Tao is great in lots of ways--obviously as a first-rate mathematician, but also as an educator and an ambassador of mathematics to the general public. It's cool to see him thinking along these lines, but if anyone is really interested in where this line of thinking goes, it's basically the problem of modernity. Just about everyone in the humanities is fully aware of this already. It emerged vaguely around the 1830s and basically became the major subject of the humanities--in one way or another--ever since. Marshall Berman's book All That Is Solid Melts Into Air is good intro. I would expect that if you take Tao's specific line of thinking here (society beginning gas-like, interacting particles, then clumping together at various levels of abstraction, and interacting up and down the levels, etc) you get into all sorts of issues that were debated endlessly a very long time ago. But as a quick, temporary prism for looking at the world it's fine I guess. As a symptom, it makes one think something else might be going on when a very famous mathematician is suddenly now rediscovering modernity--perhaps things become more clear the more they break apart. One might even go so far as to say Tao's apparent ignorance of the issue of modernity has something to do with specialization, i.e. is a symptom of modernity itself.
PS--to add one thing as a criticism, the "retreat" into "grassroots groups" has also long been viewed as a false solution to the problem. Politically, this "solution" emerged in various forms: the 19th century's utopian socialism (especially in the US!), late 19th-early 20th century syndicalism, 1960s communes and "turn-on, tune-in, drop-out," up to now with the stubborn idea that communal living is somehow "revolutionary" and various other guises. It's there in less "radical" forms too, like when liberals say we just need to restart the bowling leagues. It's fine as an individual respite, but will never really get at the problem, not least because there are many other (and better!) ways of getting some "relief".
PS--to add one thing as a criticism, the "retreat" into "grassroots groups" has also long been viewed as a false solution to the problem. Politically, this "solution" emerged in various forms: the 19th century's utopian socialism (especially in the US!), late 19th-early 20th century syndicalism, 1960s communes and "turn-on, tune-in, drop-out," up to now with the stubborn idea that communal living is somehow "revolutionary" and various other guises. It's there in less "radical" forms too, like when liberals say we just need to restart the bowling leagues. It's fine as an individual respite, but will never really get at the problem, not least because there are many other (and better!) ways of getting some "relief".