It's about the tribe, tools for location independent community and collaboration mean local is a philosophical decision, you have many locals to pick yours from and you can even pick many.

Morality is rules based, rules are localized so participating In disparate communities just means voluntarily opting in to multiple rule sets and moralities.

It is good to have options.

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:32 AM, "jamileh s.t." <xiaziyna@???> wrote:

> as humans evolved from we have developed very efficient computational devices. the ability to think on a group level is not something that comes easy to us as traditionally we would be part of a small and local community. being accustomed to such an environment it became typical for us to evaluate right and wrong for a small community mostly composed of family. the definition of right and wrong being something biological, something like "how can i preserve as many humans who are most closely related for as long as possible". we developed secondary systems for the prime directive "how can i improve living quality", "i feel pain when i touch fire", "i feel sadness when i lose a loved one". we are now at a point in history where we have veered sufficiently away from such basic needs and the ruleset does not completely suffice, we must now think on a group level, we are not concerned with death, we place emphasis on other needs.
>
> it's difficult to define what this new ruleset should be, should we completely abandon our earlier genetic tools in favour of computational answers? i don't think so completely, i think inherently those earlier systems lead to good outcomes and fast decisions. for example, before we developed the current eye, we had a more primitive eye system which saw at a much faster rate, but with alot poorer vision, you can imagine how this is good in certain situations and in the same way how our very rough genetic tools allow us to get a "feel" of the situation. you can say why do we need to stick to this arbitrary ruleset whose sole purpose is to preserve humanity, when maybe we can have another ruleset that does the same thing, maybe we don't need to be kind to each other but we can still survive on medicine and live for a long time. our genetic programming does allow for this, our genetic programming allows us the intellectual capacity to overcome our genetic programming. i believe this is where we should use computational tools, we are beginning to connect the points that form the logistic map, the consequences of waste, the consequence of slavery, the consequences of hoarding information, these are all consequences which take effect over time, and now due to the rapid rate the world moves at, are taking place within our lifetimes. a caveman without computer could not predict such outcomes, like when they hunted to extinction the megafauna or killed off the neanderthals.
>
> so maybe "right" and "wrong" are not the correct words, but it's kind of recursive, they have come to embody our instincts, and are thus defined by our instincts.
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem