- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettThen you have had a failure of imagination.
Until you can think of society from the bottom-up, as one autonomous communities of 200 individuals repeated 34 million times, instead of 6.8 billion organized from the top-down, then you will wander to the east of Eden, forever lost. The Hutterites manage a population of 42,000 that way. I fail to see why it couldn't be expanded indefinitely.
btw are you referring to Eden figuratively or literally?
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have imagined much. You would do well to imagine half as much.
Then you have had a failure of imagination.
btw are you referring to Eden figuratively or literally?
I refer to Eden figuratively, of course. It is my interpretation that the story actually refers to the invention of agriculture as being the cause for mankind's eviction from the garden.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettit does have to be practical.
I admit it would be difficult to transfer an arrangement with a homogeneous population with a shared religious principle to a heterogeneous population without such a binding principle. But no one ever said saving the world was going to be easy.
You have a self selecting group of people indoctrinated into a certain way of life.
This group is reasonably large, but tiny as a proportion of all people
All people WILL NOT agree to live like this... period.
This makes it by definition impractical.
Also, as I say, there is not close to enough space for everyone to live like this.
Also they are supported by the big societies they are embedded in.
they are defended by them, and regulated by them.
If one group of people decide that they can no longer live where they are unless
they get more water, so build a dam, they effect all the people downstream, who
now don't get enough water.
The droughts in africa that sparked the live aid concerts were almost certainly
caused by particulate pollution from America and Europe.
This effect was unintended, and not at the time predictable.
It is one example that as we live on the same planet with the same resources
in an interconnected system where everything you do in one place effects someone
somewhere else you need to have people coordinating and regulating what people
can and can't do to ensure that everyone gets their fair share, and is not unduly adversely
effected by anyone else.
Something we don't do enough of.
Small self governing societies which can't see any further than the next society along can't do this.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettOk, its hard to be sure on these forums.
I have imagined much. You would do well to imagine half as much.
I refer to Eden figuratively, of course. It is my interpretation that the story actually refers to the invention of agriculture as being the cause for mankind's eviction from the garden.
I personally think it was a load of bull made up to give people a reason to believe
in what the preachers were selling, but never mind.
Life back then Sucked. they just didn't know how much.
21 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettWell you're comparing (give or take several) a 205 strong collection of communities who have the luxury of finding pockets of land suitable for supporting homogeneous lifestyles and (give or take tens of thousands) 34 million such collections, some of whom will be largely reliant upon the support of other communities simply because they lack the facility to exploit the land favourably.
Until you can think of society from the bottom-up, as one autonomous communities of 200 individuals repeated 34 million times, instead of 6.8 billion organized from the top-down, then you will wander to the east of Eden, forever lost. The Hutterites manage a population of 42,000 that way. I fail to see why it couldn't be expanded indefinitely.
You then have to factor in the logistics of transporting large quantities of goods/resources/services from one area to another, and so on...
Indeed a difference by 5 orders of magnitude is far from trivial.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThis is what I meant by failure of imagination btw.
Well you're comparing (give or take several) a 205 strong collection of communities who have the luxury of finding pockets of land suitable for supporting homogeneous lifestyles and (give or take tens of thousands) 34 million such collections, some of whom will be largely reliant upon the support of other communities simply because they lack the facility to ex ...[text shortened]... rea to another, and so on...
Indeed a difference by 5 orders of magnitude is far from trivial.
You said you couldn't see why you couldn't just scale it up by 5 orders of magnitude.
I can't help but see all the many ways it can't work.
Because I have imagined what the world would be like if you tried to do this
and seen the consequences.
EDIT: Just to be clear I am speaking to rwingett here, I agree with Agerg.
21 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou said you couldn't see why you couldn't just scale it up by 5 orders of magnitude.
This is what I meant by failure of imagination btw.
You said you couldn't see why you couldn't just scale it up by 5 orders of magnitude.
I can't help but see all the many ways it can't work.
Because I have imagined what the world would be like if you tried to do this
and seen the consequences.
EDIT: Just to be clear I am speaking to rwingett here, I agree with Agerg.
I didn't, indeed I said, or at least i implied the direct opposite ;]
To put it another way, I agree with you and I am absolutely sure, given the unfathomable number of impediments that such a system exists only in wildly optimistic musing.
*edit* I now acknowledge your response wasn't aimed at me!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Agergsorry, I edited in my clarification that I agreed with you and was highlighting your post as to why it was I said that rwingett had had a failure of imagination.
[b]You said you couldn't see why you couldn't just scale it up by 5 orders of magnitude.
I didn't, indeed I said, or at least i implied the direct opposite ;]
To put it another way, I agree with you and I am absolutely sure, given the unfathomable number of impediments that such a system exists only in wildly optimistic musing.[/b]
EDIT: evidently after you started typing your response.
EDIT2: this made me laugh.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettThat can't br right because God planted the garden and man was to take
I have imagined much. You would do well to imagine half as much.
I refer to Eden figuratively, of course. It is my interpretation that the story actually refers to the invention of agriculture as being the cause for mankind's eviction from the garden.
care of it.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo we need a one world government, do we? A new world order?
it does have to be practical.
You have a self selecting group of people indoctrinated into a certain way of life.
This group is reasonably large, but tiny as a proportion of all people
All people WILL NOT agree to live like this... period.
This makes it by definition impractical.
Also, as I say, there is not close to enough space for every ...[text shortened]... governing societies which can't see any further than the next society along can't do this.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeosuch things you mention are common in dictatorships. they are not a part of communism.
It was the dictatorship of the ' proletariat ' as actually practiced. In practice, the communists are no bleeding heart democrats. They ruthlessly eliminate anyone they want by firstly calling him/her as ' the enemy of the people '. Please read Arthur Koestler's novel 'Darkness at noon'. Also recommended is ' Eastern Approaches ' a factual account of USSR under Stalin.
22 Sep 11
there are modern concepts in development that given more thought can become workable systems. there is the venus project for example, still a long way from becoming viable system, it proposes a directed democracy communal society of high technology organized into self-sustained cities with resources managed by computers.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritDefinition of CAPITALISM
no, you're describing capitalism there.
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
The Merriam-Webster
Unabridged Dictionary