4 ms·

>I'm not betting on anarchy, but on the emergence of form of a way of organization that is able to operate with bit of disregard of entrenched power structures

• cinquemb 7y ago
  > Sounds like a religion. Well one major difference is that I don't think it has to become true, but I'm benefiting from the decaying and over leveraged status quo globally, and will continue to do so if it gets worse. If things get better, I still win, but just less so. If this framework of allocating resources (time/money/effort) now under my control is a religion, then so be it. >The problem with this is that the people who are privileged to be able to walk in and out tend to feel entitled to the tent because they have access, but not obligated because "they can leave any time," not observing that their lifestyle still requires the tent and the people living under it. You can't force people into obligation, there must be agreed upon terms, which are always up for negotiation despite what people may say (not saying that some/most people wont just bend over to such obligations out of some kind of perceived higher morality [at least higher signaled morality, their actions/inaction might speak otherwise])… one doesn't have to out run the bear, just the person next to them who has their hands in their ears about the possibilities and configurations the state of things can take (who may or may not have the resources to maintain [or have to spend more and more resources to maintain something falling apart]) and does nothing different. If the tent falls down or degrades, the person who was betting on it and the implications, or positioned for it happening is going be better prepared more often then not (unless one happens to think that were all gonna die anyways, so better not do anything new that could arise from the ashes). If that is privileged, then sure. Nothing was ever fair, and let us not pretend that compelling everyone into tent and staying there indefinitely because "obligations" is fair either.
  • bsanr2 7y ago
    >If this framework of allocating resources (time/money/effort) now under my control is a religion, then so be it. Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. That's, like, the worst aspect of religions. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of hoping for/boosting Armageddon because you're convinced you got it figured out and know how to come out on top. >You can't force people into obligation Of course you can. Lock them out or lock them in. In fact, that's the perfect way to deal with those who are trying to play both sides: make them choose. That makes it a lot easier to determine what needs to be done vis a vis the tent. The worst thing these privileged people can do is to draw attention to that privilege, then, because it welcomes intervention. Their behavior becomes self-regulating in this way.
    • cinquemb 7y ago
      > Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. That's, like, the worst aspect of religions. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of hoping for/boosting Armageddon because you're convinced you got it figured out and know how to come out on top. Well I don't know if I'll come out on top, but it works for me and my family. I'm just not about to pray to tent gods to figure out how to fix things and hope for me to engage in current alter praying (and accept getting molested by the tent priests) to perpetuate something I see falling apart, without at least hedging my risks. You're afraid, and I'm not, that's the difference. >Of course you can. Lock them out or lock them in. In fact, that's the perfect way to deal with those who are trying to play both sides: make them choose. If only things were that simple, seeing as these are the people of any given society that are keeping it running, define how things operate, discover things, and execute on the supposed will of the larger society. You are essentially asking for the masses of people who don't understand, to try to create a system of rules regarding systems these people create/keep running. It's a cat and mouse game agaisnt people who only see and rely on tent (and whose ideas on the tent existence are mostly immutable) and can't think beyond (out of laziness,fear, or whatever contrived excuse). > The worst thing these privileged people can do is to draw attention to that privilege, then, because it welcomes intervention. Have you ever tried to explain domain knowledge to someone outside of the domain? For them to even get upset to even create some kind of intervention, they would first have to understand how things work (and not how they want things to work), then how to mitigate against it (and that is assuming that what is being exploited isn't fundamental to their tent even standing up) From the perspective of the privileged, the worst thing that these privilege people can do is not engaging in the privilege… to operate solely in the banality of the the tent… death is preferable to the perceived insanity of the tent believers, whether society provides such death or if inflicted upon the self makes no difference, the tent believers still have to deal with such things that do not matter to the dead. > Their behavior becomes self-regulating in this way. Only against their peers who have a mutual self interest of taking advantage of the privilege (as long as they also maintain and grow their understanding of how things work and are evolving), not from those who can barely understand how to keep the tent propped up or if its even worth the socioeconomic costs to keep it propped up (or pretend like there are none lol), and want to keep it the same way forever into the future… amen lol