So we'll have anarchy with experts? Who will decide who the experts are? An authority? A set of authorities? How are authority and anarchy compatible?

Your example of cultures where the hierarchy is based on how much people "give" is not, to me, a "better" form of hierarchy. As you say, it's still hierarchy. And not only that, but it is ultimately based on the very same thing our current hierarchy is based on: the productive output of the person to be stratified along the gradient of the hierarchy. There's just an extra gimmick where it's all based on what they "gave" to others. Maybe there's less direct material reward for one's actions in that culture, but the stratification - and the basis for it - is the same.

You wouldn't need to drag textbooks to go see a doctor. For one, there would be no such thing as "doctors." Furthermore, all the information you need can readily be made available in a light, compact device called a Blackberry (or Treo). These devices can surf the web wirelessly and work quite well. This isn't science fiction. It's technology millions of people are using right now. I doubt even that technology has reached its acme.

Learn to write an operating system as complex as Linux in a few hours? Perhaps that is far-fetched. But think about how some technical texts are lousy at explaining things, while others are extaordinarily clear and give you a deep understanding of a technical subject in relatively little time. Does that mean the latter is the best there could be in terms of educational effectiveness? Why can't it go further? Why couldn't the educational effectiveness go much further?

Finally, yes, there likely would be an upper limit to the complexity of technology that would still allow most everyone to completely understand it as well as all the other technology society depends on. And maybe we have already passed that limit. I don't know. All I am saying is that you can try to make all technology as accessible as possible to everyone who depends on it, and that is the road that ultimately leads to anarchy. Or you can not make that effort and continue along the current path, which leads to maintaining and then increasing hierarchy.

I think you and Jim want to have it both ways. You envision a situation where person A provides countless benefits to society, where they're permitted to make decisions about bridge safety that affect everyone else, where they're specifically called on to decide how to allocate research resources for cancer, etc. and person B, who, try as they may, is actively prevented from making decisions about bridges, is subjected to rolling eyes when they try to provide input on how to allocate resources for cancer research, etc. And yet you somehow firmly believe that A won't be held in higher esteem than B, that a hierarchical gradient won't result. All I can say is "dream on."