At the moment, it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. People currently do seem as you describe, but I’m confident it’s not their inherent nature. They were taught to be that way, so perhaps there’s a way to unteach.
Eventually, I reckon we’re progressing towards a point where the state will no longer have sufficient funds for the most basic services towards their citizens. People at that point do have an incentive to be compassionate. Not sure if a state failing will provide for enough time for people to organize mutual aid groups and networks they can depend on, but at least it’s a glimmer of hope.
You are very optimistic. You need the state to optimize sharing of resources because without it you get smaller and smaller tribal groups competing. Mutual aid groups on a voluntary basis alone are easily splintered and there are too many people who get a kick out of destruction.
You need the state to optimize sharing of resources
I don’t believe this to be true. There were no states in the earliest of tribes, yet they survived:
early human societies managed resources through communal efforts and mutual agreements without the need for a centralized authority. These tribes relied on shared cultural norms and direct cooperation among members to allocate and utilize resources effectively. The absence of a formal state did not prevent them from thriving. Instead, it fostered a sense of collective responsibility and interdependence. This demonstrates that resource sharing can be successfully managed through decentralized and community-driven approaches, challenging the notion that a state is essential for optimizing resource distribution.
you get smaller and smaller tribal groups competing
Over scarce resources - yes that is a plausible scenario indeed. That’s why a plan is essential in order for people to be able to believe in such an undertaking. The groups will need to federate on the level of neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nationals, and eventually, the planet. If attained, that’s all the protection they’ll need. But granted, that’s a big if.
At the moment, it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. People currently do seem as you describe, but I’m confident it’s not their inherent nature. They were taught to be that way, so perhaps there’s a way to unteach.
Eventually, I reckon we’re progressing towards a point where the state will no longer have sufficient funds for the most basic services towards their citizens. People at that point do have an incentive to be compassionate. Not sure if a state failing will provide for enough time for people to organize mutual aid groups and networks they can depend on, but at least it’s a glimmer of hope.
You are very optimistic. You need the state to optimize sharing of resources because without it you get smaller and smaller tribal groups competing. Mutual aid groups on a voluntary basis alone are easily splintered and there are too many people who get a kick out of destruction.
I don’t believe this to be true. There were no states in the earliest of tribes, yet they survived:
Over scarce resources - yes that is a plausible scenario indeed. That’s why a plan is essential in order for people to be able to believe in such an undertaking. The groups will need to federate on the level of neighborhoods, towns, cities, states, nationals, and eventually, the planet. If attained, that’s all the protection they’ll need. But granted, that’s a big if.