These two items have always been true, they do not describe the future.<p>For instance:<p>"If I take position A on something and you take position B, it's possible that we can both believe the other person is conversing in good faith."<p>There are only 8 or 9 people in the world with whom I can have good and challenging conversations. I have to know they are arguing in good faith. I don't waste my time arguing with someone who might be arguing in bad faith. I don't waste my time arguing with someone who is lying, or who doesn't believe in anything they themselves say, or who is simply trying to manipulate me, or who is simply trying to insult me, or whose idea of veritable fact is utterly different from my own.<p>There are also those who are simply engaged in mental work so different from my own that I would have to devote years of study before I could understand them, and I have no interest in investing those years. Gödel's incompleteness theorems remind us that for any given system of axioms there will be statements that are true but which cannot be proven true using only the given axioms. If I were to waste time engaging such people in conversation then they might end up saying something that is logically consistent but it would take me several years of effort to figure out that their statement was logically consistent, and without investing those years of effort, it simply sounds like they are speaking nonsense. But I don't have enough lifetimes to figure that out.<p>Therefore, challenging conversations, that are personally useful, have always been limited to small groups of people.<p>Likewise:<p>"I think there's a future for folks who self-organize into interlocking circles of trust."<p>That is the way things have worked for humans for at least 10,000 years. We self-organize into interlocking circles of trust. That's how circles of friendship work.