And Dragon, of course in our society there must be a governing body and hierarchy. That's what our civilization is composed of. Why is it that only in small groups of people, is it possible to have no rules and no hierarchy?
It is only possible because in small societies, if you don't like what someone says, you can ignore them. In larger societies, if you don't like what they say, they use the police on you.
A human being's desire to be free extends only as far as their ability to trust.
It's only possible in small societies because people who live in small societies are completely dependent on each other. A society, such as ours, where everyone does specialized work as a part of a system may allow for greater advancement and efficiency, but then people are dependent on the system rather than each other. It's an anonymous dependency; which allows people to take advantage of each other. It doesn't matter if you screw this person over, you can still do business with someone else. It's because of this that a way of policing people is necessary.
The trust comes from entrusting people with your life and your livelihood. Humans are social animals. We really can't survive on our own for a long period of time. An anonymous system allows us to trust in that rather than each other, thus taking personal relationships out of the equation. Why be vulnerable when the system will take care of us?
As an aside, I still have a hell of a time being vulnerable. I just recognize the problem. I haven't actually overcome it.
The source of this is probably due to survival of the fittest, like most things.
There's a phrase that I've come across that I prefer over "survival of the fittest." It's "survival of the most fit." It's not my own. I forget exactly where I heard it from. "Survival of the fittest" assumes that competition is primary. "Survival of the most fit" emphasizes adaptation, rather than competition. Competition is just one form of adaptation and it's actually a very short-sighted form of adaptation because you're always trying to gain the advantage.
If you're familiar with game theory, you'll find that cooperation pretty much provides the best outcome for both parties. This goes for predator-prey relationships as well. Despite the fact that the predator-prey relationship may not seem very cooperative, if one should gain an advantage over the other it's often to their own detriment. Either through the predators severely decreasing the population of their prey to the point of hurting their own population or the prey overpopulating to the point of destroying their own food base.
"The fundamental part of the predator-prey relationship is if you consume the flesh of another, you now take responsibility for the continuation and dignity of the other's community." --Derrick Jensen
If you don't, it's likely you'll starve. And the other's community goes far beyond the single species of whatever your prey is (be it plant or animal). They have their own dependencies as well.
Agreed that nations are crap. So ok if we all revert to small sustainable tribes we need to keep the internet going, so as to ensure the spread of scientific advancement and understanding. How much infrastructure and $ do you need to keep the interwebs going?
Scientific understanding is just one way of perceiving the world. It's the way our current (nearly global) culture has put the most emphasis on. Many different cultures with many different perceptions of reality are needed for the sake of diversity. Otherwise it's really no different from our agriculture, where we cut everything down and replace it with corn or wheat.
In order to keep the internet going, you would need some sort of organizing body, which would be detrimental to the societies...
I'm honestly in favor of complete cut-off.
*cheers* The internet has certainly been detrimental to my real social life.
The internet initially required massive infrastructure, but thanks to over investing, we can all use it now without it costing way too much.
Reverting to smaller societies is pretty much an impossibility. We're only getting bigger.
"Survival of the fittest?" I only quote that because continuing to get bigger will only ensure that you wipe out those you're dependent on, thus eventually leading to collapse anyways.
I can see how you think that. However, would you agree that the form civilization has taken is causing great harm to the planet? Do you think the planet could sustain a civilization that uses resources as if they are infinite and destroys ecosystems to suit their present needs?
Much of the problem comes from how we try to separate ourselves from ecosystems. We see things as "farmland and cities" and "ecosystems." We try to maintain the ecosystems as preserves and parks; untouched "wilderness." While the farmlands and cities are our domains, when farmlands and cities actually cause the most damage to biodiversity. We'd be better off trying to live within the ecosystems than trying to separate ourselves from them.
I think it's only a matter of time before the earth unleashes something catastrophic that knocks us all on our asses. I'm hoping that people will collectively realize the situation and opt to live a different way before that happens. What that way is, I cannot say.
A catastrophe isn't needed. Resources don't even have to run out. They only thing that's needed is for resources to become unprofitable and everything falls apart.
One thing is for sure: The way we're going is going to end and then what's next?
Do we split into tribes or bands and live as hunter-gatherers? Or do we live in a way that we never have?
There's no way to know. People will have to begin experimenting.
We should make our own community. Although, even communities have order -- there has to be some direction and some cooperation, and leadership is definitely helpful
I can't agree more.
If the world ever does become a global community, then it can be organized into smaller, localized communities in order to maximize the benefits to society. All you have to hope for in order for that to happen is...well...World Peace.
A Theory of Power
Someone will always have to be the wise man. A judge for the people. That's what laws are. Little judges in your life stopping you from doing what you want. Everyone would have to agree to the same things always! It's impossible for it to work without someone giving up their own personal freedom for the good of the group. So the group just becomes the judge in the end. And the group will cast you out.
Not law, but taboo. Taboo is actually more of a gray area whereas laws are more strict. The advantage of taboo is that personal circumstances can be taken into account. This is impossible when you're trying to unite a very large and diverse society. Which is why many smaller societies with a live and let live form of ethics would be ideal. This is how you do things... and this is how we do things. As long as we don't interfere with each other we can get along.
I don't think that because people need to hunt and gather for food to survive that means they need to be told what to do and how to do it. Those things are instinctual.
Granted, those skills can be sharpened and improved by learning and all learning is collective. Early humans were egalitarian hunter gatherer nomads with no social stratification. Like I said before, it was the creation of tools and then agriculture that brought about social stratification.
Tools and agriculture brought about private property when people settled the land and produced more than they could use. Then, suddenly governing powers were set up to protect property of wealthy individuals from those who had less. That's what governments are for. Protecting property. Accept it under whatever guise you want such as "ensuring personal liberties." The law harasses more than it helps.
This is a semi-random thought:
I was reading in a book called Against Civilization by John Zerzan (a collection of essays) that mentioned that peoples living in uncivilized isolated societies are immune to dental caries, have adequete nutrition, and high resistance to disease and mental illnesses modern peoples suffer from.
Can you imagine living in the wild and maintaining healthy teeth your entire life based on subsisting the foods of your natural surroundings? That's wild, considering people visit the dentist a few times a year to have their teeth cleaned and they still wind up rotting out of their head.
Just sayin', maybe that way of life isn't so dismal.
No the planet can't sustain us. When we make the planet uninhabitable, we'll have a period of wars and barbarism before we parish.
I hope there will be people with the foresight to form supportive communities before this happens. The trick will be avoiding those who weren't so prepared and dealing with uncooperative governments.
The cavemen had their own caves. I suppose that there is no way of proving that they claimed ownership of it, but it seems to me that everything that ever was is based on ownership. Even cats mark their territory. It seems like the need to own things, like property, is something that all creatures do and we now just do it at a more advanced level.
I mean...can you think of any circumstance in which a person didn't own a house, that they didn't own object, that no one did? I don't see how that is possible. I suppose nomads, but they still owned clothing and knifes and just things that they used frequently. It was their own property, they made it, collected it, gathered it, etc.
I do not see how possession of an object is not ownership.
The way that the ownership thing ties into the ruling thing, is that many people agreed at one point that they 'owned' something, like land for example. So countries were built, civilizations. In fact, society is based on the fact that we 'own' and 'share' the land, that in some way, it is ours.
You're confusing ownership through use and property. Ownership would be when someone is actively using something. Property would be when someone is entitled to something, whether they are using it or not. I could have a hut that I built myself and am currently living in. It would be my hut. Anyone else could build their own, unless their a complete lazy ass (which in that case they'd advocate property ownership so that other people would be forced to work for them).
Property is very specific to land, and not through use but entitlement. I may not be using this land, but it's still mine. If you want to build a hut there, or grow food there, then you owe me rent for it. This forces people to become dependent on the property owners and divides egalitarian societies.
As long as we can change there is hope for us. Not everyone will be awakened at the same time. Their minds are not ready to listen. Ignorance is only bliss for so long. I wish we could all see each other as fellow humans. We need no realize that we are not always number one all the time. Others were there before we showed up. Life can be anything we want it to be. We only have to chose to make it happen. Others will follow our example and join in when they feel safe.
I quoted this because I think I agree with it, assuming I'm interpreting it correctly. Someone's gotta make the first move. Others will follow.
