4 ms·

I do, because it's not actually that big of an issue. The correct answer here is "localism." What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but I don't nee

by jrm4 4y ago

I do, because it's not actually that big of an issue. The correct answer here is "localism." What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but I don't need to. Just ensure that small groups are able to figure it out for themselves. The real harm isn't the imaginary laziness you fear here.. It's scaled political power that allows groups to exploit others.

epups 4y ago
That makes no sense. Most stuff you consume is not produced locally. And even then, why would I want to be a local firefighter or whatever if some other people get to sit on their ass every day?
xmprt 4y ago
How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc., function? You're suggestion is essentially to go back to the stone age. Additionally, wouldn't localism require more people to do things that they don't enjoy? For example, I'm not a fan of farming and I don't think many of my neighbors are either but fortunately, we're all able to eat pretty much any dish we like because of the food shipped from distant farms every day. > What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but I don't need to This sounds a lot like a non-answer. Perhaps I would understand what you're talking about better if you explained how you believe it would work in your town where you do have more context.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  > How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc., function Forget all that tech. "Localism" couldn't even produce a single 2B pencil, which is such a trivial thing when we consider the scale of society as it is today. I was honestly hoping there was going to be a better answer than this handwavy nonsense.
- jrm4 4y ago
  See, all of you disagreeing with me are doing the thing where you're pretending to be top down benevolent dictator (or better yet, playing a game of SimCity.) I'm not. I am suggesting that if you took the world as it exists today, and strongly turned down the volume on "everybody has to work," the world would improve, and that labor at the end of a pointy stick is not necessary to keep things going, and generally makes things worse. Yes, the mix of goods and services could perhaps drastically change. E.g. if you love throwing away your 3 year old iPhone for a new one, I'm sorry, you will suffer; you'd probably have to deal with repaired phones with interchangeable parts. I think that's probably a better place.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    That may drastically slow down human progress in terms of technology. If one posits that we have a moral obligation to future humans to make sure their lives are ones with lower suffering, and if technology, especially medical technology, will take us there, then your idea essentially says that it is immoral to slow down human progress, because more people will suffer. That's how I see it anyway. I'm a techno-optimist, given the nature of technology in our species' development.
    - 8note 4y ago
      How are you measuring suffering over time? does keeping somebody alive in extreme pain raise or lower it? Its quite notable that modern medics has made its fair share of opium addicts. I don't know whether that's a feather in the modern cap or not
    - roeles 4y ago
      I would be very interested in seeing a study that concludes that technology has made us suffer less. Perhaps it makes sense to define suffering? If you would define it as "expecting from the world what it can not give you", I think we don't suffer less than previous generations. We have more, but we also expect more.
      - epups 4y ago
yibg 4y ago
Where would a small group of people get their electricity or medicines? What if none of the small groups of people wants to develop medicines? This isn't a solution, it's just handwaving things away.

by jrm4 4y ago

epups 4y ago

That makes no sense. Most stuff you consume is not produced locally. And even then, why would I want to be a local firefighter or whatever if some other people get to sit on their ass every day?

xmprt 4y ago

How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc., function? You're suggestion is essentially to go back to the stone age. Additionally, wouldn't localism require more people to do things that they don't enjoy? For example, I'm not a fan of farming and I don't think many of my neighbors are either but fortunately, we're all able to eat pretty much any dish we like because of the food shipped from distant farms every day. > What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but I don't need to This sounds a lot like a non-answer. Perhaps I would understand what you're talking about better if you explained how you believe it would work in your town where you do have more context.

bluefirebrand 4y ago
> How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc., function Forget all that tech. "Localism" couldn't even produce a single 2B pencil, which is such a trivial thing when we consider the scale of society as it is today. I was honestly hoping there was going to be a better answer than this handwavy nonsense.
jrm4 4y ago
See, all of you disagreeing with me are doing the thing where you're pretending to be top down benevolent dictator (or better yet, playing a game of SimCity.) I'm not. I am suggesting that if you took the world as it exists today, and strongly turned down the volume on "everybody has to work," the world would improve, and that labor at the end of a pointy stick is not necessary to keep things going, and generally makes things worse. Yes, the mix of goods and services could perhaps drastically change. E.g. if you love throwing away your 3 year old iPhone for a new one, I'm sorry, you will suffer; you'd probably have to deal with repaired phones with interchangeable parts. I think that's probably a better place.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  That may drastically slow down human progress in terms of technology. If one posits that we have a moral obligation to future humans to make sure their lives are ones with lower suffering, and if technology, especially medical technology, will take us there, then your idea essentially says that it is immoral to slow down human progress, because more people will suffer. That's how I see it anyway. I'm a techno-optimist, given the nature of technology in our species' development.
  - 8note 4y ago
    How are you measuring suffering over time? does keeping somebody alive in extreme pain raise or lower it? Its quite notable that modern medics has made its fair share of opium addicts. I don't know whether that's a feather in the modern cap or not
  - roeles 4y ago
    I would be very interested in seeing a study that concludes that technology has made us suffer less. Perhaps it makes sense to define suffering? If you would define it as "expecting from the world what it can not give you", I think we don't suffer less than previous generations. We have more, but we also expect more.
    - epups 4y ago

yibg 4y ago

Where would a small group of people get their electricity or medicines? What if none of the small groups of people wants to develop medicines? This isn't a solution, it's just handwaving things away.