Could Human Networking eventually replace the need for government?

There is strength in numbers and more people who want to be safe and happy. It's only when we run scared and a smaller member of our 'herd' falls behind that they fall prey to predators.

Some might argue that it is the ones who want to be "safe" that run headlong into the arms of predators, hoping that if they can hide in the shade of a powerful creature, then other lesser predators will leave them alone, and perhaps they don't have to share as much grass with their former prey allies?

There are no "innocents" in the world, just various justifications for self serving activities.

The Big Bad of your narrative didn't succeed because it took from the weak, it succeeded because they (whomever they are) gave everything away. It may not have been a good deal, in hindsight, but it was the deal they wanted to make at the time....

We have cognitive limits which beyond we need to assert trust. It's there that direct or indirect abuse tends to go unnoticed until too late. A big blunt gang that thinks its right is just a different form of power as a small sharp gang that thinks its right. Escalating conflict is not really the best way to solve things, if not just because it's too dynamic with wide reaching consequences beyond our cognitive limits.

Eutopia (not “utopia” though few will realize the misuse) will be possible when the average/typical human adult is basically disciplined, trustworthy, informed, self assured, responsible, ethical, emotionally non-reactive, and genuinely benevolent. Dismantling or re-drafting the system/government before the general population has achieved this state is only going to replace one set of bureaucratic tyrants with another. How do we help encourage society to mature? Thats a much more useful line of thought than how we can cancel out the government, imo.

ZealotX wrote:

Fyxe wrote: The shortest answer to this is no, it cannot. That is because the strong will always gang up on the weak and use that to control them.

There is strength in numbers and more people who want to be safe and happy. It's only when we run scared and a smaller member of our 'herd' falls behind that they fall prey to predators.

Strength in numbers is only created by strong individuals willing to lead those numbers. And that is why your system fails. People dont want that responsibility, they give it to others and those others will take that power. The human species is social but also tribal, and competition is in our blood.

There are two paths to ascension and those two will always be in conflict with one another.

Fyxe wrote: There are two paths to ascension and those two will always be in conflict with one another.

Let me try to respond to a number of things in one and if I missed something please let me know.


So as I understand it, some of us are thinking along the lines of predator vs prey type of behavior. What I have in mind, and I guess you could say is my idealistic vision, is all about balance.

You brought up the inner person as a source of these external conflicts. And I certainly agree with that. However, consider... that inner person is also adapting to their environment. Someone who has been affected by external things like rape, domestic violence, war, etc. human nature internalizes these conflicts and external stimuli and tries to process it; tries to make sense of it.

Thus the statement: "Hurt people hurt people"

People also develop defense mechanisms as a result of trying to protect themselves. Even a rose has thorns for this reason. The desire to protect one's self is natural.

And on a corporate level, one nation's "thorns" may be viewed as threat to another nation. So that nation grows larger "thorns" which is viewed as a threat by someone else. Where does it end?

Diplomacy.

And some point, all parties need to come to the table and see how stupid it is to ignore each other's wants and needs and instead be prepared to kill each other for stepping across a sometimes arbitrary line. Each nation has leaders that have to at least look the part; convincing their people that they will stand up for them; against bullies and terrorists and other threats. That's why they are chosen and given power to lead.

When I'm talking about "open source" I'm talking about cooperation, not competition. If the thing is owned (like by a company) then the operation of that thing is dictated by that company's own interests. If it is "open source" the interests of whoever is interested can participate. The PC is relatively "open source" compared to Apple. Apple dictates what parts can be in their devices and sets prices and people pay because they believe its better quality. PCs can sometimes have more problems between different parts from different manufacturers but it has gotten progressively better thanks to industry standards. Standards.... basically rules that everyone agrees to because those rules protect everyone. If the rules don't work everyone looks bad and no one can sell their product unless Apple says you are going to be the one and only audio technology we use. Or you're going to be the one and only graphics card we use. Who cares if there is something better.

So right now, we have a lot of companies with a lot of different apps. It's not "open source". There are no real standards for how apps work together because they don't have to work together. However... when it comes to taking your money most of them integrate with Google pay, Apple pay, or Paypal. So when it comes to taking our money there are standards and integration/cooperation. All I'm suggesting is why not extend that cooperation throughout? Make it open source. Let people, not just other companies you're forced to integrate with, to contribute to the code. We don't have elections where only the elite get to vote. So why is it not a benefit to have everyone who wants to work on a particular problem, to work on that problem? This is what I mean by strength in numbers. We have more than a few neurons to rub together. It's the amount of neurons that we have that give us the capability and capacity to think, reason, and process information. Why limit ourselves when it comes to things we all use? We have trillions of cells in our bodies but every cell needs the feet in order to get from place to place. And no every cell cannot be dedicated to telling the feet where to go, but cells all influence the movement of the body based on their needs.

Why is it so wrong to think this type of model can be adapted to society?

Can you give me a practical example of how this model might address things such as traffic, or drug, or firearm laws? Or environmental protection laws for industries, such as chemical manufacturers?

I do not think it's a problem of adapting this type of model to society. It's kind of the opposite, as it sits society could not maintain this model. It just is not feasible as a whole. I defer to OB1's observation on the sovereign citizen above as my reasoning to why society is the issue not the model. It's a very similar idea to bringing socialism to the US, the systems currently in place and ideology of the majority would cause it to collapse at an accelerated rate, meaning the application of the idea causes more harm than good.

Much Love,
Kobos

OB1Shinobi wrote: Can you give me a practical example of how this model might address things such as traffic, or drug, or firearm laws? Or environmental protection laws for industries, such as chemical manufacturers?

I can't, really. To give you an example would be like me as one person trying to imitate what many people would decide and build in cooperation with each other. A better example would be given by an AI that learns to drive from data collected by a mass number of human drivers. We can all agree that individual humans make mistakes. Collectively, we can learn from those mistakes and even foresee some mistakes before they happen.

Let's say that you had to use an app to buy a firearm. And because the app was "open source" a number of people could contribute ways of how the app could integrate with your social media and try to detect if you had any radical ideas or an unstable personality that tries to predict whether or not you can be trusted with a deadly weapon. And let's say one person said the app should be locked by your biometric thumb print just like your banking apps.

And so the app knows who you are when you buy the gun. The app knows where you are based on location services, if you are near your house or out of state, etc. People don't necessarily need to be watching you. They would just set up the rules for the technology to follow, to help make those decisions without a person personally invading your privacy. And if you don't want a gun then don't sign up for the app. But as long as you're using it then maybe the police should be able to see when a loaded gun, tied to an app, pings off a cell tower in a residential or commercial district. And maybe if your phone isn't within the distance of a large house, it wont fire. Maybe this would allow police officers to see if a suspect has a gun or not so that they can determine better what to do and how to detain that suspect. And maybe guns are made from the ground up to utilize technology so that they cannot physically fire without it sending signals and operating based on rules.

Maybe these are good ideas. Maybe these are bad ideas. But they are ideas and if it is open source then there is an interested community that can debate these ideas and vote ideas into use without waiting on a politician to decide whether or not to be bribed today, and whether or not to vote to force a company driven by profits, to comply with new rules and regulations. Nothing is ever a silver bullet. Hackers will figure out ways to hack the app, spoof signals, etc. But the same hackers can also rob banks if they're that clever. But how many banks are robbed today like they were in the old west? And certainly, things are better now than they were back then. Right?

OMG!! your ideas go far beyond socialism deeply into totalitarianism where individual and group opposition is restricted to the extreme and every human is babysat by a ruling party that will exercise an extremely high degree of control over everyones public and private life. yes things are better now but what you are talking about is the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism!!


and my other comments above were not about predator and prey. they are actually more fundamental than that. ascension is a dual path state. There is the path of acceptance and the path of rejection. and the free will we have as a species allows each of us to choose which path we take in any walk of life. what you are talking about is the complete rejection of one path in favor of the other just because you think its the better path. that is not how the world works and its not how our species works. The tighter you grip your fist Grand Moff Tarkin, the more systems will slip through your fingers! a relevant warning indeed!