Anarchy vs. an Ordered Government

[tomsnowman123]

There would still be a 6+ billion potential consumer base regardless of how much you spread the population. Unless of course you euthanize much of the population before forcibly relocating them to ecovillages.

I don't think a bunch of low density areas would be good for corporations prosperity, and that was only one of my points.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Problem... spreading people out requires massive transportation networks, unless you propose to isolate each town and allow them all to die out as their population becomes unviable genetically (inbreeding). It takes 9000 people to form a genetically viable population in the long term, and that is only with STEADY POPULATION INCREASE. Said transportation networks would require a massive industrial economy to support them, one that couldn't exist in small villiages.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Problem... spreading people out requires massive transportation networks, unless you propose to isolate each town and allow them all to die out as their population becomes unviable genetically (inbreeding). It takes 9000 people to form a genetically viable population in the long term, and that is only with STEADY POPULATION INCREASE. Said transportation networks would require a massive industrial economy to support them, one that couldn't exist in small villiages.

We don't really need a global network. And it's not like people can't move to a different ecovillage or something, frankly, I am not concerned about genetics.

 

[no human choice]

Yo, this is stupid. Anarchy? That's crazy. Our government needs more power not less power.

I wasn't going to join these forums, but this thread upset me so much, I just had to.

If anarchy came about, I would probably shoot myself. Authoritarian government is much better. Geez.

 

[Dionysius]

that inbreeding thing could be a problem.
how big is an average eco-village? [population].
seriously now. whatever health benefits may be gained,
marrying cousins aint right and will cause problems.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Yo, this is stupid. Anarchy? That's crazy. Our government needs more power not less power.

I wasn't going to join these forums, but this thread upset me so much, I just had to.

If anarchy came about, I would probably shoot myself. Authoritarian government is much better. Geez.

First off, welcome to the forums. Second off, giving more power to our government restricts human freedom. I don't see how that makes sense. An anarchy gives us freedom, more important than anything else.

 

[Mastreditr111]

With the self-sufficiency you are advocating, why would anyone move? People need some kind of benefit to undertake an action like that, and "your children's children's children will be screwed up" won't cut it for enough people. You would have to engrain some kind of near-religious belief that people must move upon reaching adulthood or something. One mystical belief will lead to more, and, thus, we have a theocracy, not an anarchy.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Ecovillage about 50-200 people, with potential larger ecomunicipalities of 2,000 people to help create trade networks if neccesary.

 

[Mastreditr111]

What happened to self-sufficiency?

 

[tomsnowman123]

With the self-sufficiency you are advocating, why would anyone move? People need some kind of benefit to undertake an action like that, and "your children's children's children will be screwed up" won't cut it for enough people. You would have to engrain some kind of near-religious belief that people must move upon reaching adulthood or something. One mystical belief will lead to more, and, thus, we have a theocracy, not an anarchy.

Again, I am not worried about genetics. Our population is diverse enough as it is these days to prevent problems.

Edit:

What happened to self-sufficiency?

What do you mean by this? Self-sufficiencey hasn't been thrown out the window.

 

[Dionysius]

in one eco-village which is presumably village size,
with little trade with other villages, inbreeding
will eventually become a problem.

 

[tomsnowman123]

in one ecovuillage which is presumably village size,
with little trade with other villages, inbreeding
will eventually become a problem.

Go do it with someone else from another village, or found another one, since a 50-200 people village will go over that number quickly if people don't move out.

 

[mdwh]

I don't think they would exist since large consumer bases wouldn't exist, and since production of materials that would harm the enviroment would (hopefully) cease, the demand for such items would diminish, and local production and distribution would be emphasized.

I don't think a bunch of low density areas would be good for corporations prosperity, and that was only one of my points.

Again, there's still the same number of people, and not all businesses require high density populations. There are chains of stores which have stores operating fine in small towns and villages. Furthermore, even if it is less efficient to need more stores in lower densisty areas, *this is no more inefficient than the communes having to do it themselves*.

Also there's more to companies than shops - companies which manufacture goods could still distribute to shops in the communes (or direct to the consumer if ordering through mail order or online).

Then there are companies such as insurance, communications, travel, software.

In fact, take a look at the top ten largest corporations at http://www.endgame.org/corps-ranked.html : 1, 5, 6 are petrol companies. Presumably people will still use transport, and these companies will be supplying the communes. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 are car companies (or other manufacturing, e.g., Mitsubishi), and these can supply to the local commune stores. That leaves 2, Wal-Mart Stores, who may or may not have trouble competing with the corner shops.

Also, how would "production of materials that would harm the enviroment" cease? And are you saying that you would be happy to live in a society without cars and computers?

 

[Mastreditr111]

in one eco-village which is presumably village size,
with little trade with other villages, inbreeding
will eventually become a problem.

Yes... as I said, the only way around that would be a superstition that either male or female children must move upon reaching adulthood. One such belief will breed more, then you have a religion and all the associated nation-like behaviors (theocracy, schisms, religious purity...)

 

[Dionysius]

Yes... as I said, the only way around that would be a superstition that either male or female children must move upon reaching adulthood. One such belief will breed more, then you have a religion and all the associated nation-like behaviors (theocracy, schisms, religious purity...)

how do you turn population management into a theocratic religion?

 

[tomsnowman123]

Also, how would "production of materials that would harm the enviroment" cease? And are you saying that you would be happy to live in a society without cars and computers?

We woud use appropriate technology, technology whose risk/cost/value tradeoff is compelling enough to justify continued use, and other technologies that aren't very harmful to the enviroment. Bicycling for instance. Hydrogen cars would be pushed for, or a monorail system, both of these would reduce the need for cars run on fuel.

Computers are fine, I am using one.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Yes... as I said, the only way around that would be a superstition that either male or female children must move upon reaching adulthood. One such belief will breed more, then you have a religion and all the associated nation-like behaviors (theocracy, schisms, religious purity...)

Not really, just an understanding that these populations of 50-200 are the maximum social networks, and are inherently better to live in.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Dionysius: How many people will obey something other than religion in an anarchy? It is not like there is a government in place to order regular movement.

The idea is based off of a common concept in science fiction: A religion based on human sacrifice as a method for perminent population control. An ancestor people will realize they are about to regress or something, and decide to ensure that their descendents won't suffer overpopulation, so they instill a belief that people must kill themselves after their children are grown, to appease "the gods" so their kids can live. If not the kids are killed.

 

[no human choice]

Not really, just an understanding that these populations of 50-200 are the maximum social networks, and are inherently better to live in.

No. Bigger cities are better to live in, they offer more opportunity.

Some of your ideas scare me.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Not really, just an understanding that these populations of 50-200 are the maximum social networks, and are inherently better to live in.

that in no way addresses the point of inbreeding and the movement needed to make that small a population sustainable.