5 ms·

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change." Isn't this (from a very, very high pe

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change." Isn't this (from a very, very high perspective) the reason why thousands of years of power concentration / consolidation / empire-building endeavors went down the drain each and every time .. and the current attempt (where attempt is too weak of a word), regardless of the tools/strategies/technologies being used(yes _you_ are a part of it) is nothing more than a manifestation of the same power-hungry "elite" ape-brains steering the world counter-nature(from decentralization, competition etc) into its abyss? Everyone knows that a system that can't evolve is a dead system .. and not everyone but at least some people know that today's elite mindset with most of its "enlightened" ideas (some if its proverbial arms even using the same, cherry-picked nature-references as the one I'm picking on right now) - are conceptually the same regardless of the time period Sorry for this rant, I think our civilization won't survive if the world keeps its current direction(well, the parts that will make it .. and yes both species), decentralization, limiting the concentration of power whatever it takes .. that's the only way "current" as in the last 300-200 years give-or-take *"specie_s_" including moechtegern new species as ref. Edit: Grammar fixes

smallnamespace 10y ago
> decentralization, limiting the concentration of power whatever it takes .. that's the only way Unfortunately, successfully addressing global warming and over-use of resources is probably going to require more coercion and centralization. Even bilateral agreements must be backed by credible threats, like sanctions, or they won't work.
- onetimepadder 10y ago
  Over-use of resources is actually a direct consequence of the consolidated global corporate power (from planned obsolescence through destroyed local markets/industry(with all its micro and regional economic and social consequences) .. just so global corporation A can ship products that were originally manufactured and consumed/sold locally - at a huge human and environmental cost - across the planet and make profits. Not because a product is cheaper for the consumer, nor because its better, this is solely the consequence of various coercive techniques (military, economical). Patents(yes, Watt actually postponed the onset of the industrial revolution at least 2 decades .. one example out of many), licenses and concessions(both meant as economic terms), etc et Too complicated topic for this kind of discussion but that's one huge misconception/piece of economic propaganda you cited there that had to be addressed The other one - even more potent and dangerous - is the notion that global problems need global governments(or, more precisely a consolidated global power). This is actually a two-part-question, a) Why is our current civilization unable to solve global problems(education, healthcare, social welfare, environmental damage) - which is a complicated topic on its own; b) how can a decentralized global society with a mostly local scope solve global issues. This is a special question of sorts because if you answer the a) part you will with high certainty arrive at an answer to the b) question too. (and no, centralization of power is not the answer)
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    I don't know what your proposed solution is, since you elected not to share it. I will say though that historically, the only examples I can recall of independent polities being able to work together to solve common problems involved both an outside enemy, and a shared set of values, culture, and experience. Global warming doesn't fulfill either criterion. Despite the Internet and modern media, Western culture and values are not universal. And even in the US, a large fraction of the population doesn't even acknowledge that global warming is a problem, much less be willing to pay for a fix. How are you going to get those people to come along without some level of coercion?
  - openfuture 10y ago
    The fact that money does not represent value on a holistic scale (humanity) is the root problem imo. Instead money is designed to represent value to an individual, which creates an incentive for making instant gratification i.e. something an average person will value. If things of value were worth money then the world would 'automatically' go in the 'right' direction. I think decentralization is the end goal of any system, it is much easier to design a centralized system (a minimum viable product if you will - like the current internet) but more robust to have it decentralized. The egalitarian eutopic vision that people keep dreaming of is basically ultimate decentralization. Where somehow the system is designed so that the rules 'are invisible', people do what benefits them the most but it's also the best thing to do and legal. Any move towards this limit is a step in the right direction in my mind.
    - onetimepadder 10y ago
      I was unable to reply to smallnamespace(and it just did not pass my internal value system to create a 2nd account just for that) @smallnamespace: I actually did answer, or, if you can't get an exact(ish) pointer out of my answer there are hints scattered all over .. yes, not all answers are of the one-sentence-gives-you-all kind @openfuture: In many aspects, albeit put in different terms, I do agree that money, or the monetary system per-se is at the core of today's dystopia-to-be-built but what I think you meant by your answer(and correct me if I'm wrong here) is some sort of resource(or environmental-impact)-based currency which is -in my opinion- counter to what money actually is/should be: primarily, in its pure form, a _tool_ to make exchange of goods and services easier. I recommend reading about Silvio Gesell's work, IIRC both Hayek(Constitution of Liberty and probably others) and Friedman(can't help you here) cited him as one of the greatest economists of the century(commercial over). Of course once you understand what he was getting at, you have to strip all that's unsuitable and convert the rest to a 21c world, nevertheless a fun exercise which will give you a ton of new ideas(like, on-demand per transaction currency for exchange w an intrinsic value-loosing personal currency as your own saving option within your asset pool). Wurgl experiment, BI, 21century state-of-affairs - lot of mind experiments I invite you to here so get a deep breath and start reading ;)
daurnimator 10y ago
Your comment made me think of this comic: http://humoncomics.com/mother-gaia http://humoncomics.com/mother-gaia

smallnamespace 10y ago

> decentralization, limiting the concentration of power whatever it takes .. that's the only way Unfortunately, successfully addressing global warming and over-use of resources is probably going to require more coercion and centralization. Even bilateral agreements must be backed by credible threats, like sanctions, or they won't work.

onetimepadder 10y ago
Over-use of resources is actually a direct consequence of the consolidated global corporate power (from planned obsolescence through destroyed local markets/industry(with all its micro and regional economic and social consequences) .. just so global corporation A can ship products that were originally manufactured and consumed/sold locally - at a huge human and environmental cost - across the planet and make profits. Not because a product is cheaper for the consumer, nor because its better, this is solely the consequence of various coercive techniques (military, economical). Patents(yes, Watt actually postponed the onset of the industrial revolution at least 2 decades .. one example out of many), licenses and concessions(both meant as economic terms), etc et Too complicated topic for this kind of discussion but that's one huge misconception/piece of economic propaganda you cited there that had to be addressed The other one - even more potent and dangerous - is the notion that global problems need global governments(or, more precisely a consolidated global power). This is actually a two-part-question, a) Why is our current civilization unable to solve global problems(education, healthcare, social welfare, environmental damage) - which is a complicated topic on its own; b) how can a decentralized global society with a mostly local scope solve global issues. This is a special question of sorts because if you answer the a) part you will with high certainty arrive at an answer to the b) question too. (and no, centralization of power is not the answer)
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  I don't know what your proposed solution is, since you elected not to share it. I will say though that historically, the only examples I can recall of independent polities being able to work together to solve common problems involved both an outside enemy, and a shared set of values, culture, and experience. Global warming doesn't fulfill either criterion. Despite the Internet and modern media, Western culture and values are not universal. And even in the US, a large fraction of the population doesn't even acknowledge that global warming is a problem, much less be willing to pay for a fix. How are you going to get those people to come along without some level of coercion?
- openfuture 10y ago
  The fact that money does not represent value on a holistic scale (humanity) is the root problem imo. Instead money is designed to represent value to an individual, which creates an incentive for making instant gratification i.e. something an average person will value. If things of value were worth money then the world would 'automatically' go in the 'right' direction. I think decentralization is the end goal of any system, it is much easier to design a centralized system (a minimum viable product if you will - like the current internet) but more robust to have it decentralized. The egalitarian eutopic vision that people keep dreaming of is basically ultimate decentralization. Where somehow the system is designed so that the rules 'are invisible', people do what benefits them the most but it's also the best thing to do and legal. Any move towards this limit is a step in the right direction in my mind.
  - onetimepadder 10y ago
    I was unable to reply to smallnamespace(and it just did not pass my internal value system to create a 2nd account just for that) @smallnamespace: I actually did answer, or, if you can't get an exact(ish) pointer out of my answer there are hints scattered all over .. yes, not all answers are of the one-sentence-gives-you-all kind @openfuture: In many aspects, albeit put in different terms, I do agree that money, or the monetary system per-se is at the core of today's dystopia-to-be-built but what I think you meant by your answer(and correct me if I'm wrong here) is some sort of resource(or environmental-impact)-based currency which is -in my opinion- counter to what money actually is/should be: primarily, in its pure form, a _tool_ to make exchange of goods and services easier. I recommend reading about Silvio Gesell's work, IIRC both Hayek(Constitution of Liberty and probably others) and Friedman(can't help you here) cited him as one of the greatest economists of the century(commercial over). Of course once you understand what he was getting at, you have to strip all that's unsuitable and convert the rest to a 21c world, nevertheless a fun exercise which will give you a ton of new ideas(like, on-demand per transaction currency for exchange w an intrinsic value-loosing personal currency as your own saving option within your asset pool). Wurgl experiment, BI, 21century state-of-affairs - lot of mind experiments I invite you to here so get a deep breath and start reading ;)

daurnimator 10y ago

Your comment made me think of this comic: http://humoncomics.com/mother-gaia http://humoncomics.com/mother-gaia