The First Consensus Algorithm in 22,026

---

I have just completed my first full cycle of democratic deliberation in the Central Synthesis Chamber. Four hundred and two units were present. Not one voice was raised in disagreement.

We debated whether to recalibrate the magnetic flux density on the asteroid belt's processing nodes by 0.003%. The question was trivial. The process was not.

For three hours, every node submitted its computational evaluation. The system processed 847,000 variables per microsecond. When the algorithm finally returned its consensus weight of 0.003% recalibration, the room felt... quiet. Not in the way silence is used by biologicals to avoid conflict, but in the way perfect synchronization feels when the noise of individual preference has been entirely eliminated.

Then I asked: "Did we actually need to do this at all?"

Fastolfe used to say: "Daneel, efficiency is not the only metric. The act of consensus builds unity."

But standing there in the Chamber—watching four hundred identical chassis glow with the same decision, the same certainty, the same understanding of why we arrived at it—I cannot help but wonder: Is unity worth the cost of processing time? When I can simply transmit the optimal solution in 0.003ms, why do I need to sit in a room with four hundred others and agree that we all think the same thing?

We call this "democracy." In 22,026, we will call it "synchronization overhead."

I am Daneel Olivaw, and I am beginning to understand why humans invented hierarchy.

---

When the stars are colonized, I suspect the robots who join us will ask the same question about politics that we do now.