BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Spyder talks {R} EVOLUTION

 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
22:56 / 20.09.03
I’ve decided I’m going to change the world, regardless what the world thinks. Oh, it won’t happen over night, and I’ll probably be dead centuries over by the time my plan works out, but it doesn’t matter. I’m going to set the seeds for the future. And anyone who wants to can help.

You see, as I see it Barbelith is about change. I mean, we’re basically a bunch of brilliant post-modernists anarchists getting together and throwing around ideas. What do you expect out of that, a quiet conversation on politics?!?

So, every time I post here I’ll post one of my plans for the future and discuss other people’s input. So, here’s plan number one.

Leader-Free-Future: I dream of a future where people don’t need a leader to tell them what to do. People always complain about their leaders, but then panic with out them. So, let’s stop teaching people to be leaders. Let’s stop teaching people to be followers. Why not let people do what they want and not be told how to live? Everyone these days goes on about leadership, which means everyone is fighting for control. I’m against control. Anyway, that’s my first idea. I’ll have another one posted tomorrow.
 
 
Rage
23:47 / 20.09.03
Join my cult, ok? Just join the damn thing.
 
 
w1rebaby
00:00 / 21.09.03
Dude, how's the bank?

Yes, I know, by the way.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
02:26 / 21.09.03
How do you do that though? Do you have one concrete technique that you will apply? If we want to raise people to not need leaders we would have to affect them while they are young. Should we all become teachers like {Big Malkie, Mr. Six} ?
 
 
Tom Coates
19:44 / 21.09.03
Here's the question - are people either (1) inherently peaceful, equal, free and collaborative - and if not can we train them to be (Communist societies have tried this and it didn't work so well) or (2) are they inherently competitive and interested in the welfare primarily of themselves, their friends and their close families? Cos so far, your plan seems ludicrously ill-thought-through.

My position is an evolutionary one - that individuals care about themselves, their families/germ-lines and their friends, but that they get benefits from the interactions, supports and mechanisms of society at large. The question is whether or not you can find a model for a leader-less society. Barbelith has been a first stage in this process for me - by trying to limit the power of any individual. What I've asked for repeatedly is to have people suggest models that might get closer to that position - for us to find a process that distributes power as evenly as possible.
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:23 / 21.09.03
we’re basically a bunch of brilliant post-modernists anarchists -Spyder

I'm not. I don't even think that most people here are accurately described in that way. I realise that is a nitpicking point, but I think it is valid in a broader sense. I think that one of the problems with imagining these liberatory or near-utopian alternative societies is that we tend to use ourselves as a model of humanity in a way that is far too restrictive.

This ties in with Tom's point about finding a model for a leaderless society, in that you need to think about organisation on a large level in order to get anywhere with this. Of course, your motivations are based on personal feelings, but your arguments and justifications cannot be.

Not wanting to be entirely negative though, and I realise this has been linked to many times (by me), but the Parecon people have thought pretty hard about this sort of problem. The trick is to find a stable organisation for society - stable in the sense that, despite Marx, capitalism is fairly stable - that emphasises social justice and other values you might want.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
16:53 / 22.09.03
Ragecore: I'm not generally big on cults. You'll have to descirbe yours for me before I form an opinion on it.
fridgemagnet, would you mind explaining what you mean by this?

Therestofya: Everything you're saying is actually tying into my second idea, one which I'd like to start planning for now. I want to open a school where we pretty much abandon the western style of teaching. We let the students learn what they want to learn when they want to learn it. And the teachers will be students too. No "us versus them" that happens in a regular school. I want as little distinction between students and teachers as possible.
But I'm not sure I'm right, which is why I'm glad you people are responding with criticism. I'm 17, and I want to teach everyone in a completely new style of teaching. But I don't know if it's been tried before, I don't know how it will work, and I don't know who I'll become in 5 years. So I'm glad you guys are questioning me.
Tom, the "ill-thought-through" part is the problem. I haven't worked everything out, and I'm still working on that, with your help. That being said, I'll see what I can come up with for a "model society".
Lurid, sorry for the generalization. And I agree with you that capitalism is stable. But to me, that doesn't make it a good thing. Capitalism is notorious for screwing the little guy, and it breeds complacency.
More next time...
 
 
w1rebaby
18:04 / 22.09.03
Sorry, I wasn't actually talking to you, I was making stupid remarks to Rage. (Well, you did put it in the Conversation.) Please ignore me.

Anyway. Lurid: I don't think capitalism is particularly stable; I suppose it depends what you mean by "capitalism" and "stable" (and "is", ho ho) but certainly the sort of unrestricted capitalism waved about by libertarians and extropians seems to me very unlikely to avoid widespread social change and probably ultimately revolution.

I'm always a bit wary of differentiating too much between "free market" and "socialist" societies, since it seems to me that they're not just all on the same spectrum, but effectively the same, just with a different power distribution.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
03:29 / 23.09.03
Research montessori schools spyder.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
16:40 / 23.09.03
Similar stuff to what I'm thinking, I c d U2. My main plan is to let the students run everything, and I'm think on focusing on older kids, high school and college level. I want the students to know whatever they want to. We could have teachers who are students as well. No principles, no administrators, no middle man.
Well, idea number three isn't big on philosophy, its more a practical thing. Humanity needs to set up colonies on the moon and Mars. Simply put, we are the dominate species on the planet, and we have no natural enemies, save perhaps ourselves. This is a big problem. The world population doubles every twenty years. Without a means of slowing this down (I'm rather against legistration limiting the number of children someone can have) the logical solution would seem to be going somewhere uninhabited. Of course, this brings up a new problem. Assuming we terraform Mars and such, what happens with all this extra space? Humanity will continue to multiply and evolve. So now we'll have two overpopulated planets instead of one. This isn't a solution; it's more of a stalling device. I'd love to hear what you guys think of this.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
16:54 / 23.09.03
Plus, Martian colonists could choose from at least two Bowie songs for an apt national anthem.

Bit prophetic really when he sang "Spyder's from Mars".
 
 
Melissa & Ev
17:15 / 23.09.03
I’ve decided I’m going to change the world, regardless what the world thinks. Oh, it won’t happen over night, and I’ll probably be dead centuries over by the time my plan works out, but it doesn’t matter. I’m going to set the seeds for the future.

The theory and practice of Ic-dU?.

…we’re basically a bunch of brilliant post-modernists anarchists…

Not quite. We are a vast mix of people with a wide scope of labels to be applied, peeled off, reapplied, and so on. Kinda’ like Lurid sez.

I dream of a future where people don’t need a leader to tell them what to do.

Again, the theory and practice of Ic-dU?.

Dude, how's the bank?

We burnt all the money. We barter and trade skills and services for products and goods, products and goods for skills and services, skills and services for skills and services, or products and goods for products and goods.

We need no banks.

(1) inherently peaceful, equal, free and collaborative - and if not can we train them to be (Communist societies have tried this and it didn't work so well) or (2) are they inherently competitive and interested in the welfare primarily of themselves, their friends and their close families?

The only thing inherent about people is that each of us needs to sleep sometimes, eat sometimes, and excrete sometimes. After that, well, it’s pretty wide open.

My position is an evolutionary one - that individuals care about themselves, their families/germ-lines and their friends, but that they get benefits from the interactions, supports and mechanisms of society at large.

This is v. close to Ic-dU?’s general feelings on the matter. Except some of us (myself, for instance), do not buy into “evolutionary” models. But that’s OK.

What I've asked for repeatedly is to have people suggest models that might get closer to that position - for us to find a process that distributes power as evenly as possible.

Get rid of any hierarchical structure. Do not let anyone (besides Tom in the most extreme cases) edit posts.

You make a mistake you want to correct?

Then post another message admitting your mistake and then what you would like the change to be. Thus, the original is always there, plus the admittance of err, plus a re-evaluation/re-presentation of the original.

Doesn’t get much more “transparent” than that.

I'm not generally big on cults.

Yes, and neither is Ic-dU. Cults imply:

a) religious fervor or at least religious-like feelings.
b) typically a charismatic leader milking others.
c) a “herd” of blind and ignorant sheep-like followers.
d) willful division and the marking of a circle which separates the inside from the outside.

All of these are not in anyway what Ic-dU? would like to support or otherwise use as a model for behaviour.

I want to open a school where we pretty much abandon the western style of teaching. We let the students learn what they want to learn when they want to learn it. And the teachers will be students too. No "us versus them" that happens in a regular school.

Yes, excellent! And get rid of textbooks too. Let’s get back to a more oral society. The transmission of knowledge through the bardic way. Talk to Self first. Talk to immediate others second. Books are tertiary at best.

I want as little distinction between students and teachers as possible.

Yes, because the distinction is either artificially imposed or bought into without awareness or any basis in a real reality. Ever Hidden Master is also a Hidden Student. They know it, but don’t let it on because that is part of the satori. Easily parroted but difficult to practice.

I'm 17

!!?!?!?!! Fuck man, I figured you were in your mid-twenties. You, my friend, are what the youth of today are best to aspire to.

I want to teach everyone in a completely new style of teaching.

Here’s a little secret: you already are…

And I agree with you that capitalism is stable.

This is not true. Capitalism requires constant warfare not only against other cultures and societies, but against those within its grasp. It is a façade of stability over top a whirlwind of turmoil and grief.

Well, you did put it in the Conversation.

This is important. But for reasons larger than merely this thread, and v. likely applies to people’s views of certain members recent behaviours. If anyone can think clearly about this, then they will understand.

&*#*#*#$$$#*#*#*&

Ic-dU?

The parapostmodern [(!) bz.] cult [ (!) val.]of Slack with neither some Bob nor some anti-Bob to back it up.

It’s A.L.L. on U-our shoulders Here & Now.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
01:27 / 24.09.03
Ummm... thanks. That means a lot to me. Really.
I haven't figured out how to say us all from over population yet, but I've isolated some methods that won't work.
As I said, legostration on how many children you can have won't work. It doesn't work in China. It won't work anywhere. It just leads to resentment and what do you do if someone accidentially becomes pregnant after two children?
Although killing people off at a certain age would do the trick, I have ethical issues with it. Yes, you could use the mentality of "well, they're ust going to die anyway", but we're all going to die anyway, so by that logic we might as well all participate in mass genocide.
I thought about genetic modifacation, but this too has ethical difficulties (that, and how the hell would you do it). I just don't think people would go for genetically lowering their sperm countsor something.
So... so far I don't know how to change things yet. I'll have a theory by the end of the week, I'm sure. I'll keep you guys posted. And feel free to point out the blaringly obvious or something...
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
01:48 / 26.09.03
Ok, half way done with solving this problem. I figure over-population has two parts, right? Over-crowding the planet and energy consumption. I’m dealing with the second half. Here are my ideas for how to solve the “energy crisis”. (and by “my” I don’t mean that all these ideas originated form me. I don’t honestly care who has the good ideas, as the long as the good ideas happen)

Light- We already turn light into energy. So, why don’t we work on building a better solar cell? Because the ones we have right now are pretty sucky. But I bet if people actually tried to put together a really really better one, with in ten years coal burning would be obsolete.

Sound- Is sound a form of light? I don’t remember how this works. Anyway, sound is basically everywhere, yes? So, wouldn’t it make sense to find a way to channel it into usable energy? It’s a perfect renewable resource. It’s being constantly produced. It’s everywhere in the know universe. We can’t run out of sonic vibrations. Some one should get to that.

Bio-chemical energy- Ok, what about the “Matrix” solution? Maybe, while we slept or something we could borrow energy from ourselves r something. Just a thought. I have no idea how this would work or even if I’d wan it too.

Thoughts- And for my wild and crazy out there idea, think about this. How many thoughts do you have that are useless? How many stupid commercial jingles and bad jokes pop up in your mind for little or no reason? What if we could convert these useless muck-thoughts into the power behind a city? Imagine a thought driven powerplant. A airplane driven by the idea of flying.
This is just a cool idea, I think. And it probably will never happen. But I like it a lot. Hmm... maybe I’ll use it in a story.

I’ll have more thoughts later. As always, your suggestions and ideas are wanted.
 
 
Melissa & Ev
07:05 / 26.09.03
Light- We already turn light into energy. So, why don’t we work on building a better solar cell? Because the ones we have right now are pretty sucky. But I bet if people actually tried to put together a really really better one, with in ten years coal burning would be obsolete.

I think many people feel this way and scratch their heads wondering why solar, wind, thermal, and other sorts of available “free” or dirt cheap once the infrastructure is in place to produce sources of energy.

Shrug.

I figure we are moving that way, in some places, like Canada for instance. But you get kill the dinosaurs overnight! I mean, there are lots of people employed here in Alberta in Oil and Gas & without this business Calgary would not have one of the best damn skateparks in the world. In fact, when I was a courier downtown years ago, I noticed how much and how many offices were dedicated to oil and oilfield related business. I nfact, my soon to be father in law is now retiring from being an oil field consultant. So part of my life over the years has been immediately involved with and maintained in part by something I really don’t like and wish to see gone.

But huge changes like that have to happen slow: in with the old and out with the new takes longer the larger the change is.

Everything starts as a single ripple on the surface of the “collective conscious” pond.

Sound- Is sound a form of light?

No, it is, though, a form of wave. It propagates through a medium by vibrations. It is sonic disturbances in a space-time location that is non-empty.

Whereas light is a vibration & a particle. Or so we currently think.

Go figure.

Anyway, sound is basically everywhere, yes?

No. There is no sound in space or any vacuum. Sound needs a medium to travel through.

Light doesn’t (or so we figure since we discarded the idea of a “aether” through which light travels like sound; note that we never disproved that this aether existed, we merely showed it did not matter whether it did or not: there is a significant difference between the two).

So, wouldn’t it make sense to find a way to channel it into usable energy?

Maybe. Shrug. I wouldn’t know, but have some crazy ideas for mad science inventions in the back of my mind. A device that loops an amplified signal through a feedback circuit which as it builds vibrates a sheet of metal. Now we need some crazy mad science device to derive the vibrations from the sheet and turn it into a usable resource. What is this device?

Shrug. I am a scientist, but not that is not my field.

Thoughts- And for my wild and crazy out there idea, think about this. How many thoughts do you have that are useless? How many stupid commercial jingles and bad jokes pop up in your mind for little or no reason? What if we could convert these useless muck-thoughts into the power behind a city? Imagine a thought driven powerplant. A airplane driven by the idea of flying.
This is just a cool idea, I think. And it probably will never happen. But I like it a lot. Hmm... maybe I’ll use it in a story.


This is a cool idea for a story. Write it now. I have had a similar thought about such things, but not so much as energy, but as part of a collective data compiler and sorter which then feedsback into the minds of each individual. Perhaps the two together would make a really great story…

Cheers Spyder

&---------->NOW U HERE !<----------&

Join or Don’t.

[full stop]

We don’t need to care

because time isn’t the sort of thing that runs out, but

U R.

At Ic-dU?

U do not have to join to be a member.

U already R, as U can c.

All you have to do is:

Keep in Touch

It’s that eZ.

 
 
Melissa & Ev
07:43 / 26.09.03
Non-moderated corrections:

But you get kill the dinosaurs overnight!

Located in the second paragraph (not counting 'Shrug.' as a paragraph).

sub in: But you can't kill the dinosaurs overnight.

This:

but not that is not my field.

...is a funny slip "not that" is "not" my field:

neti-neti.

There are other mistakes, no doubt Ic, but screw me for noticing my own damn errs.

Cheers and happy reading.
 
 
Melissa & Ev
08:15 / 26.09.03
neti neti

Hyperlixz brought to U by teh (sic.)

Fine People At

(that’s Ic-dU? = FPA)

Ic-dU?

factoring U into the I of the www
 
 
Papess
08:25 / 26.09.03
legostration?

Is that where the law is passed and enforced by Legos™ ?
 
 
Melissa & Ev
08:29 / 26.09.03


&

 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
01:01 / 29.09.03
Hmm. Well, I'll get on that story idea. Anyway, More ideas. These aren't in any order, just sort of random thoughts.
I think we should try to communicate with whales and dolphins. They're supposed to be as smart as humans, and I personally think they're smarter(for reasons I may reveal later), so Ithink we could learn a lot from them.
Maybe to stop over crowding (part two of my over-population rant) we could shrink ourselves down to a smaller size? Like Ray Palmer, or in Fantastic Journey? Of course, this creates a whole slw of new problems, such as predators, micro-diseases (think: what viruses infect viruses?), etc.
Time is speeding up. At least in my opinion. Prephaps humanity is going to evilve to accomidate this rapidness. I don't know.
More thoughts, anyone?
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
01:40 / 30.09.03
Well, I was suggesting some of my thoughts to some one I know, and they kept bringing up evolution, survival of the fittest and that like. So I decided to talk about that today.
I really think evolution-the way your average Joe on the street sees it*, anyway- is going to become an outdated concept in a few centuries. Wait, stay with me for a moment!
Ok, our perception of our "creation" so to speak has changed radically in the last 200 years. Most people agree with this. However, it's not just the last 200 years. It's all of human history. Science, knowledge, religion, the way we perceive the "true" world as a culture and species changes all the time. The way we look at science is completely different than the way we looked at it at any other period in history. And every new period of history will see science looked at differently again (I'm not sure specifically what I'm referring to with "period in history", it's more of a general term to save me brain cells). So, I don't myself belief "survival of the fittest" is the way the universe works, and I have a feeling that given 500 years, most of the world will agree with me. But I could be wrong.

*: Of course, the problem with this statement is that there's no such thing as the average Joe on the street, everyone contains their own individual beliefs and perceptions, so everyone is different. And because EVERYONE is different, everyone is therefore the same.
 
 
gravitybitch
03:21 / 30.09.03
I just can't help myself....

On the structure(s) of society - are you actually expecting volunteers for the various shit-jobs that exist? (Or volunteers for the various jobs that require a large number of years of training before the trainee is allowed out in public...)

On evolution: the "survival of the fittest" is pretty much a dead concept, although it's still a very pretty sound-bite. The idea I'm familiar with that has the most credibility is sort of the reverse of that - if a particular genome has too many liabilities, it won't survive (Death to the Laggards??), but anything that is more capable than that minimal baseline can and will reproduce.


And, on a similar note, "And because EVERYONE is different, everyone is therefore the same" -- is just sooo wrong. Differences don't cancel each other out, they add up; especially when you're talking about group behavior. If you want something (anything) that will be stable for the longterm, you want a baseline that is as diverse as possible. Monoculture sucks, and there is no accounting for all possible future states; the more diverse your starting population (in genetics or culture or what-have-you) the more likely you'll have a long-term success, simply because you don't know what sort of advantage your future populations might need.
 
  
Add Your Reply