From: Jacques Du Pasquier (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Wed Dec 26 2001 - 08:05:07 MST
Made me think of Internet mailing lists. (Except that punishment is not
usually practiced there !)
Social structuring in the computer medium is likely to prefigure
nanotech-powered lower-inertia future society.
This part of what makes the Internet so interesting. It is reality
made of desires, so to speak.
Chen Yixiong, Eric wrote (25.12.2001/12:35) :
> Previously "One humanity, all in the same boat"
>
> A short note: We should refrain from saying "one humanity" because that
> would exclude alien species. I use unity in this case to
> mean all sentient beings.
>
>
> I would like to ask readers here to consider a world separated more on
> ideological divisions rather than mere race, geographical
> location and skin color (or other equally superfluous different). In this
> world, different communities abound where each community
> offers a unique ideology where one can subscribe to.
>
>
> One can choose to join any of these communities freely, and can start a new
> one if neccessary. This provides free competition (in
> the uniquely productive rather than redundant sense). The communities will
> follow a non-interventionist policy what some basic
> important rules:
>
> 1) Communities cannot detain people who wish to leave
> 2) They can restrict the people they take
> 3) Those who choose to stay or enter without permission will subject
> themselves to the internal rules of the community (such as
> punishment)
> 4) Communities cannot interfere in the affairs of the other communities who
> signed this treaty
>
> Given this, no dictator can rule his or her own people without having
> concern about them because these people can always choose to
> go to another community. Meanwhile, it does not deprive others of the choice
> to join, say, this dictatorship because of certain
> (perceived) advantages that we might not consider rational (such as for
> religious reasons).
>
>
> Such a world would provide vastly more choice for all people than say, one
> dominated by socialist sentient AI (I mean this in a
> positive way!) or a world dominated by an anacho-capitalist society. We
> should not assume that people will have the same goals as us
> (such as the pursuit of self-interest) or even that they have no goals at
> all, but to provide them with choices such that they can
> choose their own path.
>
> This could stop a lot of conflicts from happening because if people can live
> the way they disire, then presumely they would not need
> to fight for their "cause" whether we consider these rational or not. The
> exception, of course, lies with those whose ideologies
> require them to enslave or at least "take over the world". This could cause
> some problems until a system exists to keep them in
> check (or wait until most people venture space leaving these people with a
> sparsely populated planet Earth).
>
>
> I suggest considering this approach of "many ideologies, many societies"
> over alternative approaches that champion any one of the
> proposed social systems. No shoe can fit everyone and we should learn that
> the easy, rather than the hard way.
>
> We should also have a wider prespective rather than the egocentric "my
> people", "my country", "my planet" and even "my species"
> thinking. This kind of attachment causes a lot of unneccessary problems when
> they conflict with others thinking along similiar
> lines.
>
> Perhaps the first lesson any advanced sentient being can teach us, on first
> contact, would consist of knowledge on how to live with
> ourselves. Technology will not serve us well if we only bothered to use it
> to build bombs to blast each other.
>
>
> For some additional ideas, refer to:
> http://sociologistics.webhop.org
> http://ascension.webhop.org
> http://eric.webhop.net
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:50 MST