Excellent, I think this idea was first proposed by Voltare (voluntarism).
but less the leaches who predate on the labour and/ or life of others.


On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Adam Gmail <adamlevinemobile@???>wrote:

> 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 i
> s 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
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>