Individual vs. Collective

Taylor Edwards80 said:The divide between the individual and the collective is a false dichotomy—essentially just a theoretical foundation used to justify totalitarianism..

Wait, what?? Why??

Lisa Jackson7 said:I get how things look right now... but I'm talking about the potential for things to go a different way down the road.
Apparently, some immigrant from last year's wave responded to a reporter by saying "networking doesn't build community." Basically, despite having a smartphone glued to their hand 24/7, that sense of belonging is still totally broken.
Look, we aren't all wired the same way, but for a huge chunk of people, "efficient transit and high-speed tech" is no substitute for actually feeling connected to a place... in a physical, local sense.

That doesn't mean I don't see your point, though...

The sense of community is definitely under threat, but I honestly don't see a cure for this particular ailment anytime soon.

Small communities in the past were organic and functional because they were self-sufficient. Their main business was farming and a few local trades. Trading with other towns was minimal, almost optional. Today, none of that remains, and small, organic communities just aren't possible anymore. Our needs have grown exponentially, and exchange is now global and constant. Today, the entire world functions as one massive, interdependent, organic community. It's a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

Sam Martinez9 said:

The Knights Templar suggests:

The world we experience isn't reality itself, but merely a fraction of it.

It's all highly perishable goods, considering the length of this journey and the struggle involved.

It is entirely possible that there exists a dimension of reality completely inaccessible to our senses, and by extension, our lived experience. If so, we can know absolutely nothing about it. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply lying.

Reality only becomes available to us at the exact moment we possess the capacity to experience it.

Everything—and I mean everything—is in flux; therefore, everything is *highly perishable goods*. Everything is subject to change; nothing remains static.

Change is universal, affecting both the sublime and the mediocre. You can distinguish quality by how that change manifests: the high-quality elements evolve through constant refinement and upgrading, whereas the mediocre ones simply undergo decay and disintegration.

I really dig that bolded part. 👍

In my book, this is one of the better posts in the thread:

That aligns with the idea that sacrificing one's life serves as proof that a person views themselves as something greater than their mere animalistic, biological body. Humans simply know they aren't just that—they refuse to be "just" that. Or, quite frankly, life isn't worth much if it's reduced to nothing more than biology.
Sigmund

So, how do you reconcile that with "Reality only becomes accessible once we have the capacity to experience it"?

Are your view and Sigmund's at odds, or am I missing something here?

Lisa Jackson7 said:I never said size, population density, or raw numbers were the *only* things defining a political system's vibe.

There are plenty of reasons why, say, Athens and Sparta didn't have the same social setup...
But let's be real—massive countries (territory-wise and population-wise) have almost always been run by autocrats throughout history.

Sure, lately, liberal ideals have been seeping into smaller, tight-knit communities and shifting individual and social mindsets.

But I think the point of Rousseau's argument is that you can't expect democracy to actually kick off inside massive, authoritarian despotisms.

Actually... when you look at modern political "unions" like the European Union trying to force rapid integration and tighter control, management issues just blow up... and democratic processes fall apart because they just can't stay efficient.

The crux of the governance issue—specifically, authoritarianism—arises when a larger entity begins meddling in the lives and operations of smaller communities where it simply has no business being.

Society is a complex web composed of individuals, families, labor unions, hobbyist groups, local municipalities, cities, states, and international coalitions, alongside various ideological and political factions...

All these layers interact and influence one another constantly.

However, there is a massive distinction between mere influence and actual decision-making power. A larger collective will always attempt to dictate the actions and behaviors of the smaller ones.

True freedom is measured by the autonomy of the smaller group; it’s defined by how little the larger entity interferes in their day-to-day existence.

If a father dictates every move, every job, and every cent owned by his children, you have an authoritarian household. But if those family members make their own life choices while coming together to decide on matters vital to the family unit as a whole, then you have a democratic community.

Taking this to a macro level—and frankly, things haven't improved lately—the government intervenes in countless areas where it really shouldn't.

Look at family law, for example. The state dictates how a family should function, sometimes even attempting to define what constitutes a marriage or a family unit. Or consider reproductive laws, where the state attempts to mandate exactly what a woman should do when she becomes pregnant...

In the old days, laws were handed down by a king or an emperor, and everyone had to obey without question. Disobedience was met with brutal consequences, often death.

Today, in supposedly democratic societies, laws are passed through representative processes—people organize into political parties whose entire purpose is to interpret the public will. They validate their interpretations during elections. However, politics has morphed into a career path. Politicians promise the moon during a campaign, only to pivot once they're actually in office. Often, they can't even fulfill the basic promises they made just to get the power necessary to pass legislation.

As a result, voters are almost always left feeling cheated. This is why many people today don't feel like they live in a democracy, yet they look in all the wrong places to find the people who "stole" it from them.

You can see this clearly in America as well. It isn't the fault of some distant international body or the EU that our democratic spirit feels lacking; we are responsible for our own decline.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The sense of community is definitely under threat, but I honestly don't see a cure for this particular ailment anytime soon.

Small communities in the past were organic and functional because they were self-sufficient. Their main business was farming and a few local trades. Trading with other towns was minimal, almost optional. Today, none of that remains, and small, organic communities just aren't possible anymore. Our needs have grown exponentially, and exchange is now global and constant. Today, the entire world functions as one massive, interdependent, organic community. It's a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

Personally, I'm holding out hope that some kind of breakthrough in technology might eventually allow us to build new versions of relatively self-sufficient communities.

Regarding the title of this thread, I suspect there’s a fundamental friction between the individual and the collective, provided we don't mistake individualism for mere selfishness.

The more self-centered an individual becomes, the more they inevitably clash with the group. A truly selfish person often pursues a goal not because they actually need the outcome, but simply to ensure someone else doesn't get it.

hiddeneagle98 said:Personally, I'm holding out hope that some kind of breakthrough in technology might eventually allow us to build new versions of relatively self-sufficient communities.

The primary prerequisite for that vision, however, is pacifism—essentially, finding ways to resolve all conflicts through peaceful means.

Without that stability, small communities simply cannot be self-reliant, primarily because they would always require a military presence to defend them from external threats.

And we know how that works: a military is only as effective as its scale, relying on the sheer numbers and raw power of a larger population to maintain security.

swifttiger75 said:I really dig that bolded part. 👍

In my book, this is one of the better posts in the thread:

That aligns with the idea that sacrificing one's life serves as proof that a person views themselves as something greater than their mere animalistic, biological body. Humans simply know they aren't just that—they refuse to be "just" that. Or, quite frankly, life isn't worth much if it's reduced to nothing more than biology.
Sigmund

So, how do you reconcile that with "Reality only becomes accessible once we have the capacity to experience it"?

Are your view and Sigmund's at odds, or am I missing something here?

I am still in the process of constructing my own worldview, so I find myself in conflict with my own thoughts quite frequently.

Regarding Sigmund's assertion, I don't see a contradiction.

A human being must possess an *animalistic* body in order to renounce it. One must have a life in order to give it up.

As far as we know—or more accurately, as far as I am aware—there is no experience and no life without a physical body. A human body equates to a human experience; a cat's body dictates a cat's experience; a bat's body defines a bat's experience.

A person might choose to sacrifice their life for various reasons, including those that Sigmund pointed out.

hiddeneagle98 said:Personally, I'm holding out hope that some kind of breakthrough in technology might eventually allow us to build new versions of relatively self-sufficient communities.

Maybe it will, but does anyone actually want that? Historically, self-sufficient communities were born out of necessity, not because they were some utopia of choice and pleasure. Modern life proves that when people have the option, they choose to live outside of tightly knit groups. Human connections tend to become temporary and superficial.

hiddeneagle98 said:Personally, I'm holding out hope that some kind of breakthrough in technology might eventually allow us to build new versions of relatively self-sufficient communities.

Take this one example... near New York City, they're looking at finishing construction by 2018.

The 'Tesla of eco-villages' is developing off-grid villages that grow their own food and generate their own power

The company building and running these spots lets residents cut down their monthly bills by working on a farm managed by the company staff.

Every house gets its own yard where people can plant whatever they want.

Depending on the vibe—and obviously the location—these places hit about 50% to 100% of their own food needs...
depending on the geography, obviously.

Besides this specific project, just Google stuff like "intentional communities" or "eco villages" if you want a basic idea of what we're talking about...
But look, to actually get the full picture, you'd need more intel from people who have actually lived in them, etc.

For instance, check out
10 Utopian Intentional Communities with Distinct Values

Naturally, how much comfort you get compared to modern living standards varies wildly...

Lisa Jackson7 said:Take this one example... near New York City, they're looking at finishing construction by 2018.

The 'Tesla of eco-villages' is developing off-grid villages that grow their own food and generate their own power

The company building and running these spots lets residents cut down their monthly bills by working on a farm managed by the company staff.

Every house gets its own yard where people can plant whatever they want.

Depending on the vibe—and obviously the location—these places hit about 50% to 100% of their own food needs...
depending on the geography, obviously.

Besides this specific project, just Google stuff like "intentional communities" or "eco villages" if you want a basic idea of what we're talking about...
But look, to actually get the full picture, you'd need more intel from people who have actually lived in them, etc.

For instance, check out
10 Utopian Intentional Communities with Distinct Values

Naturally, how much comfort you get compared to modern living standards varies wildly...

To me, a truly self-sufficient community would be one that provides its members with everything they actually need to thrive.

Human needs moved past the basic requirements of food, water, and heat a long time ago.

A self-sufficient community should offer someone interested in astronomy a sufficient number of like-minded peers; the same goes for a chess enthusiast, or someone who loves hiking... and I could go on forever.

In reality, a person can only truly satisfy their niche interests within larger social structures—that is, societies with a higher population density. It is only there that a hiker might find fifty other people to hit the trails with and talk shop about their latest treks.

When you look at the technical side, even the fundamental tools of communication (the internet, major highways, etc.) require much larger societal frameworks to build and maintain.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The sense of community is definitely under threat, but I honestly don't see a cure for this particular ailment anytime soon.

Small communities in the past were organic and functional because they were self-sufficient. Their main business was farming and a few local trades. Trading with other towns was minimal, almost optional. Today, none of that remains, and small, organic communities just aren't possible anymore. Our needs have grown exponentially, and exchange is now global and constant. Today, the entire world functions as one massive, interdependent, organic community. It's a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

We've been stuck in "band-aid" mode for way too long...

I think the massive screw-up is how people think... like, they assume some big authority—maybe in D.C. or some other major hub, if not the whole damn country—will just announce a new set of rules on prime-time TV one day and suddenly we have a new order.
If that actually happens—God forbid—it definitely won't be what I'm talking about.

I'm exaggerating here—not saying you think like that—just trying to say the "cure" is popping up in tons of different places... and it works locally.

Small-scale communities back in the day were organic and actually worked because they could hold their own. The main gig was growing food and maybe some basic local trades. They didn't need to trade much with anyone else; it wasn't even necessary. Today, none of that remains—small, organic communities aren't even possible anymore. Our needs are massive now, and everything is tied to intense, global exchange. Nowadays, the entire world acts like one giant, interconnected, functional community. It’s a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

The world isn't an "organic community," not even politically... except maybe in the early stages (think international organizations). Organic communities are family, clans, tribes, small towns, neighborhoods, maybe a small startup... anything bigger than that is usually political.
We all know about globalization... but where we go from here is a toss-up. There are multiple scenarios out there, and some might even run side-by-side... one option is "commonization"—basically meeting most of your own needs right where you live using local resources. And honestly, current tech trends are actually making that happen.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Maybe it will, but does anyone actually want that? Historically, self-sufficient communities were born out of necessity, not because they were some utopia of choice and pleasure. Modern life proves that when people have the option, they choose to live outside of tightly knit groups. Human connections tend to become temporary and superficial.

Just because they were built out of necessity doesn't mean people weren't finding ways to satisfy deep needs that modern society fails to meet nearly as well.

I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone what they should want, whether they should join a community or be a "global citizen." One of the first things I ever posted here was that paper by Singelis & Gelfand & Triandis...

Horizontal & Vertical Individualism & Collectivism i dakle

Look, people aren't built the same—based on those typologies, everyone's looking for a totally different kind of "perfect" society. One person would feel suffocated in a tight-knit commune, while someone else would just wither away in a massive city like NYC, feeling completely isolated.
That’s exactly why I think arguing about one single "ideal" society for everyone is a total waste of breath.
We aren't clones. Maybe we're finally seeing a real shot at "intentional communities"... who knows.

Plus, let's be real: people pick what they can actually get their hands on. Choosing your "ideal" way of life isn't exactly like grabbing a bunch of bananas at Walmart.
We've all been conditioned by this crappy system... which basically "forces" us to see certain social structures as the only viable options.
I think you mentioned before—if I recall right—that your family was full of "individualists" where personal choice was strictly respected... so it makes total sense why you'd look at things through that lens.

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

Man, I just love precise definitions. 🎉

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

Even > couldn't have phrased that better. ☕

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

That’s a classic believer's spin. When someone doesn't buy into your bedtime story, you just hint that they weren't being "metaphorical" enough. It's basically saying the problem is with them because they're taking things too literally.

Look, I'd much rather be considered simple-minded on my own terms than "smart" by being part of a group this irrational.

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

Can you actually point to a single example of a "civilized and stable society"?

hollowpuma762 said:Traits born out of sheer negligence. They aren't something you just drop into the world at birth.

The whole concept of an "inner soul" is just someone's fancy label for something else.

A Soul isn't some isolated thing; it manifests in everything, from basic organisms to complex life forms. Individuality is just one facet of the Soul.

You're getting hung up on literal terminology here.

A moral code is the bedrock of any civilized, stable society.

They're analogous.

And why not digital ones? 🤣

Do you actually have anything concrete to say, or are you just trolling?

Lisa Jackson7 said:We've been stuck in "band-aid" mode for way too long...

I think the massive screw-up is how people think... like, they assume some big authority—maybe in D.C. or some other major hub, if not the whole damn country—will just announce a new set of rules on prime-time TV one day and suddenly we have a new order.
If that actually happens—God forbid—it definitely won't be what I'm talking about.

I'm exaggerating here—not saying you think like that—just trying to say the "cure" is popping up in tons of different places... and it works locally.

Small-scale communities back in the day were organic and actually worked because they could hold their own. The main gig was growing food and maybe some basic local trades. They didn't need to trade much with anyone else; it wasn't even necessary. Today, none of that remains—small, organic communities aren't even possible anymore. Our needs are massive now, and everything is tied to intense, global exchange. Nowadays, the entire world acts like one giant, interconnected, functional community. It’s a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

The world isn't an "organic community," not even politically... except maybe in the early stages (think international organizations). Organic communities are family, clans, tribes, small towns, neighborhoods, maybe a small startup... anything bigger than that is usually political.
We all know about globalization... but where we go from here is a toss-up. There are multiple scenarios out there, and some might even run side-by-side... one option is "commonization"—basically meeting most of your own needs right where you live using local resources. And honestly, current tech trends are actually making that happen.

Just because they were built out of necessity doesn't mean people weren't finding ways to satisfy deep needs that modern society fails to meet nearly as well.

I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone what they should want, whether they should join a community or be a "global citizen." One of the first things I ever posted here was that paper by Singelis & Gelfand & Triandis...

Horizontal & Vertical Individualism & Collectivism i dakle

Look, people aren't built the same—based on those typologies, everyone's looking for a totally different kind of "perfect" society. One person would feel suffocated in a tight-knit commune, while someone else would just wither away in a massive city like NYC, feeling completely isolated.
That’s exactly why I think arguing about one single "ideal" society for everyone is a total waste of breath.
We aren't clones. Maybe we're finally seeing a real shot at "intentional communities"... who knows.

Plus, let's be real: people pick what they can actually get their hands on. Choosing your "ideal" way of life isn't exactly like grabbing a bunch of bananas at Walmart.
We've all been conditioned by this crappy system... which basically "forces" us to see certain social structures as the only viable options.
I think you mentioned before—if I recall right—that your family was full of "individualists" where personal choice was strictly respected... so it makes total sense why you'd look at things through that lens.

Despite how much people love to demonize modern life, the world today actually offers us far more freedom and choice than any previous era ever did—in almost every single aspect of existence. People vary, they make different choices, and honestly, that's the whole reason our society is so complex and vibrant. If anything, that diversity is only going to increase. The idea of a universal "ideal" society is nonsense if you're talking about some forced, one-size-fits-all lifestyle. But an "ideal" society for the individual would look very different. It would mean a broad social framework that grants individuals or specific groups the freedom to live "their way." We aren't actually that far from achieving that.

Lisa Jackson7 said:We've been stuck in "band-aid" mode for way too long...

I think the massive screw-up is how people think... like, they assume some big authority—maybe in D.C. or some other major hub, if not the whole damn country—will just announce a new set of rules on prime-time TV one day and suddenly we have a new order.
If that actually happens—God forbid—it definitely won't be what I'm talking about.

I'm exaggerating here—not saying you think like that—just trying to say the "cure" is popping up in tons of different places... and it works locally.

Small-scale communities back in the day were organic and actually worked because they could hold their own. The main gig was growing food and maybe some basic local trades. They didn't need to trade much with anyone else; it wasn't even necessary. Today, none of that remains—small, organic communities aren't even possible anymore. Our needs are massive now, and everything is tied to intense, global exchange. Nowadays, the entire world acts like one giant, interconnected, functional community. It’s a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

The world isn't an "organic community," not even politically... except maybe in the early stages (think international organizations). Organic communities are family, clans, tribes, small towns, neighborhoods, maybe a small startup... anything bigger than that is usually political.
We all know about globalization... but where we go from here is a toss-up. There are multiple scenarios out there, and some might even run side-by-side... one option is "commonization"—basically meeting most of your own needs right where you live using local resources. And honestly, current tech trends are actually making that happen.

Just because they were built out of necessity doesn't mean people weren't finding ways to satisfy deep needs that modern society fails to meet nearly as well.

I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone what they should want, whether they should join a community or be a "global citizen." One of the first things I ever posted here was that paper by Singelis & Gelfand & Triandis...

Horizontal & Vertical Individualism & Collectivism i dakle

Look, people aren't built the same—based on those typologies, everyone's looking for a totally different kind of "perfect" society. One person would feel suffocated in a tight-knit commune, while someone else would just wither away in a massive city like NYC, feeling completely isolated.
That’s exactly why I think arguing about one single "ideal" society for everyone is a total waste of breath.
We aren't clones. Maybe we're finally seeing a real shot at "intentional communities"... who knows.

Plus, let's be real: people pick what they can actually get their hands on. Choosing your "ideal" way of life isn't exactly like grabbing a bunch of bananas at Walmart.
We've all been conditioned by this crappy system... which basically "forces" us to see certain social structures as the only viable options.
I think you mentioned before—if I recall right—that your family was full of "individualists" where personal choice was strictly respected... so it makes total sense why you'd look at things through that lens.

To actually function, I need a massive amount of stuff that my immediate neighborhood or local government doesn't produce. I need a car, a laptop, a smartphone... and I happen to love bananas. All of that comes from somewhere, and honestly, pretending I don't care about the supply chain would be pure delusion. I can't survive without them. Plus, I have capital invested in global markets that generates my income, which makes me just as dependent on the "big picture." If I am existentially tied to what happens on this planet, then it counts as my community. The fact that I don't feel an emotional bond to the entire globe the way I do with my own family doesn't change the reality of that connection.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Man, I just love precise definitions. 🎉

Even > couldn't have phrased that better. ☕

That’s a classic believer's spin. When someone doesn't buy into your bedtime story, you just hint that they weren't being "metaphorical" enough. It's basically saying the problem is with them because they're taking things too literally.

Look, I'd much rather be considered simple-minded on my own terms than "smart" by being part of a group this irrational.

Can you actually point to a single example of a "civilized and stable society"?

And why not digital ones? 🤣

Do you actually have anything concrete to say, or are you just trolling?

There's a much more useful place for this kind of empty rhetoric and pseudo-intellectualism:

I can't even deal right now—just trying to get some peace on vacation and everything is a total mess. Seriously, I need a drink. kaže:
People love to act like everything is going to hell—total doom and gloom—but honestly? Despite all that constant demonizing, we actually have way more options today than anyone ever has. It’s true. In pretty much every single part of life, we've got more freedom to choose how we live than any generation before us.

Look, I’m not saying we should demonize choice—I’m not going there—but let’s be real: having too many options can be a total trap. Most of the time, that "perfect" decision you finally make? The rush wears off way faster than you'd think...
Alright, look—we’re talking about what kind of choices—or even life-altering decisions—we're actually dealing with here.

Sometimes we just get a glimpse of all these "perfect" options that are actually a total nightmare to pull off in real life—plus, let’s be honest, people's expectations are way too high.

Look, people are just different—they make their own choices, and honestly, that’s the whole reason society is such a messy, beautiful patchwork. I bet things are only going to get even more diverse down the road.

Complexity growth hits a wall eventually—it’s just hard for people, whether they're flying solo or trying to act as a community, to actually wrap their heads around that much chaos.

History just keeps repeating itself in cycles—you can see it everywhere if you actually look.

The whole idea of an "ideal" society is total nonsense if you’re talking about some forced, one-size-fits-all way of living—seriously, who even decides that?

Like I already said—that kind of thing just isn't even on my radar.

Look, an "ideal society" is totally subjective—it means something different to everyone. It really just comes down to having a broad enough social framework that actually gives people—whether they're individuals or just small groups—the actual freedom to live life however they damn well please. Honestly? We aren't even that far off from getting there.

They say everyone’s their own little universe—which I guess means an "ideal society" would look different for every single person... but honestly? I highly doubt anyone can actually handle that much variety.
Maybe "real" individuality actually shines brightest in a tight-knit community—one that people actually helped build from the ground up where you actually see the impact of your own damn work.

I don't know what kind of vacation you're planning, but if it involves anything less than total relaxation, count me out—honestly, just stay home. kaže:
I need a ton of stuff that just isn't produced by my local community or the government—cars, computers, phones... even bananas. And look, I’m not gonna pretend I don't care where all that gear actually comes from. It’s impossible to function without it. Plus, I've got capital invested out in the global market that brings in my income, so yeah—I'm pretty much tied to the "big wide world" too.

Look, I’m not trying to play God here—it's not my job to sit around and dictate what everyone else's "essential" needs should be just because they're out there hunting for coupons and reward points.
Self-sufficiency isn't some absolute thing—I'm not talking about "survivalist mode" or training for Navy SEALs or whatever.
If you can handle even a fraction of your needs locally (food, power, etc.), that's already huge.
Look, I’m just presenting a possibility here... not some "magic bullet" solution for everyone.

This wasn't just another hippie commune from the 60s—to actually build something like this, you need serious sweat equity and a constant fight against local zoning boards and red tape.
But clearly, the people involved had the drive to make it happen.

The truth about modern communes

The truth about modern communes Quote : Wimbush concludes, looking out of his window at the rolling countryside below, you might try asking yourself what's really important: "For me, living in a beautiful forest garden, surrounded by my family, is infinitely more rewarding than living in the rat-race could ever be. And that is a choice open to everybody..."

If I'm existentially tied to what happens on our planet, then to me, that constitutes an organic community. The fact that I can't feel an emotional connection to this massive global community the same way I do with my own family doesn't change the reality of it.

Your take on functional vs. existential connectedness sounds a lot like Durkheim. He also argued that the modern world—with its crazy advanced division of labor—has an "organic" type of connection, unlike the "mechanical" connections we saw in pre-modern times.

Honestly, this isn't quite clicking for me... mostly because management is such a big deal, and that's not just a technicality. I'm leaning more toward Ferdinand Tönnies, the guy who shaped German sociology, with his distinction between two types of communities: 'Gemeinschaft'—those organic ones like family, clans, or small towns—and 'Gesellschaft'—the political ones like corporations or the state.
Emotional ties play a massive role in building that sense of mutual reliance, shared goals, and a "common destiny"... and you just can't expect that kind of thing in purely political organizations.

Sam Martinez9 said:To me, a truly self-sufficient community would be one that provides its members with everything they actually need to thrive.

Human needs moved past the basic requirements of food, water, and heat a long time ago.

A self-sufficient community should offer someone interested in astronomy a sufficient number of like-minded peers; the same goes for a chess enthusiast, or someone who loves hiking... and I could go on forever.

In reality, a person can only truly satisfy their niche interests within larger social structures—that is, societies with a higher population density. It is only there that a hiker might find fifty other people to hit the trails with and talk shop about their latest treks.

When you look at the technical side, even the fundamental tools of communication (the internet, major highways, etc.) require much larger societal frameworks to build and maintain.

Look, I’m not talking about some binary choice—it’s not either total isolation or being completely plugged into the global grid (at least not before things get way too one-sided, if you ask me)...

Quincy:

Human needs went way beyond just food, water, and heat a long time ago.

Seriously—even with higher mammals, it’s never just about eating, drinking, or staying warm.

Quincy:

A self-sufficient community should offer enough like-minded people to someone interested in astronomy, or chess, or hiking... you name it.

I’m not preaching isolation here—I’m talking about a network of smaller communities within a global society.
People with similar interests will have the chance to actually develop them and talk to each other.

Quincy:

A person can only satisfy their niche interests within larger social groups—basically, communities with more people. Because that’s the only way a hiker finds 50 other enthusiasts to hit the trails with and swap stories.

Bottom line—we aren't just a collection of specialized hobbies... but again, like I said, I’m not forcing anyone into anything.
Want to be a global citizen? Fine... Prefer a tighter-knit community? Great...

Quincy:

When it comes to tech, basic infrastructure (the internet, highways...) requires larger social structures to build and maintain.

Fair enough, there's no room for being exclusive... that could work too.

The main thing is that large political entities shouldn't be these static monsters that just crush every smaller structure underneath them.

Ethan Gomez82 said:To actually function, I need a massive amount of stuff that my immediate neighborhood or local government doesn't produce. I need a car, a laptop, a smartphone... and I happen to love bananas. All of that comes from somewhere, and honestly, pretending I don't care about the supply chain would be pure delusion. I can't survive without them. Plus, I have capital invested in global markets that generates my income, which makes me just as dependent on the "big picture." If I am existentially tied to what happens on this planet, then it counts as my community. The fact that I don't feel an emotional bond to the entire globe the way I do with my own family doesn't change the reality of that connection.

Yeah, well, that’s right where the "heavy problem" lies. To me, it seems like an ideal way to live if you could be *existentially* reliant primarily on your local community and yourself, while being *luxuriously* reliant on the broader global community.

There’s no issue with having investments abroad, but I firmly believe those things shouldn't stop people from growing their own food locally, generating their own energy, or handling their own recycling—especially if smart technology and better social structures can reduce the time required for those tasks compared to, say, old-school subsistence farming. You could use your investment income to fund your luxuries, while your existential needs are met directly and independently of whatever is happening in your external portfolio.

The point is that people should be existentially tethered to something they actually control, something that is a direct consequence of their own labor, rather than being at the mercy of broad external human factors, market fluctuations, and whatnot.

Beyond that, just as a side note, I think people generally need to relearn how to appreciate food—from the actual production all the way to the preparation—which would improve both physical health and mental well-being.

Hopefully, the consumerism of the modern age will eventually trigger some kind of realization among the public, leading them to abandon it; at least, that's my hope. And once we walk away from consumerism, what's left? When we ditch narcissism, what remains? Or do people honestly think this cycle can go on forever? It’s interesting to me, for instance, how titans of industry like Steve Jobs eventually turned toward Buddhism. To me, that transition makes perfect sense, and besides, even the Buddha had to walk that path himself.

Will civilization as a whole pivot toward something like that? From what I see, modern society is losing its soul. We spend decades or entire eras recycling the leftovers of the last century, but wouldn't it be better to squeeze a little more spirit out of them? Because we are chronically lacking it. We don't know what to do with ourselves, social inequality is spiraling, and so on.
Society is becoming fake and hollow in every sense—both spiritually and materially. During the last century, back when there was still some substance left, globalization felt like something that helped society grow; but today, it feels like globalization is just accelerating the evolution of modern society toward its dark conclusion: the total erosion of the human spirit. If I may add, rushing headlong into that dead end isn't exactly a great idea... at least, that's how I see it...

Ultimately, when—and if—we as a civilization forget the narrative that we absolutely must buy a new $150,000 Mercedes every year just to sell it two years later for $20,000, what stays behind? Sports, food, play, health, art, and science—though perhaps science on a smaller scale than we see now, since a huge chunk of modern science is basically harnessed to serve the consumerist machine.

hollowpuma762 said:There's a much more useful place for this kind of empty rhetoric and pseudo-intellectualism:

Another brilliant argument, right up there with "if you hate capitalism, just move to North Korea."

( I wonder what the Latin term is for that specific logical fallacy? 🤔 )