somehow i disliked my latest contribution so i may add something to it
Comparing a bigger scale project to the building of a pyramid there are many people involved, the descision and design is not
managed by a mayority, and if it would be open design there still would be functional and achieveable limits it has to obey.
In a sense of we dont create what we dont need, the question if a pyramid is needed and if the world eccosystem as a whole can have pyramids in certain areas would maybe come first, anyway the micromanagment, the small things that have to be done need an amount of skill not insight to be created,so afterall complied to a global food or housing or acting managment, that means that if you do not work on the insight part, you just do a small part of just acting...in the form of housing or producing food that would mean you dont create what you want ,you create a part of that what is needed.Now housing and food is very diverse, what fits for one doesnt fit for the other, so there can not be one standart but a variety of choices that make still sense to the whole complex( for example a town) as a fact that there are needs and we cant keep the whole world in a natural state as every act effects our sourrounding. So there has to be an overview what is possible, an that already apart of its organisation and funding.Taking swarm behaviour as a reverence to act upon a need or problem, the society recognizes the need of a pyramid, swarms together to build it up while under open design its open for the best upcoming solution nomatter what level of insight or expertise it comes from.Now how can failures in the very descision what is needed and has to be done be prevented, under the obiedience of the laws that define that sustainability must come first? As far as i know humans have not been able untill now to create a biosphere, a sepereated functional eccosystem, so basically can the world be an organized garden with parts that are left for natural happenings, if we cant seperate any regions except islands to leave them as they are , and even those islands are somewhat effected by their coasts to for example the exploit of a total different part of the ocean, or in reality global warming, as a process that origins from totally different parts.So afterall isnt the claim to do everything "right" everywhere, and is it possible or senseful to go for anything less but this? So the effects of every act have to be monitored and come together to a gigantic system of awareness, that offers insight on every level or perspective, afterall that means that one dying lake is a global problem, one unhappy peer is a global problem.From that i mean cant people be reduced to their wishes, like a certain food or livestyle or act, and then the system finds out on what spot of the earth that ideas can be fullfilled, meaning if the need for functional diversity sets a limit, there are just places you cant build houses, or farm a certain kind of fruit.How much space would people occupy if they transparently witness what is available and then find their spot by the given opportunitys that cant be changed, because they depend on a living system within natural boundarys.
So there comes the point where i ask what we have and what we can do if we obbey natural limits.Like in socialism in east germany, it was nessecary to wait a large amount of time till you can have a car...preordering is a buffer for the fullfilling of needs, if i know a town wants a certain amount of orange juice, i can look up how to get it, and if the environment , naturally or indoor as indoor places are already unnatural, can manage the supply, because in every case there can and will be oranges on the planet.
I been to cuba and i remember the people being very happy even in poor conditions because they believed in the system and its fairness, just to lower that idea of people being unhappy with what they can have, now in a total open and producing for the commons world, what diversity can be achieved in stuff people can receive, when theres like on the one hand the option to demand it and on the other hand the option to go for it, in a sense of if orange juice is rare, you have to invest time or give it a higher priority that the commons on the one hand maybe produces more but one the other hand just produces enough for your supply.
In any case like building a pyramid it need a high level of control that every aspect fits together , so the whole object (like a town) does not become a problem for itself.
Within this thought of things have to fit, i miss the data, like supermarkets have an overview of what is needed to refill the shelves, tho they have nothing to do with the production, and for orange juice you can take a part of your room and cultivate an orange tree , if you get the amount of energy for the lights and the plant nutrition.
Now there is natural limits, meaning that in an area where oranges grow naturally you maybe have a surplus of oranges that comes more or less natural and environmental friendly, while in the arctic areas the only option is import or use large amounts of energy for your indoor orange tree, now how mixes the needs and wants up on a larger scale and how can something ever be managed with seperatly viewed places, and limited possibilitys.
P2p and commons oriented thought has to bring an alternative of achieving the supply of people with things and opportunitys to act and create a life and sourounding, while on the other hand not denying the natural limits, which right now are just "of no ones buissness" really, because the eccosystem and its needs are not fully understood and not really taken as limits.
Maybe we are at the point ,where it leaves no choice but accept that we just did not leave nature and make the best or better out of it, so in cases of forest for example, we resettle animals and then have to adjust their population regarding the effect they have on the sourrounding, but that balance that there is, plants that give air and some diversity left, can it be uphold in a manageable state?Its said often the renaturalisation is possible, that nature can up to a certain point, which is , and that is sad, just an abstract thing depending on the scientists perspective, heal itself, but it "heals" on a lower level, you cant just get back to full diversity, you cant re-invent an extincted species and how precise can nature and acting buffer and replace these functions?
Maybe we have to symbiosifly create a giant garden and towns and places seperated from it where people can fullfill their ideas, but who has the authority to decide on those, and enable a micromanagement that goes down to the level that you maybe  want orange juice but what you actually do is help old people for 3 hrs a day to fullfill the nessecary work, in building a pyramid that may be carying stones for 3 hrs, and still indirectly work on the full thing that recognized your demand on orange juice and fullfills it. So what promise can be given to the individual of fullfilling his needs, without total transparency and knowledge on all levels of acting and outcome.
Failure is no option, like, what freedom of choice and what diversity of achievements possible can the individual have within the boundarys of a system.Or better to say in a sense of how michel mentioned internal growth,what can humans achieve with their skills and organising ability, how big are the possible buffers and ressources in reality to create a state of wellbeing for "all" , recognizing that there will always be new demands new ideas and states of waiting for fullfillment, to what standart can a "fair" world really come by todays standart of knowledge that is potentially available- or in a sense of observation (as you cant try to handle a problem you dont witness), and can internal growth change the real life of the humans?
So overall how can there be a concious whole, without reports of the current state on every level, with nothing being more or less "important", and an overview of what is available?
In managment simulation games theres often different levels of perpective from the overview of the current state down to the micromanagment of a certain aspect that only influences the whole and does not stand alone as a solution, the dependencys of each thing to the other is what makes winning or loosing.
So my thought starts that there is waste in ressource first, then there is failure in planning and failure in acting, theres miscalulation of what must and can be long term solution or small term fix, and everything is seperated from higher levels of integrity..
Without a connected and self aware "one" , a concious semi-selfdirected micromanagment can never take place , if a balance means to mix up all into the smallest part and forcing development within dependencys to crossbridge intention and act.
In other words when all should be done right and best, what choices would that leave in reality?
How must things look to work, and as there are limited numbers of demands, like people can only drink so and so much orange juice or a pyramid need only that and that much stones, the data must somehow be there already, but from this knowledge to the acting theres a chain of dependencys in the way , that does not allow micromanagement at all, because we dont work on what is needed but work on whats our job, unaware of what would be needed to have the same outcome.
Value itself doesnt matter. Some maybe value orange juice that they would spend 3 hours a day to grow oranges even though they are experts in house building, some dont, value is absolutely dependent on the individual perspective.
Now a world revolution to me can only mean fair micromanagement on top of social saftey. The proof that diversity of choice and equality can coexsist, can only be given when its known what is available and an overview of what can or could be achieved.You cant just go and try something that has been profen wrong just to have a profit, but there must still be the possibility to fullfill the intentional wish, and thats where the limits come in.You can not have a kingdom or people that serve you when there is equality, but people can serve you naturaly in what u want to achieve, as you matter as much as everyone else.Its like there is no need or wish that is unfullfillable in capitalism by design, but its still a fact that everything needs a time to be achieved, for example a luxary residence still has to be build up, the money has to be "made".
So how can besides that simulations can buffer weird dreams by fullfiling them virtually, peoples dreams be adjusted to the reality and to fairness and equality?
I feel that the surplus or diversity of "having/using/enjoying" left when a micromangement of conciousness would rise is still larger then not only the
average present wellbeing, but even the very elite owned, just because of the reality of what is done with the money.
I feel that there is no need of working more then 3 hrs a day for everyone, if just nothing is done that is not needed, but i cant back that up as there is no data that displays possibility.
I dont know but i would prefer having a surgery done by someone whos just good in precise handwork, without knowing about medicine , if the medicinical procedure and instruments are the best possible, and the how to do is open knowledge, what may be a radical thing but who needs to become for example an expert in dentism, if afterall he does nothing but making holes in teeth and filling them as an act, why would you have to need to study it, when the way how to do it is unquestionable, and it just depends on the skill of hands and eyes , not the knowledge to produce the best result.
In a sense of we are all everything but create ourselves by what we wanna do, there must be always opportunity but also awareness, like you maybe value orange juice, but your lucky that even tho you live in arctic region, orange juice is already produced by the local commons, and you dont need to have your own tree, its just that its limited and your need has to be known so production and supply can be managed.
In a larger scale that means ..hey you dont have to act (at all) unless you cant fullfill your intentional demand, you can not act on your own in a sense of natural limits but you can still accelerate your demand to be fullfilled in all possible ways, it may be to work on a certain thing you like you have to join groups, move to another destination, wait and accept that an orange tree needs time to grow.
So mabye most of all it bothers me that its sort of unproofable that doing paperwork for a company or design adds to gain the value to exchange for things you want is replaceable by just doing nothing but demanding the thing you want, and look up what you can do rather on the subject or for the commons as a whole on a totally different thing or both to just accelerate fullfillment.I feel that with all the waste and unused capacity, unemployment, uneducation, there isnt so much to do afterall to give everyone more or less what he wants needs dreams or desires.
I wish that the fear that equality means conformism would sort of dissapear, by proofing that there is enough choice a commons "owned" world leaves to individual demands, only together and equal does not mean the same for all, depsite the fact that there are limits that have to be accepted, but looking up, what are these limits, there is no data, so people must fear having less possibilitys.
You can try to set up standarts, but these must also from start up include diversity of choice, as you replace capitalistic "you can achieve all" (no matter what it costs others/the world), with commons owned you can achieve all, when this all is just a different all, like for example if your rich you can have a large buffet of all kinds of food , just pick what you like and throw the rest away, you have a large diversity of choice but you still eat a small amount of selected things, you mabye not know what you want next day and thats where the fear comes in i guess...to life with your choice even though you basically still can have everything , because at the end it must fit to what you really use, and is buffered by the speed of sustainable creation possibility.
Even in that, there are no lists about how many people care much about food and how many dont, how many actually buy food in what state of being prepared is known by the markets, some love to cook some dont, some like restaurants some like premade dishes to warm them up, but what would they choose freely if the system builds itself new around every state of demands, on demand, especially when this includes you have a more indirect impact with your acts on the outcome...you cant allow allow all to grow food and not all want to grow there food, but like if theres gardens, they are observed, they are harvested, you affect what grows inside by your demands, you maybe have or have not to participate in the particular peer production to accelerate your access to a certain type of thing....anyway the whole still comes first.
I feel that critiscism of commons owned and managed living, fears the limits for no reason, as they underestimate the capability and diversity of "equal" acess to things people want or need, and oversestimate the work to be done to fullfill promises on every level, they can not, and that is somewhat understandable predict how such world would look like, large kitchens prepare dinners or computers where you order food and have some delivery time with special wishes taking longer time (maybe?)-what would people really need/want?
I remember that video 50 people have been asked what would you do if money was no option, and the answers afterall been a source of hope and trust into my peers that they do not want the absurd, but afterall are very humble and willing to help on problems they see.
So the whole dependency on acting chains , what to learn, what to add to society to play a "role" is unnatural and made up from false believes. If the commons prepares food for large dinners optimized to demands you dont have to cook, but you can still cook, decide to not wanting to be part of that and order the integredience you need for your meal, maybe you can have every meal you like cooked better then you can, but you still want to make it your own, the question maybe is how many really would want to do that, but one thing is sure, the large kitchens have to know that you dont come for food so its not wasted.
How fast a system can react to demands and needs is of basic relevance, and the claim that it can be faster for every single individual if the work is done together, not only applied on the actual misfunctions of the current system -poor areas, starvation that exsists, but for everyone, like a giant win win situtation, can only be given by analysing what we have, can and could do under collectivly intelligent behaviour, within the natural given limits of things on earth to use.
Food, housing and heathcare can not be directed from the individual side without fitting in into larger scale influences, but accepting this does not mean to go for anything less but the best, and that has to be proofen. The "best" , what diversity of individual design for example does that leave open to not have conformism, and i think the choices you can make on most things would still be great, just because the whole world has plenty of unused knowledge and ressource.
But if you build long lasting houses, you cant replace them for every new generation, and the modification that can individualize living may be limited, so what stands against having a large castle just for yourself in capitalism that is more then a room with a standart you have to fit in, what maybe most would fear in a commons owned space, even though they cant clean or heat or maintance their castle alone, a world without servants, what size of personal luxuary can stay?
Is that fear a luxuary problem of the 1% or a general problem even though most do not have the funds to own a castle, they often uphold a dream like winning in the lottery...the reality that could be made better is left outside, because the feel of unlimited possibility is equalized with freedom of choice and ability to self-evolve.
Remember the time where you could achieve everything, conquer the whole known world.....before people have had to accept that they only share one planet- a large bridge to cross in the mind of those who think that they dont have it "that bad".
And thats where and why i ask for the large scale real promise of p2p and the rethinking of a not forgetting the individual dreams commons owned world.
So people can say hey i could not only fit into that, it would still enable me to achieve more then i can in capitalism, in sort of self defined value, like travelling, taking part in activitys that create no value but just joy, even for the 14 hours working manager in a luxary sourrounding a win and not a loose of wellbeing, even though he may not find a better first role in the commons then cleaning up streets 3 hours a day, and his skill in managing unneeded by the commons, and only be valueable in managing simulations, just part of the descision making and with only an indirect impact in the happenings...you cant do big things alone , for tons of reasons why, not the last of them you effect too much people and environment with it, that would not only have to agree on it but share and uphold the outcome. If your an inventer with money today you can just pay people and try, in a commons managed symbiosis you can put in an idea and be part of remixing and adjusting it till it is done, but mabye its abandoned because of incompatibility to natural limits, or just other peoples ideas deeply integreated into dependencysthat do not allow the idea to become reality.
So maybe ...how often can you recreate things till they are great, and what if great becomes disliked....the world is limited.
These are like the questions that arent asked ,because they are to far away from a single perspective of a human arguing, to complex and unspecific as a general thesis.
No doubt theres plenty of space for the acting of the crowds outside the system to "make situations better", but if they do not effect large descisions, the whole will not become better really. If you decide to build up an energy saving house, that does not prevent oil companys to produce oil in the artic and kill the ice bears, fishes or whatever, you dont stop fukushima from being possible again and again, most people have no funds to do so, and one energy saving house is not fullfilling equal living for a region, maybe it isnt even the best solution for housing itself, as it maybe costs more then it saves in the overview.
This comes all from my perspective that we are much further in knowledge then we think, its just unused and not presented in bigger pictures except partially for large companys and associations, that then again are in the best case micromanging without the people involved, like its still a lot- give people fish rather then teach them how to fish, and despite the fact that maybe these people shouldnt fish at all but provide energy and then have a share of fish in the mixture that makes the whole thing sustainable and efficient.
Where can and should be done what for the best outcome is just not asked, because its "utopic" to have that much change, but isnt it possible by now?
Are we afterall fighting for the ressources as there is not enough or do we give away the ressources that are more then we ever need in fighting and missusing them?
The "dictatorship of the commons", what would it really look like with open acess and shared knowledge, at our current state of  technology so that we can say it can serve us all better then capitalism? There is a reason i dont put in that even a small standart can equal up so much and would be a win for all the poor people for there is like no reason if money is debt that there shouldnt be a basic free income that enables concious thought and picking a role in ones own desires, we are already so much in debt that it just doesnt really matter....
I want to crossbridge and find out why exactly revolution must take place , and why it must be on a global level.
Our decisons, or for example those of large companys, already have global impact, and its a myth that the consumer can
control them by what they buy, and the possibilitys of a different approach are unstudied.
Afterall , all could be better if the "descision" makers would not compromise in things, like animal torturing, massfoodproduction, if it would be no option to exploit, by laws, it couldnt have been done, but politics do everything but stop exploits, no, they hand out everything to private competition, demanding low or often no standart of sustainability whatsoever and compromise with the only presented ways the end goal can be achieved., that is "growth" and at the end a "happy" consumer, creation of jobs and all that with no regard of the concequences at all.
All these descision makers are obsolete, they are never trained into whats the outcome of their descision, they always serve egosistic intentions only, they look on large scale development without having any interaction with the micromanagment at all, and they do not have to face the consequences as a human being themselves.
In opposition to that, i feel i have understood the idea of global connection to everyone giving the possibility to micromanage the world in efficiency, and i feel there does not have to be compromises on "ethical" or "moral" basic descisions, or disrespect for the needs of a living nature, and still having acess to large varietys of benefit.
I think that one big change enables all the small changes noone can do, in this world one is just left with the option to complain or see it happen, and if he wants to better it the dependencys he cant all calculate in function as border, in a sense you cant fix that if that isnt fixed and that cant be fixed because...we depend on it.
And the absolute sadness in that is, we could all just have a full stop, start food supply, housing , medical care and energy production on a global level and then build up from there, we have spare time , tons of from instant, and can just then make things better, go for the things we want just by mentioning we would want it...we would find were almost never alone with a demand and together one can plain and simple reach more for everyone, and that can be individual and diverse because of the technology enabling us sooo much.
Forgive them because they dont know what they are doing is still totally valid, but the people do not have to be educated in every subject, the only thing that has to be done is making knowledge available for all perspectives, showing the dependencys that exsist, and then just working the list to self-fullfill the mission, observing of every aspect is not taking away privacy as a value its making privacy obsolete by the lack of resulting exploit-ability. If you sing a song and dont want to share it its fine,it only gains value when its been listened to anyway, but you cant in a commons owned space use a loud microphone for it and expose the people to it, and then if they want to relisten or remix it ask for a fee.You can share a song and then be happy its played loud for many people that decided to want it, or be happy you are asked to perform it and then having created a value that some may consider high, and from this demand thats then on you, you can give/trade it on demand for other things the commons produces and that cant be produced from you because you are busy singing.If you sing horrible you just have to accept that the commons doesnt want your contribution, you can still sing all day in your private space, if you dont turn it to loud ,lol
That leads to being unwanted and unneeded, if you have everything for free what would you do...we all life from other people reflecting our acts, we want our affords to be honored and appreciated, but we all have different levels of skill.
Doesnt the optimisation of working for the common good offer plenty of possibilitys to bring yourself in, and on the other hand...isnt it mabye true that most people would not have to work at all, that the real work actually could be way more rare then we think, so that doing nothing is the hardest part?
That also leads to being proud of oneselve, take a reservation for animals, its gotta be protected by planes and jeeps so noone is coming to shoot for example elephants for their teeth, they can not say hey all you people that have no income, whats your intentional wish, like enough money for a farm, and we will give you the money and land if you just dont go after elephant really...besides if you just take the goal of having enough money to life decent when your old and cant do things is an abstract number....whats enough money for saftey?
If you would ask someone who paid his farm with the money making from elephant teeth if hes proud, he would maybe say he isnt proud of killing the elephants but it was the only option he saw to feed his familiy, and hes proud he now can give his children a farm so they dont have to do crime to survive....and that didnt fix the society around him, saying that his children maybe had a talent to become artisits or scientists, he didnt build up schools and infrastructure , that would have overall had greater success for the intentional wish like having life easier for his kids, he had to decide on the limits he guess will exsist for his children and himself, and maybe farming is not very effiecient at that place at all compared to what would be efficient as a whole.
Most leaders, politicians and many many rich people donate or engage in charity, and from most perspectives, you cannot say that they dont do good things, and thats like a real problem too, individualy, they are no great exploiters and you cant track down the exploit happened from what they decided . The chain is abstract, people can be proud for many reasons even if they did only wrong from a different perspective...no one is perfect right?
I argue that afterall a commons owned world taking serious, can shortcut and clean from abstarction the initial goals people have with what they have to do for it, and the limits can prsent the "why" in a way its understood from all perspectives.
Take products that are not  crucial for surviving like beauty products or nose corrections for beauty, if we would know we are hard on ressources for survival, it would be easy to say we cant produce them, if we are on the edge of what the exsisting doctors can do to cure real sick people, they can not take time for nose corrections, but...where are we really as a whole?
And where could we be ?
Right now its just a fact beauty products and nose corrections have a market, and the disregarded fact is what is the eccological and society-wise cost of it.
A world without beauty products without this without that...when it comes to communism that all looks so triste, but is that really true or is it fake?
The diversity of commons owned space, can we make more then guesses on that, false promises, or is there a way to work that out...besides its easier to come with global warming and exticntion of the humans themselves as an argument of why we have to change anyway.
A world without crime ...if sattelites and webcams traffic all movement or most movement, it would be pretty easy to rewind and look up who commited any crime whatsoever, crime and getting away with it would be just no option, not achieveable, but how do people get their drugs? Drugs have a hughe market and they are produced a lot, now theres uruguay for example saying we will produce marihuana and sell it. Now people under the influence of drugs , should they drive cars, would you trust a stoned doctor doing surgery on you? It seems unhandle-able to "have the best" from all sides, without honesty, but how you can assure people tell the truth without control?
I ususaly like to argue that more control is great when it comes with less judgement, meaning in this case, if you are a doctor and now want to take drugs, you can just stop being a doctor, take a time out, wouldnt that be easily possible when u dont have to work as a doctor to have social safety, you cant do it when your to old anyway, on the other hand theres plenty of things that you can still do with your medical knowledge no matter how stoned you are, you just maybe shouldnt do surgery anymore, everyone looking you up can see you take drugs, but theres no need to judge you.
If medical care is "produced" by the commons, and the commons is trying to make it the most efficient, it just needs to know that you will not be able to do the job. In a larger scale that means , how many people for example would exclude themselves from being in a relieable state of skill from taking drugs.
Maybe an example for swarm behaviour would be what lately happend when german rivers went over and floated the citys, some people made up a map and added when sand is used to make barriers, so people themselves "swarmed" there and helped...stoned people can still carry sand.
Anyway that doenst mean the comons dictatorship as i see it would have every doctor tested once in a while if hes drug free, no collective awareness would know he wanted and took some, its aware of what drugs are created and where they are supplied to first.
For some such may sound scary but is it really? If you play a game and you know you cant cheat, you would not THINK of trying it...efficiency can must and would be to eliminate "false" ways upfront.
So there simply IS no crime, because its impossible to do it, a world without feeling guilty by design, because "wrong" is fought and not "unallowed".
That means the recreating of rules and laws as a whole, giving it a totally different meaning. Like many americans argue they need a gun for protection, some use guns as a sport, they never shoot at humans, now if protection is not nessecary, there still can be places people can try or enjoy shooting guns, its just fit in into a community like its most harmless, and un-exploitable.
And people dont want what they never came across.People that only know bow and arrows cant "want" a gun because they dont know what it is, or what they can do with it...meaning that even if you know there are guns, but you cant do other then shooting at targets on a certain area, it may totally loose atraction, its no more giving you any power, you cant take one outside you cant feel more powerful from it, all you can do is try it and think of how it could have felt back when it has had a certain role in a society that is history.
Collective awareness , how deep can and must and will it go, when technically the awareness itself comes anyway.Like if all outside areas are monitored, and all that can be looked up by everyone, you could decide to watch someone, for example someone you find sexual atractive, but if the one watched can recognize that hes watched, he can still go and ask, hey why do you look at me so much, a large scale thing becomes a small scale thing again....as if you life in a natural tribe and being watched by someone directly, and afterall we cant stop ourselves from watching things.
We fear things that can "control" us , but we dont understand that "control" is just a form of awarness that looses its dark sides when its shared again.When behaviour can be corrected from the very beginning, there doesnt need to be any punishment, and that still wouldnt us all make conform slaves of some "public order", no you can totally live outside the norm when you have because the system adjusts itself around every tiny aspect of being.In the case of being watched, you tell the person watching you hey im not interested in you, and if it continues you just life with the unharmful fact and say hey if some people want to spend their precious time in watching me, i must look kinda great.... .The person could also follow the other but he cant harm the person really, everyone would know he did, it could at least only happen once....and there it comes to -what is any law if you cant control its been obeyed.Where is the closest peer getting the alert- rape in progress- help/fix that?
And more of all -can we come to a state where that is not nessecary. Or the question what could be really done to have the "Best" working solution, how "bad" are people really?
Do we need some people that go to a person that follows another and say hey you are going a bit to far in following that person, it mentioned it dislikes it, do not try to harm the person, we are watching you more closely now, like it would maybe happen in a small tribe anyway? Or is that TOO much control and scary?
Do we need to fear our peers potential off acting against all odds?
Do we want people that have watching others that behave suspicious, or a machine that does that, and if so, how often would such unpredictable situations accur anyway?
Especially when there is no punishment , just a reduction of rights....lets take an example....im being watched a lot because i like to look up females i cant get...is that an acceptable "punishment" ?
There might always be cases where a fight or a conflict  takes place , but dont we maybe overestimate their importance in a much much much "saver" world by design?
Just because in modern countrys or large towns people tend to not know their neighbours, why do they really have to fear them more then in a small village everyone knows each other and the doors are all open all night?
-cant there be a system that wants to know you sort of, instead of wants to control you, and with your needs and acts it learns to know you, but wants only to help and correct you being happy like caring parents would do with their children?
Not the hard hand of justice, and most of all no mind control, but just seeing and accepting and regulating the FACTS that exsist anyway.
Afterall so many ask for a radical change- people that observe nature, crime, starvation, conflicts, the shape of the internet, "big brother", privacy , whatever, without having any idea of what we would be capable of if we really "all" would work on just that by the design of the system that we all criticise in aspects.
One answer would be tendencys....like theres less robbery when theres more social safety, less exploit when theres more insight, but how many think about the micromanagement as a giant exsisthing thing and the fact that we are now by internet potentially all connected in a new way and what that could really do for us if we dont compete for a living and exclude things from it,but (have to?) include everything into it and negotiate a "better" state of wellbeing for everyone between EVERYONE involved into every subject.
Afterall one cant look up everything, but together we can.
Look at crowdcrafting.org and then imagine for a second not seperated groups but one big system OF semi seperated groups working like that on every issue.
Who assures that theres always enough people/ will to keep up what is needed, where is the motivation if there is no revenue in value that you can take as a goal?
What are the individual goals when your impact is limited as just one of many equal forces?
LIke now you say look i am famous and rich and have 6 cars and i worked my ass of for it and now im all happy with it maybe, what has a world of equality to offer for me other then appreciation of my effords...my status cannot be seen by everyone i pass,for the bypassing stranger i look same as everyone else, despite the clothes i wear and the hairdo i choose, and my body i worked on or didnt.
For that i really think, how dependend have we become on false values anyway? Many want to be "special", but everyone is already special by design, its all just input and output of humans brains.
So do we have loosers, ugly people, what do they do to have people smiling at them when they cant buffer it with social status for example- are the natural attributes then of more importance?
I hope and think we underestimate 2 things that is on the one hand the opportunitys to achieve things in equality, the importance of them when efford fits into subject related uncorrupted collective acting on the other.
Of course we then have to face reality more then now, we cant cheat anymore, we cant become rich to pay many whores for our sexual pleasure anymore for example, but we can still find the one person that will love us, all we would need is to accept and recognize nothing but one thing -reality we can only change as much as one human can from his perspective.
SO what we gonna do-keep on fighting against each other for the "Most" or can we together go for "the best"- can we start wanting the "best" and is that what crossbridges the different perspectives of people that stand and argue against the system, is that thought close enough to what is needed to start a movement with a goal?
Fight failure itself by a system that helps us focus and find our real goals, and on the other hand limits and guides but also restricts us on what is possible that-at the end of influence chains -at the end tells us what "ellbowroom" we have on every aspect -cause it has at the end to come out that we dont loose our planet, our eccosystem, our nature, ...gains sustainability.
To me its just to find words and arguments for something i FEEL so absolutely easy... the teachments religions have, songs like "imagine" .cant we give everyone what he needs to survive.
Complexity is overrated i guess...and the answer is afterall pretty simple, how do you hack every code- lol te easiest answer is ...start it and keep trying till its done. We ALWAYS work with finite numbers nomatter how complex something is.
As a system you can have just people with a program simply asking are you happy or not, the answer turns red or green on a map, we can then look that up and see theres maybe regions of sad people, but we can also work the list and go ask every red spot why, on a map again we can then compare people with the same issue of being unhappy, maybe we need a lot beauty products because people are alwaays unhappy with their apprearance most. BUT we dont know, we dont have the big pictures , real pictures we have nothing of what uncorrupted global connection has in thinkable possibilitys, and we must and will avoid that to keep up the system that feeds us.
What can michels impact be to ecuador? Will they all get computers, a basic social saftey as an example of things being a bit better in a nation as a defined group/location thingi?
So that that analyses can be made and these can then be arguments of working solutions that then can be addapted by other places seperated from each other? Its a long way from a place with great natural diverity and natural ressource to a small village in a desert region, or a highly urbanised area like a giantic town.
When has the time come to force world leaders to come together and make themselves obsolete by making a change-building that what at the end all ask for, a living earth and wellbeing for all.
As soon as an opportunity is real, like we dont technically need books anymore if all can be read on a computer screen, and everyone has a computer, when has the time come we can safe the paper, say that its wrong to still produce them... .
Can we easily say if noone has to live from making books and everyone has access to written stuff over acess to computers , that is the state we need to reach?
Copyrights....what is an idea worth when its kept secret anyway, a song gains value from others listening to it...cant all be good if we really dont do it for the money,-what is value really? many people wanting what you do maybe is real personal value, but how would that look like really without adds and companys making stuff pulic known for example, wouldnt we oversee talent if others that look it up if it could be successful dont do it first-captilasm, analyse a market for the fact if a product is working?
How sorted can data be, ....see it looks so complicated all , but it is a fact you only have a short period of living, you can right now listen to all comercially successful music, but u already cant listen to all music on youtube in a liftime , and imagine 1000 years passing by, how many music will then be stored in the pool of available music, successful or not.
I claim that we redfine everything anyway, but we can focus on benefit right now if we make p2p as i understood it in michels "unclearified" vision, of ....for example the fall of roman empire ...we make it the real flag of a movement, by working out it great scale promises.
The internet is  corrupted we all know it, there is no plattform where "all" can say if or if they are not happy with the system....what would be the simplest argument, but not all even blame the system for being unhappy themselves.
Tv is not meant to give us they whys for disaster, at best it will tell us about the disaster.We can blame certain people with certain interests for fukushima being able to happen, but afterall isnt just "the system" who is to blame, humans alone are ALL replaceable in how we handle the world right now, its okay our politicans cant fix it, because they somehow HAVE to work within the system, we can take the most honest leaders but would still ALWAYS have one "stupid" human, nomatter how eductated or wise he would be, nothing compared to any form of collective intelligence -and that what is say- would be possible NOW. And this NOW is why i write stuff here or to michel to force more radical thought, and the creation of a movement.
If we just take decision making levels as they are now and FORCE them to obey arguments that can be given by collective thought ,like what is a THINK TANK of great thinkers if they work on the wrong questions such as how to fight terrorism, we of course get our conversations tracked for words like bomb right now...we never fight why there is and we always do one thing and that is collect more data, we collect who buys chemicals, we collect videos we raise awareness, but what kind of awareness, we gain control but what kind of control.
We fight crime with control anyway, what if we have total control in such hands-with all the punishment...we have for example thousands of people in prision for drug related issues-but why- we can only be successful in that thought anway if we stop all from taking drugs, hey prohibition didnt work AT ALL, and the only answer will be sort of total control anyway...untill what happens? People forget about drugs because a system doesnt make it available? You can grow weed in your home indoor, but if the energy is controled you can easily find out who makes himself suspicious for using a lot energy.
We cant win against so much data anyway, we HAVE to start to use it wisely, we will not stop to evolve our skills in finding out what is going on. We can look at a crimescene and find out the dna code of a rapist for example, we only need to have had hand on ..well a familiy member maybe who donated blood, to close in who was it, this process of having things easy to explain will continue anyway, but if we continue acting on the world like we do and the warnings of people on things like globalwarming are true, we will just be left with more prcise blame of people who made descisions, and are maybe just dead now and anyway you cant make a bad happening not have happend if you punish the one you find "guilty".
We can keep us all under control if we know us all and we can know us all by the data we share about ourselves.
Right now noone wants that data, noone has that data, and we will never go for the whys and understand them if we dont see and even fight what we have, data processing and global connection of everyone to basically everything.
If social insecurity is the cause of many misbehaviour, isnt it time to say yes we stop that FIRST and cant we do it in many many ways NOW if we just would have the leaders REALLY focus on it.
If there is NO reason a free basic income as long as there is money isnt possible, dont we have to demand it globally?
But isnt it on the other hand so that on rare goods then just prices raise and we still have no access to equality if we dont change the very routines like markets-captialism, monocultures, company, brands adds....?
I personally think a basic income could be a great start but im aware im just one stupid human. But those who claim they are wise, how could they still defend the system if p2p thought WOULD have real arguments on how exactly things can be managed.
I feel the data is there, its known we produce enough food, there WOULD be ways to distribute it globally, at least at some "starting" standart.WE could end poverty now, but how would that look like and how to make that interesting for the average consumer thats okay with "his standart" , to "mobilize the masses" against starvation for example that is just not a morale thing, everyone knows having no food is a "bad" thing.

Damn is wish i could write and really explain what i mean.I hope if someone reads it it has some value whatsoever, i kinda feel its nothing we dont all know somehow, and its far from what would be needed to explain it to everyone.