Brains working towards machine consciousness

I have just been reading Wellman's Little boxes, Glocalization and Networked Individualism. I particularly like the discussion of specialized roles. In this section, Wellman uses scholarly academics as an example of how some people like to maintain contact through the written word (specifically email in this case) in order to be able to live their lives according to their own rhythm whilst still being able to communicate within a network of individuals.
Something which is not mentioned in the paper, except briefly in the context of permitting the timing of self-disclosure, is the big difference between synchronous and asynchronous communication. With increasing global networks, synchronous communication between members is not always possible, and this, surely, is one of the reasons that participants in such networks retain a sense of individuality more than in tightly knot spatially localized teams or groups.
The distance provided by electronic communication, whilst it also brings the world closer together in terms of shared ideas, allows for the individual to switch roles with greater ease than in face to face situations. We all act in multiple roles throughout life, and the support that internet based tools provide for permitting us to keep them separate is a new phenomenon. Yet, whereas in the past someone could leave their identity behind and change location, reinventing themselves within a new community, this is less feasible with the 'net. It only takes a picture or good description of someone to be on the web, and there is a reasonable chance they will be recognised even if they travel far from their native area. Of course, whether this is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion.
The fully realized system of Networked Individualism (NI) has a certain ring of right-wing politics to it. The table in appendix E of the paper suggests that in local communities people obey Elders, in a glocalized setting they "Obey Your Parents, Cherish Your Spouse, Nurture Your Children, Defer to Your Boss, Work & Play Well with Colleagues & Friends" and in NI they "develop strategies and tactics for self advancement". Indeed, in the wording of many of the appendices, there appears to be a bias towards glocalization - with the old, local groups and communities being described in terms of tight control, and the NI sounding more chaotic. Is this a necessary result of the style of interpersonal interaction? I think it is perfectly feasible to operate entirely within a NI framework and be as selfless as in any other social system. I can help other people out across the globe without any need to be self serving, possibly better with a NI approach than a glocalized or local one.
NI supports the concept of adhocracy - functional units coming together to achieve a goal, with their connections based on the global social network. Different roles can be adopted by individuals depending on the need of the group, and the personal dynamics involved.
Notice I used the word 'group' in the context of a NI. Groups are emergent structures based on top of the social graph. A group can be found just as easily in a NI framework as in a glocalized or localized one - it is just harder for a denizen of the more local styles of network to recognise one when they see a constituent member of it, because they are used to the concept of groups being defined, at least to some extent, by physical presence.