From: GBurch1@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 03 2000 - 19:52:47 MDT
In a message dated 8/25/00 11:07:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
zero_powers@hotmail.com writes:
> >Spike, I'd like to think that this is automatically true, but I don't think
> >it is. Small rural communities were very transparent in the past, and
they
> >weren't necessarily characterized by high levels of tolerance. Check out
> >"The Crucible"
>
> Small rural communities differ from a transparent world in one huge way.
> People who live in small rural communities tend to have a common culture.
> They go to the same churches, belong to the same organizations and because
> the community is small, each member tends to have a much greater influence
> on his friends and neighbors than he would have living in, say, New York
> City. Whereas in a ubiquitous transparent society, the culture would be
an
> amalgam of many disparate cultures (again like you have in New York) and
> since no one culture will hold sway over any other, tolerance will be the
> natural result, as you have (for the most part) in New York.
This would be true in the Kabul of the Taliban? I don't think so . . .I
think you better have the values of tolerance in place before you get your
ubiquitous surveillance.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:44 MST