It's been said before, and today it will be said again.
We don't need leaders.
We don't need Gods.
We are independent organisms.
Understand that we can function without societal figureheads, or spiritual entities to dictate our lives.
Above all. We can live without the mods.
Join the Anarchy Movement
You may ask: what's the point of an establishment trying to push an anti-establishment agenda? The answer: It Works.
We don't need your opinions, or your rules.
We are individuals, not a mass... not a statistic. Even if you don't believe in full-blown anarchy, people are losing site of who they are. You're all getting caught up in things that don't matter.
Structure works, until it makes unreasonable expectations for its people.
Dibbun, you kind of miss the concept... there would be no such thing as money. There would be no poverty because everyone would live in a system they create.
The implication of these kinds of people calling for support into fields related to anti-ageing, is that the one life I have may either be an extra hundred years longer, or may not end until a day where I've decided I've had enough.
Technology progresses faster as it gets better, I would not give that up for any nomadic lifestyle.
[quote=ViktorEldor[/quote]Human overpopulation is a scare story that's been repeated over the last hundred or more years now, it started off just before the Irish potato famine, which wasn't actually caused by abundance or over-consumption that was stated at the time. The famine was caused by the English regulating the fruit and vegetables that the Irish got, meaning a disease in their staple (potatoes) resulted in the disaster that happened.
You've heard of overpopulation myths, then you've probably also heard of the point that everyone in the world could comfortably live in Texas. I'll go further, and say that not only could they live in Texas, they could all have living space, gardens, food, and industry with room to spare. The issue of feeding your young doesn't change regardless of whether you were an anarchist or not, agriculture was essentially the answer to starvation once hunting and gathering wasn't feasible anymore.
It's not that people have to work more today for the same outcome, either. People are not just working for their basic needs, something which a homeless person can do in even less time (less than 5 hours a day), and have money to spare whilst having access to better living standards.[/quote]This is all fuel for thought and I must say I am enjoying this thread wholeheartedly, kudos to you for fighting for what you believe in my friend. And let's assume overpopulation is only a scare tactic (although it would take a bit more to convince me of that), would you not agree that the people, living the life of a hunter-gather, wouldn't need the things that define our lives today? Laptops, houses, running water, etc. They've existed without these comforts, not having them isn't about to bring them misery. I suppose the question is, would you rather a smart species of corrupt and manipulative creatures, or a sentient species of basically gentle and passive nomads?
You'd think challenging a simple problem like "getting blues to scumhunt in FP" would be a simple problem to fix, but you'd literally need a Leader/Prophet with disciples who spread lessons and skills for the sheep to flock to or a totalitarian mod regime to enforce it in a way that matters/lasts and then you come to fallacy presented in this thread.
Human overpopulation is a scare story that's been repeated over the last hundred or more years now, it started off just before the Irish potato famine, which wasn't actually caused by abundance or over-consumption that was stated at the time. The famine was caused by the English regulating the fruit and vegetables that the Irish got, meaning a disease in their staple (potatoes) resulted in the disaster that happened.
You've heard of overpopulation myths, then you've probably also heard of the point that everyone in the world could comfortably live in Texas. I'll go further, and say that not only could they live in Texas, they could all have living space, gardens, food, and industry with room to spare. The issue of feeding your young doesn't change regardless of whether you were an anarchist or not, agriculture was essentially the answer to starvation once hunting and gathering wasn't feasible anymore.
It's not that people have to work more today for the same outcome, either. People are not just working for their basic needs, something which a homeless person can do in even less time (less than 5 hours a day), and have money to spare whilst having access to better living standards.
Next, agriculture created this thing called surplus. We simply had too much food to support the size of our species. To make up for that, our species grew. Soon, our need for food actually ended up being greater than the surplus could cover. Therefore, we needed to farm more. The more we farmed, the bigger our population became... to the point where it is not feasibly possible to feed everyone! The reason there are people starving in Africa, or any part of the world for that matter, has its roots in the agricultural shift. If we lived like we had previously, in an "anarchist" society, this never would have happened.
Violence? War? Forget it. What are we fighting over? Hunting grounds? Sure, but there's really enough to go around because there are no imbalances. We certainly aren't fighting for land, we don't need to!
Would we be as advanced a species? Perhaps not in all areas, but we'd reach that point eventually. It'd just come by slower is all. Rather than discovery by war, we'd do it through simple and pure ingenuity. Genius' would fabricate amazing things in the name of creativity, not violence. The art of inventing would last long through an industrial era, as inventions would be upon the individual! It would be an entirely different world.
I agree... but imagine real quick a world where there is literally no concept of crime. Let me explain.
Let's turn the time back about 13,000 years. Here we find humans before agriculture took it's place in our species' lives. The average man at the time worked for 14 hours a week gathering food. And that was it. He didn't have to work extra to pay for insurance (which is, if you think about it, and extremely strange concept in an of itself), he didn't have a mortgage on his cave, etc etc.
And then agriculture came along. It started in a crescent in the middle-east, and spread from there. Several Biblical references exist, such as the story of Cain and Abel, that depict the violence that happened during that time. Those who grew were considered dominant, and more sophisticated... and they weren't kind when they taught others differently. (Continued)
Consider that the things suggested to cause these evil things to happen, first happened because it was within humans to allow that to happen.
Protons, neutrons, and electrons to form atoms when compressed together, which then form different elements. Even further, they come to create countless chemicals reactions, which formed the first single-celled organisms, life. Then, through around 4 Billion years of evolution the end result is a man and a woman in the rough; nothing but hair as clothes, deciding that because their populations are so high it was no longer feasible to hunt and gather, develop agriculture near rivers. It wasn't evil that made the world's problems, it was necessity.
The question that they'd need to answer is what to do about organized crime. By definition a group of people working together towards one common goal is not a state of disorderly conduct (anarchy).
I believe in voluntarism, online a system which players have to agree to rules in order to participate is wholly fair and justified. No-one has to join a site if they don't first accept this contract - if you don't, then there is no entry.
But reality is different. In reality it is not a person's choice to be a part of their society, there are no end of borders which allows for an independent to survive, the only ones that come to mind are international waters.
The excuse that people often give to defend that everyone is "voluntarily" participating in the current system is often that they can move. But that is not correct. A person who is deprived of funds and alternative resources to live by their own means is by, no small measure, isolated. We saw this when serfdom replaced slavery, the serfs were not 'owned', no, but the conditions of their survival was that they were essentially tied to the land they lived on.
There are laws I don't agree on, and some I do. It's important to remember that authority does not make something any more logically sound.
You, my friend, just made my day. I too am an atheist teenager, and rationality will always prevail over theistic-principles. Not that they don't have their values, but they have lead to way too many issues in the end.
Anarchy doesn't mean chaos, of course. I don't want people running around lawlessly killing people... but the fact remains that had it not been for the agricultural era and the shift from independent hunting/gathering, the concept of evil, crime, and revenge may never have even become a thing.
We don't need leaders. We don't need gods. Before we invented and gave power to both, we led extremely productive lives... working less and having more time to socialize. The shift created a surplus in food, which leads to extreme amounts of over population. We fight natural regulation, and ignore biological mediators. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Just to be clear, I’m not a professional ‘quote maker’. I’m just an atheist teenager who greatly values her intelligence and scientific fact over any silly fiction book written 3,500 years ago. This being said, I am open to any and all criticism.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
