nom the puppetTue, Jun 2, 2009 I guess what I meant is that the theory doesn't make a convincing offer for all people to willingly give up the large scale modern society, like the dissolution of pharmaceuticals and the technical innovations which sustain a population this size, which seems to me like a big step backwards when I think of all the people dying from a lack of proper medical attention and food shortages. Some people do form small communes and occasionally live outside the law, but it's dangerous.
I think the theory also needs to be clearer on the level of communication you expect between these communities, because it sounds like you're saying that the cultures will somehow become solidified into unique identities even though migration and trade between them are free, which are two concepts that don't fit together as evidence has shown countless times through history that whenever societies come in contact with one another, they share ideas. Besides, neighborhoods already have their own character. New York has a different vibe than Beijing and New Delhi, which all have a different character than the less uban areas surrounding them, do they really need to be more cut off? Also, limiting the access to information between populations makes it a breeding ground for crummy politics and militant strong-men.
I can't think of what would prevent these communities from reinventing the telephone or the internet that doesn't violate some morality of freedom, the Amish do it by choice of course, but even they sometimes choose to leave when they reach adulthood. I don't think size is the root of the problem. It's efficiency of production coupled with the fact that governments are still trying to operate in something like a win-lose team sport. Priorities are out of order when they don't need to be.
The thing is, this theory assumes as its first premise that the world's population has shrunk or would be ideal if it shrank, which means lots of people are going to die or some kind of global birth control has gone down or both. However it goes down, or if it goes down at all, artificially dividing communities usually leads to problems (see Israel) and is probably not the best solution to people's feelings of alienation and powerlessness. People know the other side of the world exists now, there's no going back from that and it will feel like losing a billion brothers and sisters if we are forced to revert back to these small isolated communities. What if a community is in danger, the kind of danger that requires more than just their next-door neighbor's help? Without a wider communication network like the internet or telephones, they'll be doomed unless word of mouth gets a 5th gear. But luckily small independent communities CAN exist while still maintaining the living standards of the developed world if they just rely on robots for their basic living needs. Automate the production needed to support a population with robots and let the people that live in the local area to govern the production themselves while still letting them participate in other areas of the global labor scene. This seems like a much more appealing solution.
By the high seas I meant something like this Setting up an archipelago of these designated for experimental political and social applications would be a good idea.
Yeah, I was agreeing with your optimism.
The problems you bring up like the social isolation/loss of cultural identity felt in developed countries is a trend. It's made up of peoples' behaviors toward each other. Saying hello and bonding with everyone in town through communal activities just isn't necessary for survival anymore, people provide their own means of support through specialized tasks they've agreed to perform and by placing a mutual trust in a monetary system. Nothing's stopping anyone from saying hello to each other more often except fears of insecurity.
Regarding lobbies, start counter-lobbies or introduce more directly democratic avenues. Organizing public forums, writing to local officials, etc. A public servant that doesn't serve the public doesn't stay for very long. Acting locally is a much more manageable alternative and seems to be a rising trend in the US political scene, and it doesn't require the abolishing of higher and broader levels of social and economic organization.
you should really check out the polytopia project here on spacecollective
I guess what I meant is that the theory doesn't make a convincing offer for all people to willingly give up the large scale modern society, like the dissolution of pharmaceuticals and the technical innovations which sustain a population this size, which seems to me like a big step backwards when I think of all the people dying from a lack of proper medical attention and food shortages. Some people do form small communes and occasionally live outside the law, but it's dangerous.
I think the theory also needs to be clearer on the level of communication you expect between these communities, because it sounds like you're saying that the cultures will somehow become solidified into unique identities even though migration and trade between them are free, which are two concepts that don't fit together as evidence has shown countless times through history that whenever societies come in contact with one another, they share ideas. Besides, neighborhoods already have their own character. New York has a different vibe than Beijing and New Delhi, which all have a different character than the less uban areas surrounding them, do they really need to be more cut off? Also, limiting the access to information between populations makes it a breeding ground for crummy politics and militant strong-men.
I can't think of what would prevent these communities from reinventing the telephone or the internet that doesn't violate some morality of freedom, the Amish do it by choice of course, but even they sometimes choose to leave when they reach adulthood. I don't think size is the root of the problem. It's efficiency of production coupled with the fact that governments are still trying to operate in something like a win-lose team sport. Priorities are out of order when they don't need to be.
The thing is, this theory assumes as its first premise that the world's population has shrunk or would be ideal if it shrank, which means lots of people are going to die or some kind of global birth control has gone down or both. However it goes down, or if it goes down at all, artificially dividing communities usually leads to problems (see Israel) and is probably not the best solution to people's feelings of alienation and powerlessness. People know the other side of the world exists now, there's no going back from that and it will feel like losing a billion brothers and sisters if we are forced to revert back to these small isolated communities. What if a community is in danger, the kind of danger that requires more than just their next-door neighbor's help? Without a wider communication network like the internet or telephones, they'll be doomed unless word of mouth gets a 5th gear. But luckily small independent communities CAN exist while still maintaining the living standards of the developed world if they just rely on robots for their basic living needs. Automate the production needed to support a population with robots and let the people that live in the local area to govern the production themselves while still letting them participate in other areas of the global labor scene. This seems like a much more appealing solution.
By the high seas I meant something like this Setting up an archipelago of these designated for experimental political and social applications would be a good idea.
Yeah, I was agreeing with your optimism.
The problems you bring up like the social isolation/loss of cultural identity felt in developed countries is a trend. It's made up of peoples' behaviors toward each other. Saying hello and bonding with everyone in town through communal activities just isn't necessary for survival anymore, people provide their own means of support through specialized tasks they've agreed to perform and by placing a mutual trust in a monetary system. Nothing's stopping anyone from saying hello to each other more often except fears of insecurity.
Regarding lobbies, start counter-lobbies or introduce more directly democratic avenues. Organizing public forums, writing to local officials, etc. A public servant that doesn't serve the public doesn't stay for very long. Acting locally is a much more manageable alternative and seems to be a rising trend in the US political scene, and it doesn't require the abolishing of higher and broader levels of social and economic organization.
you should really check out the polytopia project here on spacecollective