Alright, I will apologize up front for this long-winded response, but I feel it is necessary to get my point across most clearly, the last paragraph is a short summary if you can't spend time reading the main body of the response. I just see far too much wrong with this, so I have chosen to respond to just about everything you said Elijah (and Basho), however, there are a few points you and I can agree on Elijah.
Why can't you envision a society without modern medicine where the people are living such healthy lives they rarely if ever need medical treatment? A highly educated people living communally with safety as a necessary prerequisite would rarely suffer injuries from accidents.
No, I cannot imagine such a society existing in reality for very long, with our modem medicine we have achieved the ability to virtually eradicate plagues such as Small Pox, and Poliomyelitis. Why would you want to give up modern medicine in the first place? That doesn't make any sense at all. Of course it is always best to take good care of your body and avoid the use of medicines, but some people can't help it, some people are just born at a disadvantage, and some people just aren't very lucky and contract something, which then systematically wipes out the little tribe (In which case those modern medicines could very well have saved your ass).
The so-called modern medicine of today is a part of the wage slavery/exploitation process of capitalism in my view of things. The medical and pharmaceutical industry keeps getting richer as the masses keep getting poorer and sicker and more dependent on their medical fixes. Some of the elderly are taking large amounts of various types of medications that are only improving their conditions temporarily, but, at the same time, seriously impairing their immune systems and sapping their strength for the long haul. This is disgusting in my eyesight. Better to practice healthy living with natural medicine for minor matters.
Like I just said, some people have no choice! If you are suffering from severe pain, either you can help it out a little with natural methods, or you can completely mask it at the expense of your immune system (some people would rather do that). My dad has eaten healthy his entire life, exercised, and he is able to physically outstrip the 20yr olds where he works (He's turning 50 in a couple of months), but he has a pair of vertebrae smashing a nerve in his back that causes extreme pain periodically throughout the day. It is just a product of his age; Few people live such an active and healthy life, He refuses to take medicine his doctor offers because he feels that it will end up doing more damage than it is worth (He currently grows some Marijuana with a medical license)... If it weren't for his strong aversion to medicine he would probably be popping quite a few pills every morning. I would myself prefer to do the same because I know at what expense I would be taking the pills, but some people who may be in even more intense pain just might not be able to handle it, which is why a lot of our medicines are a necessity. It would be very irresponsible and cruel to simply remove these modern medicines from our arsenal.
You're wrong on this point. Progress need not halt. It would just need to slow down somewhat in order to prevent human error or the unintended consequences of rapid progress. We can not continue to endure the exploitation, oppression, and destruction that follows advances in technology in the hands of humans without the necessary character and wisdom to use it safely for the benefit of everyone, not just a privileged minority.
Look, compared to our current rate of progress, if we were to segment ourselves into small 1000-head communes, things would not be nearly as efficient, trade, manufacturing, experimentation would all suffer. Look at our current setup, look at the sizes of our cities and states, these are essentially just large communes, why do you feel the need to make them smaller and more granular?
Will you permit these communes to work together to achieve common goals such as building large scientific instruments, bridges, geological shields? If not, you will be stifling progress; and if so, think about what will happen when you have multiple communes working together, they make friends, they grow closer, they find mates among each other, they have children, and they intermingle, they will find very quickly that they can achieve much grander things when they amass themselves, and that making invisible walls or population limits for each commune only slows things down.
I would say keep them under a thousand. Small communal societies well spread out would still be able to interact with neighbors too a very degree through major advances in the Internet and computing. In fact, I see this as absolutely necessary to keeping the communal society unified and progressing harmoniously according to the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
Like I mentioned in my last post, these numbers are good for vacations and 3-month getaways, not sustained growth, what... are you going to kick the kids out when the commune starts getting too big?
"Alright youngin's... go start all over and make a little commune over there, this one has reached its pop limit"I can see you're brainwashed by the "bigger is better" and "more is better" propaganda and mind set of our fast paced, overly materialistic and corrupt society. You've probably never experienced deprivation of any sort in your young life. It's a humbling experience that can bring great insight and wisdom if the mind is properly focused at the time.
There is no brainwashing, my entire philosophy on life is based on what I have figured out on my own, there are very few things that I have picked up from others because I know that my philosophical-thinking is just about as good of quality as I can find elsewhere. I am sure you have driven a nice swift little sports car sometime in your life, it's fun isn't it? So, why stop at the model-T?
I often go and sit in the shade at the park for hours with my physics and math textbooks and read, I sit and think for hours on end, I am constantly trying to figure out how the universe (and more specifically our minds) work. I am a very introspective person, and I know that not everything in life is based on the size of your car, your stereo, or your girlfriend's breasts. But if you can figure out how to keep yourself happy (for me it is learning and building things), they sure can be great mood-enhancers, and people who intentionally deprive themselves of it are only missing out. You also have to realize that a
Large Hadron Collider is much better than a tiny basement-built particle accelerator any day, so right there your point has been rendered completely invalid. Right now the LHC is one of the largest (actually I think it is the largest) collaborative engineering and research projects humanity has ever undertaken. If we said to ourselves... bigger isn't better... we don't need this to be happy, we would be missing out on some pretty key knowledge-nuggets we might find in the coming years. I also feel that someone is only entitled to accuse someone else of being brainwashed when their life isn't based around a single book.
But can you imagine what a communal society - practicing healthy living and Christ's teachings to their fullest - would be like if everybody lived out their 120 year lifespan in full vigor like Moses? See Deuteronomy 34:7. I have to assume that Moses died in his sleep painlessly and free of disease. Wouldn't you call this substantial progress over the conditions of today?
This point does have some merit, I have read somewhere (I can try to find the source if requested) that a large percentage of supercenturians were Seventh-Day Adventists, which tells me that they have worked out a nice little living-routine which many of us could benefit from (whether or not it is due to the teachings in the bible, or their community ideals is to be debated) but there is definitely a positive correlation that shows that your idea does actually have some potential... but you still must realize that it stops at roughly ~120 without further technological advancements.
It's actually you that's putting limits on what can be achieved outside of "a large scale civilization" as you call it. Larger is more cumbersome and not always better in my opinion
Hmm, possibly so... however, I would liken it to defining and elucidating limits of small communities rather than invoking or setting them.
Our large urban environments are unmanageable and ripe for serious disaster. Better to have small, manageable communities that are able to pick up and move quickly when necessary.
Hmm, if I were an enemy I would be a lot more afraid of a bull than 370 squirrels...
How do you know, it might just be the communal people who discover how to live 200, years and create the necessary environment for living the longevity lifestyle successfully. Will you be able to accept it?
If they were kind enough to offer it to someone outside of their commune, yes, I would take it, because I know that I have done my part in investing my time, and efforts into defeating the same enemy (just in different sized camps), we are infact allies.
And this is why I see a danger in greater advances in technology in the hands of a society not capable of using it wisely for the benefit of all. Advanced technology should never be looked it as "bigger and better toys." It should viewed as a very serious matter and not as child's play.
Even though I used the word 'toy' I am very serious about the matter, and I thought it would be apparent by the tone of my posts. A society or group of societies must have a very large degree of seriousness to be a part of a project as large as LHC, and that is one big toy.
But you must admit that greater knowledge and wisdom does come with age and experience in many cases. Even in the scientific world you worship, how often do you see youth still in high school involved in the research or making significant discoveries? Rarely if ever. This is not to say you are not intelligent or do not possess any wisdom. You should be happy that you are a youth and your knowledge and wisdom is growing.
What statement(s) did I make that you saw as belittling? Maybe I can explain or clarify.
I know the general correlation that exists between age and wisdom/knowledge, but that is hardly a constant or a rule, just about everyone on this board is smarter and more introspective than the average person their same age in the general public. The sort of thinking that goes on here is much higher caliber than most places. I cannot locate the comments (I tried searching but turned up nothing) but you and I are aware of their existence... In both instances they were of philosophical nature (not technical), if it were technical, then yes, I would be much more open to what you have to say simply because of your superior years... but it was not.
What if it were setup like the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, with the members free to focus exclusively on a shared scientific goal like life-extension or AGI? Although that would require a large and continuous injenction of funding, so I guess its not really a commune in the sense being discussed here.
To an extent, this already takes place in high-level research projects (mainly physics), and if pop-culture were to begin to appreciate science and be willing to support these more often we could really get somewhere...
Ok, to sum things up. I know that there are benefits to living in communes, and there is some proof (proof enough for me at least) that when living according to the bible's teachings, you can extend your lifespan (see my Seventh-Day Adventist statement), but the same results can also be accomplished without the bible. Communal living is great for vacations and extended
find-yourself sessions, and (personally, I want to go live with some monks in the mountains for a year or so when I reach a point where I am able to do so). But the moment where communal living begins to interfere with trading, manufacturing, and limits on population per group, things begin to go down hill, society loses its efficiency, and you find yourself spending more time messing with overhead and coordination. Communal living is good for decompression and stress-relief, not large collaborative projects, and technological advancement. And, a question for you Elijah, Do you realize how expensive specialized medical equipment it? This stuff used in protein folding, gene sequencing, and splicing is very complex, and would be pretty much impossible to build if you were limited to 1000-people per commune, civilization would find it very hard to progress, and it would also be very difficult to keep the communes from spilling over into each other and destroying their very purpose of remaining small.
In short... it just isn't economically, physically, or socially practical to employ if your goals are to live longer than ~120 years... or make large-scale scientific discoveries.
EDIT: Fixed a few typos
Edited by Joseph, 22 April 2007 - 01:46 AM.
