http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:30:19 +0000 http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities en http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:30:19 +0000 Bauke 4950 <a href="http://spacecollective.org/Olena">Olena</a> wrote:<br /><br />Megan, your comment about the native people is really interesting...<br /> I'd like to know more about them; particularly their &quot;unconventional physical developments&quot; http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:57:19 +0000 Bauke 4950 <a href="http://spacecollective.org/Bauke">Bauke</a> wrote:<br /><br />Nom the Puppet: Thanks for the reply, I've read it quickly and will dig deeper into it later.<br /> <br /> Meganmay: Thank you for your interesting contribution. I was not aware of the fact that there still is no man's land on earth. Islands have their advantages and disadvantages; on an island, it's more easy for a community to build and remain their cultural identity. Not only because of physical but also because of psychological borders. Examples of this can still be seen in our world, even in the western society (Iceland has a rich and strong cultural identity).<br /> Disadvantages of islands are indeed inbreeding. There's nothing wrong with some racial seperation on voluntary basis but inbreeding will do no good either. Also on the mainland when a community grows to big, it can easily split up, overpopulation on an island is alot more difficult to handle.<br /> <br /> It just happens that the girfriend of a friend lived in Panama for a few years and she told about small untouched islands that could be rented for a few days/weeks. I doubt it's the islands you are speaking of but I will ask her if she knows more about this. http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:31:50 +0000 Bauke 4950 <a href="http://spacecollective.org/meganmay">meganmay</a> wrote:<br /><br /><a href="http://spacecollective.org/A0013237932294" target="_blank">A0013237932294</a> was just telling me about an island he just visited off the coast of panama that has successfully retained its independence from Panama and by extension the west. The native people are so isolated they can only persist through incest, which has lead to all kinds of unconventional physical developments. They are a population of human beings floating in the ocean following an entirely different evolutionary trajectory. The neighboring islands are largely untouched, so while the number of no man's lands continues to shrink perhaps we should take the opportunity to declare these landmasses, not micronations with agendas, but counter-civilization preservation zones. I like this idea. <br /> http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:09:18 +0000 Bauke 4950 <a href="http://spacecollective.org/nomthepuppet">nom the puppet</a> wrote:<br /><br />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. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> By the high seas I meant something like<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2110/2421167510_70d4e6211c.jpg" target="_blank"> this</a> Setting up an archipelago of these designated for experimental political and social applications would be a good idea. <br /> <br /> Yeah, I was agreeing with your optimism. <br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> you should really check out the polytopia project here on spacecollective<br /> <br /> <br /> http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:25:04 +0000 Bauke 4950 <a href="http://spacecollective.org/Bauke">Bauke</a> wrote:<br /><br />Nom the Puppet: Thank you for your reply. I will try to give an answer on your questions.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><blockquote>would be much slower since massmedia and fast communication transport like internet will not exist anymore.</blockquote>why?</blockquote><br /> I am not only speaking here about fragmenting the physical society (as in where people live) but also about the psychological effect. In the world as we know it now, we are interested in news from the other side of the world, we also provide our services to other countries, we chat with people from other religions etcetera. The community I desire, is first of all independent of other communities. A small community of a few hundred people needs most, if not all, members to work to stay independent by working on farms, teaching etcetera. Massmedia, transport- and constructioncompanies (for example for building roads) and big corporations in general need big numbers of employees. As I mentioned before there are not that many workers available after the basic jobs like hunting, farming etcetera are done. And if there were, I imagine the communities being far away from each other, connected only by paths, not highways to transport people to their jobs. Without teaming up, big companies cannot exist. And by that services like radiobroadcast, internet, trainsystems and automobiles will not exist. Eventually the techniques used for our modern lifes such as radio, computers etcetera will die out too. As wel will cease to use these techniques, nobody will care about how it works or how it's made either. And since we cannot use central databases and exchange points to exchange the knowledge, it will eventually die.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><blockquote>How do we prevent communities from teaming up?...we should not try to prevent as it is natural: societies build up</blockquote>question answered</blockquote><br /> I listed this one under problems but that might be to easy. I bring up my theory that civilisations will grow untill they reach a certain point and then fragment, after which they slowly build up again. I do not know if this is true but I think it's likely to happen. Still I do not know if this is a positive thing. I'm not sure whether we should stop communities from merging. Because I hold freedom as the main reason to start communities in the first place, it feels not right to actively limit them to grow or merge. But it doesn't feel right to let history repeat itself while we are watching passively. Maybe there is a way to control the growth or desire to merge without limiting the freedom of a community? If you've got any suggestions I am looking forward to hear them.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><blockquote>any company making products for the masses will die resulting in a lack of mass produced medicine etcetera.</blockquote>why?</blockquote><br /> I answered this one in the first question.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><blockquote>On our planet there is no land unclaimed</blockquote><br /> what about the high seas?</blockquote><br /> Please explain! While I don't think a group of people can live independent of others on an atol or similar structure yet I am curious to hear about your idea about it.<br /> <blockquote><br /> <blockquote>as long as there are people there will be people disagreeing with each other.</blockquote><br /> true dat, but we still try to live together with respect and peace. plus the fact that we're debating this offers hope that we'll come to an even better agreement with each other eventually. The billions of people not killing each other outweigh the few that are.</blockquote><br /> Exactly my point, I think you read that sentence out of context because in the very next sentence I am saying that I think that despite people disagreeing we can build a better world.<br /> http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:34:25 +0000 Bauke 4950 <a href="http://spacecollective.org/nomthepuppet">nom the puppet</a> wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote>would be much slower since massmedia and fast communication transport like internet will not exist anymore.</blockquote><br /> <br /> why?<br /> <br /> <blockquote>How do we prevent communities from teaming up?...we should not try to prevent as it is natural: societies build up</blockquote> <br /> <br /> question answered<br /> <br /> <blockquote>any company making products for the masses will die resulting in a lack of mass produced medicine etcetera.</blockquote><br /> <br /> why?<br /> <br /> <blockquote>On our planet there is no land unclaimed</blockquote><br /> <br /> what about the high seas?<br /> <br /> <blockquote>as long as there are people there will be people disagreeing with each other.</blockquote><br /> <br /> true dat, but we still try to live together with respect and peace. plus the fact that we're debating this offers hope that we'll come to an even better agreement with each other eventually. The billions of people not killing each other outweigh the few that are.<br /> <br /> http://spacecollective.org/Bauke/4950/On-communities