7 ms·

>That last part bothers me a lot. It seems a lot of people just don't want to move. Anecdotally I've moved nearly 6 times in the last 8 years. My parents have d

>That last part bothers me a lot. It seems a lot of people just don't want to move. Anecdotally I've moved nearly 6 times in the last 8 years. My parents have done the same. How do we build any kind of community with so little permanence? If we can't bond with our neighbors, we become these empty, atomized husks floating from one economic opportunity to another. Put another way, how can a village raise a child if there's no village, no permanent-ness, and eventually none of the social accountability that communities enforce?

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Isn't that what Facebook and the like are for? I'm being serious here. Since 2002 I have moved 5 times for work: Colorado, Texas, Guam, Maryland and now I'm in Virginia. My family is spread around Texas. I mostly keep up with the people I made friends with through the years and my family on FB, Twitter etc...phone and then rarely on email. The idea of a "local" community you have your whole life is antiquated - if it ever really made sense. Humans were traditionally nomadic - albeit in the same group. With the historically recent invention of agriculture, that stopped and we started staying put. I think remote work and technology means we can probably stay put more, but there is also a return to the nomadic work need, as employers seem to like to have workers on premises. Bottom line, your village will change over time.
- yborg 9y ago
  >Your village is a hypercorp that sells all your social interactions for profit This, to me, is a "Truman Show" level dystopia.
  - R_haterade 9y ago
    The common theme in dystopic stories is the protagonist's unraveling unawareness of just how bad things are. Enjoy!
    - nostrademons 9y ago
      The irony is that many classic dystopian stories are actually written about today, the time and place where they were written, and not about some hypothetical future. 1984 was based on Orwell's experiences as a propaganda writer for Britain in WW2. Animal Farm was about the Soviet Union. Fahrenheit 451 was inspired by McCarthyism. Saruman's orcs and trollocs in Lord of the Rings were supposed to represent industry, the factories and smelters that were destroying the English countryside in the 30s. The Hunger Games was about the Iraq war and how we numb ourselves on reality TV. If you believe Jared Diamond (and I think he at least has a point), the point where we entered dystopia was when we invented agriculture 10,000 years ago. That was when humans began to accumulate surpluses that they could use to lord over other humans, and men began to serve men (and women to serve men too). Humans have a remarkable ability to adapt, though. Most of us don't think of agriculture as an evil soul-crushing machine, even though it was the beginning of large-scale repression, because it's so ingrained in our experience of how we live.
      - mcguire 9y ago
        ...because otherwise most of us would be dead. Or would never have lived, which is the same thing, kind of.
        thinkfurther 9y ago
        If anything had been slightly different whole other sets of sperm would have fertilized the egg, so that's not such an impressive argument. Especially since all of us will be dead at some point, regardless. And funny how that "compassion" doesn't extend to the people crushed every day, the people shrieking in anguish as we speak. The question isn't just how many people are "alive", but what life are they living. What would make someone seek power over others? Why has this defect been normalized? Let's say even more abuse allows even more people to get squeezed on the planet. Big whoop? To me that's like overloading a truck to the point where it doesn't move one inch anymore, and not even seeing how counterproductive that is. I'll just say it: one healthy person is worth more than an infinite number of clones of an alienated person. We can discuss "health" and how subjective that may be, but sheer number of people is worth nothing in my books, that's for sure. > It's too late, Diana. There's nothing left in you that I can live with. You're one of Howard's humanoids. If I stay with you, I'll be destroyed. Like Howard Beale was destroyed. Like Laureen Hobbs was destroyed. Like everything you and the institution of television touch is destroyed. You're television incarnate, Diana: Indifferent to suffering; insensitive to joy. All of life is reduced to the common rubble of banality. War, murder, death are all the same to you as bottles of beer. And the daily business of life is a corrupt comedy. You even shatter the sensations of time and space into split seconds and instant replays. You're madness, Diana. Virulent madness. And everything you touch dies with you. But not me. Not as long as I can feel pleasure, and pain... and love. -- "Network"
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Funny, staying in the dead-end town you were born in with your grandparents' knitting circle supervising your dating life is an even greater dystopia to me.
- discreteevent 9y ago
  > Humans were traditionally nomadic - albeit in the same group. The same group is the important bit. The parent is talking about the importance of community. I don't think they care which kind it is.
  - drdeadringer 9y ago
    One of my early jobs had me bouncing around the country. Every time I moved I had to start all over from scratch. Where's the grocery store? Where do I meet people? Is the church or the bowling ally the place to be on Friday night around here? It got old. I love exploring new places, but I want to know my way around where I live. Travel is different from endless relocation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 9y ago
  Exactly this. I was fortunate enough to stay in one place for K->12, but in the world I grew up in it was totally normal for young adults to move for college, then after college, then a few more times before settling down, then again for retirement. My parents did it, my grandparents did it (including as refugees when they were children), my aunts and uncles are all over. Soon my parents will move for retirement, and my original "village" will hold nothing for me anymore. So it goes. I have a few friends from high school or college in basically every city, and we meet up when we happen to be in the same place. Family picks a place and all flies there for Christmas. It works out.
tomjen3 9y ago
That would be a valid complaint if grand parent was arguing that we should move every six weeks, but here the argument might be that we should move every dozen years or so -- which should be plenty of time to figure out if your neighbours are worth keeping around as permenant friends or were just aquentences of accident.
- wott 9y ago
  > if your neighbours are worth keeping around as permenant friends Social bonding =/= friends
  - R_haterade 9y ago
    In fact, social cohesiveness requires being able to maintain relationships with people who aren't your friends, and who you didn't choose. No organization that lasts long relies on 'friendship'.
threatofrain 9y ago
Non-centralized churches are interesting. They are institutions that generally rely on community funding. They have the potential to easily last beyond any one person's lifespan, hopefully many generations. They are places where people meet not only for religious purposes, but also to gather, chat, and eat. They are places where new parents trade knowledge and assistance. They are places where young people contribute their physical labor and tutoring abilities. Some churches directly provide daycare and tutoring services. Religious leaders often take on many hats, one of which is counselor to young people. But how do you create churches without religious glue? Or, how about even more basically, how do you convince people that it's worth building more publicly funded community meeting spaces for young and old, such as parks?

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

Isn't that what Facebook and the like are for? I'm being serious here. Since 2002 I have moved 5 times for work: Colorado, Texas, Guam, Maryland and now I'm in Virginia. My family is spread around Texas. I mostly keep up with the people I made friends with through the years and my family on FB, Twitter etc...phone and then rarely on email. The idea of a "local" community you have your whole life is antiquated - if it ever really made sense. Humans were traditionally nomadic - albeit in the same group. With the historically recent invention of agriculture, that stopped and we started staying put. I think remote work and technology means we can probably stay put more, but there is also a return to the nomadic work need, as employers seem to like to have workers on premises. Bottom line, your village will change over time.

yborg 9y ago
>Your village is a hypercorp that sells all your social interactions for profit This, to me, is a "Truman Show" level dystopia.
- R_haterade 9y ago
  The common theme in dystopic stories is the protagonist's unraveling unawareness of just how bad things are. Enjoy!
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    The irony is that many classic dystopian stories are actually written about today, the time and place where they were written, and not about some hypothetical future. 1984 was based on Orwell's experiences as a propaganda writer for Britain in WW2. Animal Farm was about the Soviet Union. Fahrenheit 451 was inspired by McCarthyism. Saruman's orcs and trollocs in Lord of the Rings were supposed to represent industry, the factories and smelters that were destroying the English countryside in the 30s. The Hunger Games was about the Iraq war and how we numb ourselves on reality TV. If you believe Jared Diamond (and I think he at least has a point), the point where we entered dystopia was when we invented agriculture 10,000 years ago. That was when humans began to accumulate surpluses that they could use to lord over other humans, and men began to serve men (and women to serve men too). Humans have a remarkable ability to adapt, though. Most of us don't think of agriculture as an evil soul-crushing machine, even though it was the beginning of large-scale repression, because it's so ingrained in our experience of how we live.
    - mcguire 9y ago
      ...because otherwise most of us would be dead. Or would never have lived, which is the same thing, kind of.
      - thinkfurther 9y ago
        If anything had been slightly different whole other sets of sperm would have fertilized the egg, so that's not such an impressive argument. Especially since all of us will be dead at some point, regardless. And funny how that "compassion" doesn't extend to the people crushed every day, the people shrieking in anguish as we speak. The question isn't just how many people are "alive", but what life are they living. What would make someone seek power over others? Why has this defect been normalized? Let's say even more abuse allows even more people to get squeezed on the planet. Big whoop? To me that's like overloading a truck to the point where it doesn't move one inch anymore, and not even seeing how counterproductive that is. I'll just say it: one healthy person is worth more than an infinite number of clones of an alienated person. We can discuss "health" and how subjective that may be, but sheer number of people is worth nothing in my books, that's for sure. > It's too late, Diana. There's nothing left in you that I can live with. You're one of Howard's humanoids. If I stay with you, I'll be destroyed. Like Howard Beale was destroyed. Like Laureen Hobbs was destroyed. Like everything you and the institution of television touch is destroyed. You're television incarnate, Diana: Indifferent to suffering; insensitive to joy. All of life is reduced to the common rubble of banality. War, murder, death are all the same to you as bottles of beer. And the daily business of life is a corrupt comedy. You even shatter the sensations of time and space into split seconds and instant replays. You're madness, Diana. Virulent madness. And everything you touch dies with you. But not me. Not as long as I can feel pleasure, and pain... and love. -- "Network"
- closeparen 9y ago
  Funny, staying in the dead-end town you were born in with your grandparents' knitting circle supervising your dating life is an even greater dystopia to me.
discreteevent 9y ago
> Humans were traditionally nomadic - albeit in the same group. The same group is the important bit. The parent is talking about the importance of community. I don't think they care which kind it is.
- drdeadringer 9y ago
  One of my early jobs had me bouncing around the country. Every time I moved I had to start all over from scratch. Where's the grocery store? Where do I meet people? Is the church or the bowling ally the place to be on Friday night around here? It got old. I love exploring new places, but I want to know my way around where I live. Travel is different from endless relocation.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 9y ago
Exactly this. I was fortunate enough to stay in one place for K->12, but in the world I grew up in it was totally normal for young adults to move for college, then after college, then a few more times before settling down, then again for retirement. My parents did it, my grandparents did it (including as refugees when they were children), my aunts and uncles are all over. Soon my parents will move for retirement, and my original "village" will hold nothing for me anymore. So it goes. I have a few friends from high school or college in basically every city, and we meet up when we happen to be in the same place. Family picks a place and all flies there for Christmas. It works out.

tomjen3 9y ago

That would be a valid complaint if grand parent was arguing that we should move every six weeks, but here the argument might be that we should move every dozen years or so -- which should be plenty of time to figure out if your neighbours are worth keeping around as permenant friends or were just aquentences of accident.

wott 9y ago
> if your neighbours are worth keeping around as permenant friends Social bonding =/= friends
- R_haterade 9y ago
  In fact, social cohesiveness requires being able to maintain relationships with people who aren't your friends, and who you didn't choose. No organization that lasts long relies on 'friendship'.

threatofrain 9y ago

Non-centralized churches are interesting. They are institutions that generally rely on community funding. They have the potential to easily last beyond any one person's lifespan, hopefully many generations. They are places where people meet not only for religious purposes, but also to gather, chat, and eat. They are places where new parents trade knowledge and assistance. They are places where young people contribute their physical labor and tutoring abilities. Some churches directly provide daycare and tutoring services. Religious leaders often take on many hats, one of which is counselor to young people. But how do you create churches without religious glue? Or, how about even more basically, how do you convince people that it's worth building more publicly funded community meeting spaces for young and old, such as parks?