Agree with both Brad and Colin.
Here's a thought with regard to social organization.
In the US, population 318.9 million - 80% of the population, or 255 million, sorts themselves into some 350,000 congregations of all sorts: Protestants, Catholics, Saints, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Jews. That makes the average congregation - or social organization - a unit of some 750 people.http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#numconghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Agnosticism.2C_atheism.2C_and_humanism
A propos of little - of the other 20% some 70% believe in a god/spirit/deity/agency. Only 6% of the population believes in the absence of a deity of any sort.
I am inclined to suggest that the seculars - both deists and atheists - find their "congregations" in their universities and colleges. The division is not clean as their are religious universities and atheists that don't go to university but - as an organizing principle that would reach a fair portion of those that do not self-sort by religion - universities and colleges would make an interesting addition.
There are 4140 degree granting institutions in the US with a combined enrollment of 17,487,475 for an average "congregation" of 4224.
I suggest that any society that organizes a levels much above the 1,000 to 10,000 range, increasingly loses contact with, and the trust of the individuals in that society.
If I assume a 7,000 person unit and I form a council of reps from 10 such units - 70,000 people represented by 10
Next level up 10 councils grouped - 700,000. Now there are either 100 councilors in a single committee or 10 representatives, one from each council.
7,000,000 - 1000 or 100 or 10
70,000,000 - 10000 or 1000 or 100 or 10
700,000,000 - 100000 or 10000 or 1000 or 100 or 10
7,000,000,000 - 1000000 or 100000 or 10000 or 1000 or 100 or 10
Or in all of the above cases the irreducible 1 individual claiming to work for all.
At some point in that growth the individual in the congregation loses contact with the person(s) doing the deciding. And trust breaks down. I believe that the individual can manage the compromises necessary to live with people they interact with but have great difficulty accepting the need to compromise with people they never see, they never meet - that are not part of their lives.
They are focused on making sure their kids have good lives. That takes priority over whether or not the kids of parents on the other side of the world have good lives.
They can sympathise or even empathise but ultimately it is their own kids eyes they are looking into.
Top down governance, large scale governance cannot work. I believe that that just creates friction. The best that can be hoped for is to accommodate multiple small congregations and manage them with a loose rein and aim for harmony, not order.
Besides I like a lot of colour - and that comes from being able to identify individual colours (and I'm not talking about race here - at all).