See if you can.summarise the key points of your proposal into one or two hard-working paragraphs.
But I think you’re going to have a tough time getting anyone on board for your idea. I can’t see why anyone would be motivated to choose it over the status quo.
It sounds like you want to dismantle many notions of property and personal freedom, reinvent private corporations and government in a way that is strong enough to enforce a kind of collectivism, but lightweight and transparent enough not to suffer corruption (any plans on how you will achieve this?). In short, you’re requiring individuals, organisations and governments to self-destruct, then reform in a configuration none of them would choose. That simply wont happen.
Not even sure what you mean about submission, but on reflection, I think ot would be fair to say that your proposal involves destroying what you propose to save. Others have said that it sounds like you want to imprison people - how is that not the case?
if it comes across like that, i really need to be more thorough with the explanation. Can you explain how it sounds like imprisonment?
What I was trying to say, that people can choose where they want to live, how they want to live, and in what they live in. I don’t want jobs to be a mandatory requirement for life, but the opposite, something you do because it benefits your cause. You can quit a job, but you always have to get another one, which leads to competition, which always leaves someone out who got the bad end of the stick.
when a person does something because they want to, there are no constrains of obligation, unless they put them upon themselves. Ultimately making people feel unique, and not like some tool that is replaceable.
Although someone must do these tasks, and I believe that naturally a hierarchy would present its self. Young people are wild and reckless, like children. Expecting children to be responsible is irresponsible. As life gets closer to the mid point, many people become concerned with the world around them, and usually in many families, they appoint themselves to be part of a neighborhood watch or something similar to fell as though they participate in the safety of their family and friends. this would naturally occur because the world would no longer be new, and people will need a way to occupie their time. As life passes that mid point, many people are endowed with wisdom and knowledge from life experience and tend to want to preserve peace, pass down their wisdom, and guide others to success.
I feel that is a lot to expect to people and as you have learned already, summarizing things up is not my forte.
I say blind submission because governments and religion use submission tactics to control a persons attitude towards different things.
How many people hate gay’s, simple because the bible says it is bad.
How many people from Iraq have you met that acted like terrorist?
when say i hate blind and force submission, what i am really saying is i hate anything that makes a person feel bad or guilty for being human.
My original post on fitting people into and underground structure that can fit 275000 people was just my attempt of saying that there is something wrong if people are living on the streets when we CAN do something like this. I know the living spaces were small, but they were that way for the purpose of showing that we do have the ability to give shelter to every person.
I didn’t design it to be like an underground bunker either.
It’s when you casually talk about restricting personal freedom and choice, restricting the notion of personal ownership, and getting people to live in boxes of uniform design and purpose. There are prisons where life is currently better and more free than this.
Also, I don’t think you can deconstruct government in the way you’re proposing. It’s nice to think that we could all be intimately involved in every decision, but in practice, it just wouldn’t work. Sometimes, the democratically elected government needs to make decisions that are a bit unpopular and unpalatable.
Ask me how much of my money I’d like spent on roads, for example.
[spoiler]A: None of it.
I don’t particularly want any of my money spent on roads - partly because I don’t use them personally very much, but partly because if I have the choice of spending less, I’d like to spend less.
Both of those factors are short-sighted - I don’t use roads much, but I am reliant on many services that do, and if I choose to spend less now, the effect may come to bite me on the arse later. My personal whims are not a sound basis for the minutae of government action, but that’s what you’ll get if you let the public decide on every last little thing.[/spoiler]
Choice is freedom… so long as the choice is what you want people to choose? Your proposal involves people throwing away what they worked long and hard to get, and you can’t even say why what you want [del]them[/del] us to do is better than what we have.
Why should I give up my house in the mountains to move into a hive?
And people don’t hate gays because the Bible says so: people hate gays and try to use God as an escapegoat.
Or because they’re too dumb, frightened or stuck in their ways to think about whether the problem really is a problem. Sometimes (perhaps often) religious indoctrination is the wrapper around it, but even in those cases, it’s not really because the Bible says it - it’s because someone has managed to convince them that it’s really important.
Well where is the middle ground? and what is it with people and hives or jails? I guess im not the only one skimming through the text in this thread:smack: You guys seem to think this system i’m building is so bad, yet all you do is boast the one were currently using because you actually have something because of it.
Tell me, If tomorrow you were left with nothing to your name, would you still defend such a insecure system? and you know the sad part is, it has happened in the past, the wealthy gone poor, and those people started playing another tune. When was the last time you were homeless, food-less, or cloths-less?
I really think all this talk of eat or be eaten should be left where it came from, Primitive Mankind.
You still haven’t given any reason why your system is better, though. And I don’t see our current system as “dog eats dog” at all, I can’t recall eating anybody to buy a house I liked in a location I liked from someone I like (we’re neighbors now) at a price we both liked. Why should I move to a huge place when that’s something I actively dislike and the move carries no benefits I can see?
I will try my best to do that. give me about a week.
but if not, maybe this can help explain it a little better.
In current society, in order to own anything, you must work to earn money. Now it works out for people in wealthy countries, but it is grossly distrusted among the people, and anybody who does not have money has to go without things they need. On top of that, people who are born wealthy stay wealthy because of the way the current system is built.
Just to make it clear, I don’t want to move people into a beehive, mini jail cells, or anything of that sort. It was purely an innovative solution for proving we can house all the people on earth relativity easy. Anything that large would take years to build simply based on the fact that with or without money. It would be difficult to organize if the circumstance surrounding such a project were negative(which it probably would be).
What I propose society change to, is a society where basic necessities are always provided to every single person. When I say basic I mean; food,water,clothing, shelter, and tools for education. This type of society will be safer because most crime will not exist without money. Jobs will be replaced by technological machines because they will make life easier for all people. Which contributes to overall well being in people. Houses that exist already will be used, and homes will be constructed for those who do not have shelter.
I hope that explains it to you a little better. Right now i’m in the middle of gathering data, so I can build a better writing.
also, this is my logic behind the super structure and why I believe in the long run would be more efficient.
If you have one soda can, how easy is it to maintain?
easy right?
Now add a system that cycles the soda through a water pump for filtration?
still easy right?
Now add 100,000 soda can to your array of soda cans, how many pumps will you need to be effective an not have to replace a pump every weak or have low pressure in certain areas.
A little more complex right?
Now you need to add 100,000 more soda can and make a convenient transportation system between all of them.
More and more resources are lost.
Now every soda can needs its own power supply, that is not centralized and highly susceptible to damage.
Can you still make it work?
Now add 6 billion soda cans.
That equals millions of millions of tons of used(wasted) resources that could have been used for something else.
The reason why society needs a change is because it is too complex to work efficiently or consistently. I can’t think of a way to fix something that is this outdated with the technology we have. It is inadequately setup for the daunting task of caring for 6 billion people. The only way I could see it ever working the way it is, is if a new powerful energy source is discovered before society implodes and were all screwed.
