>
> Thomas: Again I would point out that for many of the statements you make to
> be true, you have to believe in the self interest view of humans. I choose
> to believe that underneath that view exists a human who is compassionate,
> inclined to sharing and supportive of others. However when you devise
> economic and governmental systems totally out of alignment with a million
> years of growth in tribal and family sharing, you end up with the ethics of
> the Gulag as individuals follow their prime directive which is to survive.
>
The city state developed all over the globe and seems to be
a part of the "natural" human historical progress -
there is not
yet a definition that is made about what is and what is not
a "natural" human characteristic. Exactly because social
behavioural characteristics changed far more rapidly
than any other "evolutionary" lines.
I still to see an argument why a society couldn't work
based on a democratically shared system, once the economic,
technical and ideological conditions are ready.
(In my estimation any time now) Besides, we cannot
integrate the resourses of the earth in a sustainable
fashion for 6+ billion people based on
segregated tiny communities. For this you'd need more
land than there is available.
We will have to live in fairly high density cities
in the future, if it is planned and built with
the needs of the people in mind, it can be a very
nice living.
I've just seen a docu about some early 50s housing
projects in the UK, when in a few rare cases, money-
saving for the local authority and moneymaking
by the builders wasn't the objective. Lo and behold,
these estates are still popular with the people.
The one in somewhere in London uses biogas for heating -
built in the 50s remeber! Has swimming pool, lots
of green bits, parks, playgrounds - it is wonderful.
The one in Sheffield accomodates 3000 people!
and there is a waiting list.
A community can work well, whatever the size,
if everyone has a chance to broadcast an opinion,
everyone has a chance to listen and interact
with the decision. What is your problem with democracy,
I thought it was so obvious now, that nothing else work.
The problem with the present systems exactly that they
are not allowed to be democratic.
and I don't think the tribal societies were so
paradise-like as you make out; the strong or clever
or whatever was the most successful food-provider
surely took more and there was a constant fight of
packing order as it is a nearer stage to animaldom
to be similar. Not so long ago tribal people (in Japan?)
and some other place still let their elder to go away
and starve to death etc. anyway, we havent got hundreds of
acres of forestry and land for each tribe to roam about.
We have to live in the present and prefebly, in the future,
not in the past.
Eva
