Modern day oppression

Originally posted by stocken
A lot of problems are directly resulting from the division of power. We
humans are like that. (text shortened.)...

Open minds and a sense of wanting to do well by others are critical
qualities in every citizen of such a society (but I believe these things
come natural when you remove power structure).

So, am I correctly grasping your fantasy land here:

Everyone enjoys helping everyone. Nobody minds doing crappy jobs while others have less crappy jobs. Everyone magically agrees what areas of ridiculously expensive or labor intensive research and development to pursue, if any. Nobody gets jealous. Nobody gets greedy.
Mysterious technology keeps everyone basically unvulnerable (though, why they would need that if the above criteria are presupposed, I don't know.); and also possibly keeps us fed and watered.
And at no point does anyone create any power structure of any kind. Not even to provide direction for their children.

That about the size of it?


As a separate string from the above...
Power structures are completely natural developments in any society. It's necessary. Short of global, all inclusive, telepathy... not everyone is going to agree about how to proceed when problems occur. Not everyone can just go all willy nilly about fixing it when something breaks. It doesn't work. For example; Hurricane Katrina, in the US: without some manner of power structure the aftermath would have been utter chaos(you know, more so than it already was with the power structure 🙂 ). Hundreds of thousands of people would have died of starvation or dehydration because without a power structure including someone to lead or direct, everyone's efforts would be out of whack and wouldn't get to where they were needed. As soon as you say so-and-so will keep track of what areas already have water, you've created a power structure. Unavoidably. Your fantasy land, if we accept all of the above criteria would be incapable of dealing with large scale catastrophe.
Unless, I suppose, we also say that their wonderful little shields are coupled with the wonderful little food/water producers... in which case, problem solved I suppose.

I think that last statement is maybe a little naive. Though, to be fair, there's never in the history of anything been a time, in ANY society, human or animal, to provide a sample for your case. Everything has a power structure of some kind. So, I suppose I'll content myself to be happy that there are those with such amazing optimism. 🙂

Originally posted by DtB
So, am I correctly grasping your fantasy land here:

Everyone enjoys helping everyone. Nobody minds doing crappy jobs while others have less crappy jobs. Everyone magically agrees what areas of ridiculously expensive or labor intensive research and development to pursue, if any. Nobody gets jealous. Nobody gets greedy.
Mysterious technology keeps everyone ...[text shortened]... ose I'll content myself to be happy that there are those with such amazing optimism. 🙂

Nobody minds doing crappy jobs while others have less crappy jobs

Que?

Everyone magically agrees what areas of ridiculously expensive or
labor intensive research and development to pursue, if any

Va!?

Nobody gets jealous. Nobody gets greedy.

Ok?

though, why they would need that [mysterious technology that makes
everyone invulnerable] if the above criteria are presupposed, I don't
know.

I've explained this clearly. The ideal is one thing, reality another. In the
first everyone would see the benefits of co-operation and sharing and
the removal of the power structure concept. In reality there would be
people trying to gain power over others and the whole concept falls.
Hence my little trip to fantasy land (playing with ideas is a favourite
hobby of mine).

And at no point does anyone create any power structure of any kind.
Not even to provide direction for their children.

To raise your children falls outside this whole thing. I wouldn't use force
to make kids do anything. That's just wrong. And stupid. I would use my
incredible, almost super-human patience in trying to make them
understand the reasons for doing this or that. Much as I'm
speaking with much patience in this thread, actually. 🙂

---

As for the second part of your post, I think that with the realisation that
co-operation and shared resources benefits the most people in the long
run, comes the willingness to help out. In any group of people, when a
situation occur that require action and fast thinking, someone needs to
take charge. This is not the same as having a human-directed
control-structure in place, where this "someone" is pre-given. In any
group of people when such a situation arises, there will always be a few
with more experience handling that specific kind of situation. If those
people are reasonable they will put their thoughts together to try and
find a viable solution as quickly as possible. The rest of the group would
trust them as they're the best hope of success.

So, in the scenario above, the people "in charge" are only in charge
during that specific event simply because they're given charge by the
rest. In an entirely different situation they may not even be considered
to take charge, nor would they want to since they have no idea how to
handle it. This is co-operation, where you put ego and personal
ambitions aside for the better of the group at large.

And finally, before democracy were introduced there had never been a
time, in ANY society, human or animal, to provide a sample for that
case. 😛

Originally posted by stocken
Nobody minds doing crappy jobs while others have less crappy jobs

Que?

Everyone magically agrees what areas of ridiculously expensive or
labor intensive research and development to pursue, if any

Va!?

Nobody gets jealous. Nobody gets greedy.

Ok?

though, why they would need that [mysterious technology that makes
en a
time, in ANY society, human or animal, to provide a sample for that
case. 😛

The part about someone "taking charge" is well illustrated by the anarchist militias during the Spanish Civil War. The militias had officers, but the difference is that the rank and file elected their own officers. They followed their orders because they recognized that battlefield situations called for it. The officers weren't imposed from the top down, but were elected from the bottom up.

Originally posted by rwingett
The officers weren't imposed from the top down, but were elected from the bottom up.

The most suitable leader for the task at hand? I like it.