Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sea_Personality8559 t1_isfqh4y wrote

Reply to comment by just1monkey in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 10, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Mobility

Mobility is prettymuch the main factor in corruption.

Systems that are 'protected' from unwanted behavior decrease mobility in general.

So...

The difference of human nature is the determination of the safeties in place against corruption - prettymuch the only way is cultural identity and unified goals. Culture can only be 'fine-tuned' if there is a definite generality of human nature.

Same as unified goals - which may be even more difficult as the population in question increases - the uniformity of goals shatters or becomes so generalized it loses resemblance to its original meaning.

Examining the claims - we can reason that population of significant size having disparate goals - then would have different decision making for the different factors affecting them. Which - roundabout - is prettymuch the city v the country that we see in general.

Examining once more - aristocratic systems have historically made differences of governance over 'country' and 'city'. In mobility and 'say'. Staying within station etc.

Anyhow

Just saying.

Also, it would be cool if that system could somehow be created - but I really doubt it could given parameters.

The number one problem with the us system is its ease of influence due to cultural proliferation and ideation - schism seems a national pastime - currently leading to a somewhat unprecedented surge of political violence / domestic terrorism drawing overwhelming pushback in governmental interference via legislation in an attempt to mandate culture. Uh... point being, thinking of systems, solving these couple us problems would be fantastic and probably set the way for better systems - like philosopher king societies.

3

just1monkey t1_isfsf3q wrote

I think the mobility point makes sense, but what sort of mobility are we talking about here?

Is it limited to social mobility within a single unified system, or can there be like sideways or orthogonal movements to alternative societies where that particular behavior fits in better?

I think you could achieve the latter through functional boundary rules creating discrete interaction zones. The most rigid (but accordingly simple and very enforceable) rules should apply to these boundary and movement rules, to make sure people can’t be trapped. I’d even permit a voluntary interaction zone of 1.

Once within an interaction zone, the rules could be set by the people within that interaction zone. This allows for a broad range of people to just be who they are, with people who will accept them for who they are, without forcing the same poorly fitting straitjacket on everyone.

I agree somewhat tough to imagine readily implementing now, but if we can get to a point where we can build livable structures out in space, we have a lot of the latter to work with. We could consider and apply interaction zone concepts even now and start taking some baby steps in that direction, thanks to some geographical detachment, which we’ve seen works very well in many contexts during the COVID response.

EDIT: And in terms of the adrenalin junkies that get a kick out of participating in or watching bloodsport, can we point them in the direction of the as-yet unexplored dangers of like the nearest galaxy that isn’t where the people who want to stay safe all the time live? Like it doesn’t even have to be a galaxy away, as long as they’re occupied doing a thing they enjoy, channeled in a way that doesn’t hurt others.

Edits made.

1