent various technologies allowing for more dynamic web content, this began to change. Online forums became more common, and many sites added mechanisms to allow visitors to add comments to web pages. Sites like eBay made it easier for ordinary netizens to sell goods online, and powerful and accurate search engines like Google made even the most obscure sites more accessible to the masses.

The Web is currently undergoing yet another revolution, perhaps the biggest one since the Web first appeared 10 years ago. Personal websites commonly referred to as "weblogs" or "blogs" are rapidly becoming popular and numerous. Blogs, which are essentially online journals, were made popular by services like Blogger.com that brought down the threshold to entry low enough for the average netizen. Geeks, teenage girls, college professors and soccer moms alike are able to publish content on the web without having to acquire any new skills, and for the first time in history, gain the ability to have their voices heard by millions of people around the world from the comfort of ones' home. As a matter of fact, popular blogs boast readership numbers comparable to New York Times' circulation. During the recent war in Iraq, some of the most frequently visited sources for news were blogs, one of which was even purportedly written by an Iraqi citizen living inside Baghdad. Even though few blogs claimed to be definitive sources, the diversity allowed people to gain perspective on events in ways not possible through traditional news sources.

One of the interesting aspects of blogs is in how they are linked together. Blogs often link to other blogs and articles, forming a sort of mesh-network of small websites. Sites like Blogdex and Daypop that index and analyze blogs gather statistical data that often indicate recent trends, and hot news topics. Although the true extent of this blogging phenomenon has yet to be seen, the networked nature of blogs and their high availability is likely to change information dissemination on a scale comparable to the advent of the radio, television, or perhaps even printed media.

Another "hot" topic in the IT industry, of course, is one surrounding Open vs. Closed Source software development, licensing, and distribution. Under the conventional model of software distribution, software vendors write software and license them to end-users. The source code of the software is kept in closely protected secrecy, and users are controlled by highly restrictive end user license agreements. This is clearly a one-to-many structure, since a few software vendors sell software to vast masses, and control flows in one direction.

With the Open Source model, however, development of software is highly distributed, and further more, all users receive the same (or similar) rights as developers. Often times, users are in fact also developers, and since they are not subjected to restrictive licenses, no one party has control over the others. Even though Open Source projects are lead by one or a few community members, the overall structure is usually fluid. Because any member can modify the software, or even start a "fork", the development process is also usually highly distributed. Community members often network through email, web forums, or IRC, often collaborating on all aspects of the projects' development and distribution.

Perhaps now that this evolutionary trend of systems becoming less hierarchical and more mesh-like has been established, it is time to discuss the ramifications. Before that, however, it may be worth mentioning that the exact ramifications are in fact unknown. Complex systems are, by definition, difficult to comprehend fully. The universe is far from having been explained, the brain is still relatively less understood, governments are still a mess, piracy on P2P networks conflict with capitalist interests, Open Source has its opponents, and nobody knows where the blogging phenomenon will lead.

There is, however, one major ramification to this paradigm shift: As networks become more distributed and less hierarchical, the significance shifts away from the nodes, and more to the links and laws.

In a feudal system, there is one node that is more important than all others: the king or head of state. All nodes below him (or her, if it's a queen) have decreasing importance. The reason for this is clear: the head node keeps the system working. The same was seen with Napster, where the database was the single most important node. Once that critical node was taken down, the entire system collapsed. By nature of hierarchical structures, all nodes (except for the head node) rely on their parent nodes. The inverse of this is that the destruction of one node causes severe disruption in all child nodes.

In truly distributed mesh-networks, the system does not rely on individual nodes. In the physical world, the destruction of one atom rarely bears any significance. The same goes for the brain. Individual neurons, or even large clumps of them may die, yet the overall system usually continues to function. Infants born with severe material brain deficiencies have been known to recover fully because what cells that are left take over for the "nodes" that are missing. Truly distributed P2P networks have proven extremely difficult to stop because there is no single point of failure. Successful Open Source projects live on long after the original developers have left, because the community-driven development model takes the load off of individual developers (nodes).

Metcalfe's Law states that the value of a community is proportional to the square of its size. However, the "size" here should not refer to the number of individual nodes. After all, a P2P node that's off line doesn't count as a node in actuality. An Open Source community member does not count if he or she does not talk to any other community member or contribute in any other way. A citizen has little political significance if he or she cannot or does not vote. A website that isn't linked to from somewhere else, for all intents and purposes, does not exist.

In short, the size of a community, or network, is determined not by the number of nodes, but by the number and quality of connections.

Furthermore, this "connection" is determined through a democratic system, further ensuring that no one node can gain more power than others. For example, in a P2P network, the protocol used for individual nodes to communicate with others must be standardized. Even if one node were to begin communicating in a different protocol, the effect would be that that node would be excluded from the network. The only way for the protocol to change without sacrificing overall integrity would be for the majority of nodes agree on a new standard

Needless to day, these observations are not being made only in the technical field. Similar observations are made where people find themselves in any sort of social institution.

Bleeding edge theorists on composition and literacy are fighting to dispel the common notion of writing being a solitary skill, and are pushing the idea that learning happens through interaction with others. In a recent panel discussion, one teacher reported that a class of highly disengaged and even hostile students in an English composition class became more engaged and productive when "executive function" was delegated to students. Because students were given more responsibility, they took more responsibility.

Google, one of the most successful and most innovative technology companies today, has a very loose operational model where projects are initiated, implemented, deployed and maintained by autonomous three-person teams. Approval for projects does not come down through a hierarchical bureaucracy, but is determined by other employees in a democratic system.

In other words, fully distributed and truly democratic networks allow for advancement of the system (i.e. organization) while also allowing for individual empowerment. Although the system is less individualistic in one sense since individual nodes do not compete with others in order to fulfill self-interests, they do maintain a level autonomy and in most cases enjoy increased freedoms. On the other hand, because such networks are cooperative by nature, they are also likely to advance the system as a whole. They are also, by nature, less prone to catastrophic damage as a result of a single node failure or loss, and they are also more likely to avoid conflict.

In short, what this trend seems to indicate, is the beginning of a new era for human interactions at all levels of our society.