I've always had similar questions about anarchist visions. Even Noam Chomsky's book 'on Anarchism' seemed to skirt/avoid these questions for me.

-Who provisions 'public' goods that are too unprofitable for the corporations or communities to finance? Include public parks, fire brigade, etc. Also defense - unless there is a step change in human consciousness (tell me how/which pathway), will we ever stop having the need to protect ourselves? Would anarchism without a nationalized defense fund work if there were a big, unfriendly country on our borders? or does everyone in the world need to give up arms once and for all for anarchic futures to be realized?

-Also, as hinted in some of the comments by others - how is this future achieved? is it an organic emergent? or is it top down? capitalism in its original form is arguably an organic emergent of human settlement (farming societies stored seeds for the next harvest. of course I am not talking about degenerate, technologically amplified capitalism we might find ourselves trapped in.) My point of view: if this future is an organic emergent, it has a chance of realization. what are the 'drivers' for this systems change (i.e. the loops and archetypes which are driving this transition?).

Asking these out of a desire to understand more and factor into my own thinking,

Thanks,

On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 19:45, mp <mp@aktivix.org> wrote:

Hi,

On 29/09/2021 14:14, Tom Abeles wrote:
> I would be concerned, living in such a world, if I needed life-saving
> medical services from vaccines to heart surgery. Similarly, I would be
> concerned without universities, research and technology which has given us
> solar panels, broadband internet and similar which is imbedded in much of
> what we use on a daily basis. The Buddhist Gross Happiness Index ponders
> these issues.

You hit the nail right on the head here.

Paradigms.

It can be difficult to imagine an alternative reality (though sci-fi
writers have been pushing the boundaries on that for a century or more)
when you are living in a (highly) captive one.

Additionally, if you can imagine different paradigms, think in systems
terms, and hold multiple versions of reality in mind at once, for the
purposes of analysis/evaluation, then you'd still have to choose which
one you'd want to move towards...

Each paradigm has its own pathways and -dependencies, of course. As
Elizabeth Kolbert says in her critical review of climate market hi-tech
- in "Under a White Sky" - this is "a book about people trying to solve
problems created by people trying to solve problems” - or about a
"vicious circle created by its own skewed logic and techno-dependency".

The progress myth is one of the phenomena or memes at the heart of our
trouble - and by trouble, in brief, I mean:

/ climate chaos;
medical state of exception;
and the collapse - in tandem - of global civilisation and the human
immune system.

Hence, vaccines and robotic heart surgery, for instance, are not simply
_advances_, but also well understood as short-term plasters on festering
wounds that result from the separation of nature/culture, elite/the
rest, centres of control/disposable margins and so on. Plasters, that
is, which trap dirt and obscure stratification and thus make the wounds
deeper, while those swimming in the puss - that'd be us - systematically
drown.

Rupa and Patel's recent book is essential reading for
movements/activists on these matters it seems to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXvIkj7grN8

So, I would be concerned if I were living in a world dependent on
industrial hospitals, where the value of plant-based medicine and folk
knowledge was abandoned entirely and buried alongside common sense. On
these issues see also:

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2021/02/how-sustainable-is-high-tech-health-care.html

Finally, on the progress myth - so fundamentally tied up with
European/White Man philosophy, racist politics, and colonial extraction
- it is worth paying attention to new currents in archaeology:

“A profound consideration is underway of the nature of long-term human
history. The major turning points we once identified – the invention of
farming, the growth of cities, and technological change – were not
events, but long term processes, the effects of which were
unpredictable. At the heart of the older stories was the idea of
progress from small, egalitarian human groups moving in pursuit of wild
resources to large, sedentary, hierarchical polities based on mass
production and consumption of food and artefacts. Many popular accounts
still tell a story of progress. These stories ultimately derive from the
19th century, when the inventors of prehistory assumed progress as a
central trait of human history, ranging societies from the primitive to
the civilized. A tale told by the so-called civilized about the rise of
civilization allowed a calm presumption that history had been creating
their personalities and their lifestyle all along. (Gosden 2018: 1)”

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/prehistory-a-very-short-introduction-9780198803515

Take your health into your own hand? Or as Cicero said, quoted without
reference by Kierkegaard:

Any person who reaches their 30th year of living should know themself
well enough to be their own physician....

cheers/mp

--
To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the whole list, select "reply to all".
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radical Ecological Democracy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/12cd68da-9ecb-92f1-2c59-b2fb9536489f%40aktivix.org.