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.
I'm honestly in favor of complete cut-off.
Can humans exist without some people ruling and others being ruled?
- Thread starter acd
- Start date
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
...how could you SAY that?! I would DIE without the internet (for many reasons may I add)!
Well, kind of. The Amish aren't completely cut off -- they have a lot of connections to normal society, and Amish teenagers can act like any normal teen (and often are even more wild).
I wouldn't like a world without the internet. It would be hard to adjust to a break off in communication...but I think it would also be infinitely rewarding
I wouldn't like a world without the internet. It would be hard to adjust to a break off in communication...but I think it would also be infinitely rewarding
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.
Reverting to smaller societies is pretty much an impossibility. We're only getting bigger.
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?
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.
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?
If we go back to living as naturalists, would there still be any need for law if there is no private property?
Last edited:
That's what I'm sayin'! There's got to be something coming up...I can feel a sort of resignation to catastrophe after looking at all the directions we're going.
I don't think people will learn though.
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 don't think people will learn though.
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
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.
I do not think so. It seems that humans need a hierarchy. It's the adults that take care of the children. And the adults also help teach the children and raise them to adult hood. I think we do better in smaller groups because we have a use for one another. I find that when we find others useful we learn to accept them. And over time we will grow to like them. In the end it really is human relations. We need to teach our children to be better than we were. We need to own up to our mistakes so we can accept the future that awaits us. Until we do we are doomed to repeat the sins of our fathers.
But there are small scale societies (granted, imperialism and industrialization nearly wiped them off the planet..) in which there is no hierarchy that work just fine. The children and the elderly are cared for, and yet it is an egalitarian society.
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.
Well...as long as we keep out the ESTJs and ENTJs, we'll eliminate half the problem of someone trying to forcefully take charge 
No.
To exist you need to do something, hunting at its most primitive form for example.
We need someone to point us the right direction, get everyone together.
Someone to say "Ok then now we will do this and this."
Then things evolve and evolve.....leader, warlords, monarchy, republicans, democracy (president) ...
It's just that to me.
To exist you need to do something, hunting at its most primitive form for example.
We need someone to point us the right direction, get everyone together.
Someone to say "Ok then now we will do this and this."
Then things evolve and evolve.....leader, warlords, monarchy, republicans, democracy (president) ...
It's just that to me.
This savors eerily of Shai Gar's idea of only keeping certain mbti types alive when he decides to exterminate a large number of the world's population...Well...as long as we keep out the ESTJs and ENTJs, we'll eliminate half the problem of someone trying to forcefully take charge
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
No, I think what would be better would to have tribes based off of MBTI groups. I do see where you are coming from though.
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 aggriculture that brought about social stratification.
Tools and aggriculture 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 harrasses 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.
Last edited:
I just hope we find materia in all the madness and embark on various quests to try and save the planet.