Val

joined 1 year ago
[–] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (15 children)

knowledge will obviously come from other sources too. When kids socialize with others they will learn things naturally, and discussion should absolutely be encouraged. However AI produces a lot of problems. AIs have bias based on the information they learn, they require resources to build and maintain and cannot discuss information accurately. I just don't see what AI adds over just interacting with other people.

Solarpunk societies, like all post-capitalist societies, are build on strong human relations, replacing one of the avenues of creating them with an hallucinating rock (exaggeration I know) just seems weird.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think reading and maths needs to be obligatory. Kids will pick it up naturally through their own curiosity when trying to learn about something more advanced.

What you are describing is pretty close to a university. Which makes sense because universities are places of learning, unlike schools which are prisons of disciplining and the goal isn't to learn but to memorize minutia for about a month before moving to the next topic.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (17 children)

I don't think we need AI. Without the need to constantly work the tutor can just be one of the child's parents. This would work better because children naturally respect and want to emulate their parents. The tutor doesn't even need to know everything and just teach how to analyze situations and find knowledge.

But I agree that kids should be included in workspaces to teach them about necessary (or interesting) jobs.

Overall I think the best way is to allow kids to find their own best ways to learn.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I am not against hierarchies if they are justified. The hierarchies that are democratic and non-coercive are acceptable.

Power should not be consolidated, it should be distributed among the population. Any sort of consolidation of power opens the door for people to create systems and hierarchies that maintain power unjustly.

I think that if a society is capable of working in a smaller scale it can be scaled up. Especially with the technology that we have today.

I don't think that anarchism is unsustainable. all attempts to create anarchist societies have ended because of outside factors (invasions). I don't see these as shortcomings of anarchism but instead as shortcomings of other systems to tolerate alternate political systems. Also if an anarchist society descends into fascism (red or otherwise) then that is because the people didn't do enough to oppose it.

I also apologize if some of these statements are short. You can't unbind ctrl+w to close the window on firefox and I use it to delete the last word so I accidentally deleted my previous two attempts to answer this comment.

Also I appreciate this conversation as it requires me to think through my ideology.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (10 children)

The governing core is the society. If they say no then that society changes. That is how the system works. The people decide how to live their life and if they don't want to live a certain way they change. As long as the people stay skeptical of all authority the system works. If they don't it collapses into a class based society.

You don't need perfect reprogramming. You just need a couple of people who want to live this way and let them live.

Anarchism works. The systems that I am describing have been successfully implemented and work.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What are you trying to say here?

[–] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (17 children)

the most dependable members become a governing core.

Yes, and that governing core does not have complete authority over the village, They are trusted members of the community and if they abuse their powers they get removed.

This is exactly the kind of order you want. The people that have put the most effort into the community naturally want what's best for that community, and if they are trusted that means they are more likely to be kind and nice people and not greedy.

what happens when village A decides their neighbours B don’t deserve all of their land?

The best option is for village A to send a delegation to B and voice their concerns. After which village B decides what to do.

Just like people do not need to be governed, groups (in this conversation villages) do not as well. They should have enough common sense to do things peacefully because if they become hostile all the other groups band together to oppose them. The same dynamics are at play.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (19 children)

There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won't protect you.

Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

matrix.org is basically IRC 2.0. It's federated and has a lot of cool clients.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

there should be an instances button at the bottom of the page that shows it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›