Dammit, meant to send to the list again. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:02 AM Sean Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM Razer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I think there's a place for individualism within collectivism but the >> collective comes first. >> >> > This I can't really agree with. There is no collective without the > individual, and why should any individual be part of such a thing if it > doesn't benefit him or her? > > I recognize that we share the planet and that we all benefit from the > existence of society, but I think the only obligation that places upon us > is to give at least as much as we take. But at the end of the day the only > people qualified to make the determination of whether an individual's > contribution is adequate is the individual and anyone considering entering > into some kind of exchange/relationship/whatever with that individual. It > is the sum total of these decisions and interactions from which society > emerges. > > My longer term hope is that sharing the planet is just a temporary > constraint that we'll eventually overcome. There is a lot of room in the > galaxy and even the solar system. "If you don't like it, leave" is a lot > more realistic of an option when the choices and resources available are > practically infinite. This is not to say I'm sympathetic to the Venus > Project and its' ilk; I don't think they're wrong about a future of > abundance, I just think their language and thinking is rooted in a > fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of economic scarcity. >
