Post-imperialism-A-Template-for-a-New-Social-Order

[Laura]

I don't know and the hypothetical questions and scenarios I've been entertaining so far are smoking my brain. Some of this will probably be figured out before it's needed and some of it will probably be figured out as life happens.

The whole topic is a brain smoker, for sure. We've spent hours and hours and I've spent years and years creating mental experiments and letting them run out to see where they go. When you have read enough history, psychology, sociology, etc, you can pretty well plug in most of the variables.

It's somewhat amusing to read some of the comments and to realize that this or that person has not really plumbed the depths of either history or psychology and they have no clue about what they are saying; it's mostly just repeating some favored dictum of this or that "theorist" who purports to have solved the human problem. Well, believe me, I've read all that sort of stuff too. A lot of it falls under Lobaczewski's category of schizoid psychopaths who like to think they have great ideas and have a lot of energy to write them down and propagate them.

It's not just reading the history that has affected me, it's been the process of entering events in our database and seeing the associations and repeats. And here I'm talking about taking history as far back as one can utilizing all available methods.

The main problem that has erupted again and again and again, from as far back as there are written records, is DEBT SLAVERY. When the imbalance between the elite and the masses gets to a certain state, not only does the state collapse from internal conflicts, it seems to bring on other kinds of destruction from the planet or cosmos itself. In some cases, the state makes the slavery tolerable to the masses, so they may go along for a very long time without objecting. But when they begin to suffer a lot for various reasons, including being forced to participate in wars of conquest and thievery, things deteriorate rapidly.

Imagine a group of people arriving at a location after some sort of catastrophe. They set up camp on a ruined city and proceed to apportion out lots of land to everyone equally. So, everyone starts out pretty much equally. And, because of the agricultural nature of the society, things can depend on the land and weather and other variables. If one person has better land, he has more surplus and can live through a period of drought. But the other guy has bad land and a bigger family to feed, so he has to borrow from his neighbor who has surplus. Then, things being as they are, he can never catch up with this debt and he borrows more, and more. Eventually, his land, his wife and children, and then he, himself, go under the ownership of the neighbor who then may repeat the process again and again until he owns a lot of land and plenty of slaves to work it just for his benefit.

That is a simplistic version of how it happens. It happened in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in Greece, in Rome.

Now, the Mesopotamian civilizations had a way of dealing with this. When a new king ascended the throne, he would declare that all debt slaves be freed and maybe that they could have some of their land back. Or he would transport them to a whole other region where he had killed off all the inhabitants and created a colony. But there was a sort of amnesty that kept things from getting too bad too fast.

Solon was famous for having done something like this.

The early habiru are thought to have been escaped Canaanite debt slaves who banded together as sort of Robin Hood types in the hills of Judea. This deep background is reflected in their legislation about Jubilee years when land that originally belonged to a certain family went back to that family and all debt slaves were freed.

The Romans didn't really have a method to deal with it and we see there the prototype of our own world, though they had declared slaves, nowadays we just have people who "owe their soul to the company store." It's the same thing.

So, this debt slavery problem really weighed on my mind. Moses Finley wrote probably one of the only objective studies of the problem: "Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology" and there is a LOT of food for thought there.

 

[Chad]

Having read the article, listened to the show and now just finished the thread, these are some of my thoughts.

Regarding the 'zone' for people to take drugs; the image that came to me was one of a lawless wasteland, but I suspect it may be more along the lines of say what Portugal has done; creating places with trained staff who can facilitate safe use and also providing counselling where requested. Perhaps this will occur only at the very beginning and once the trauma has been reduced through the generations, we'll find less need for it. Though, just because of the infinity of the universe, surely there'll always be a need for this.

Which also reminded me of how the Amish permit their teenagers to 'go out into the world' and if they come back, they truly are committed. I think they call it Rumspringer. Are teens more prone/driven to experiment and test boundaries? (some of which may turn out to be beneficial) Perhaps the majority won't feel the 'need to rebel' but this zone could permit that safely? It also strikes me that this is an area where those who go to help would actually earn these points. Like social workers now who go into some truly horrific situations.

Though I find the point system slightly rigid, I understand that it's more of a formalised concept of what already happens within a community – i.e. someone gains a reputation for helping others and naturally the community respects and admires them. That said, I realise that our current world, this inevitably becomes distorted and in some cases taken over. Hence the need for a system.

The issue of gay couples adopting I understand and agree with. However I think this alerted to me that I felt what was missing was: the good, bad and 'the specific situation'. So whilst it would be a very rare occurrence, what if there was a tragedy, the parents die and the closest relation is a gay couple. Bearing in mind child rearing is a community activity, and families whilst independent, the extended family and the community take a much more involved role. So what if the children from this theoretical couple were closest to a married gay couple and having spent most of their life with them, it would seem appropriate they go with them, rather than say a married couple who they have less relations with. I'm not trying to create a problem or create avenues for the rules to be changed so any one is more special than another, and I understand the layout is a work in progress. I just think that a caveat that the 'specific situation' will be taken into account is relevant but that, as has been stated, there's a very good reason for the laws being there in the first place; in this case, a balanced upbringing for the child demonstrated as the ideal by nature itself. Osis. I expect, though may be wrong, that these laws are there for the sake of clarity but I think the 'specific situation' should be noted.

Actually, the 'females shouldn't do physically demanding labour' is an understandable rule, but should a female wish to override it, I don't think they should be prevented. As others have commented, not all genders totally reflect the assumed abilities, or desires. Though I agree that females are naturally more inclined to be 'care-givers' (if that's the right term) and males appear to have a drive to 'create'.

All in all, I agree with the overview. It's a world which just makes sense, because it adheres to objective reality.

Much of my thinking I guess is more related to the transition phase where, as is being discussed in the thread, the feeling of coercion or imposition seems to arise, when actually, once in the structure, probably not by choice, because world events will probably make it a necessity. Like most tribes, it becomes a natural way of living (but yes, even tribal structures in our world at the moment aren't perfect); he screening of parents for example, even now people will raise their eyebrows when an unmarried couple who've been together for a year who then decide to have a baby. Because anyone who's paying attention (and yes, not many are) it's more likely that they may not stay together, thus damaging the child. So there already is this 'innate' thinking which much of humanity does go through, it's probably ponerization that then makes them consider otherwise; like when liberalism goes too extremes of 'every lifestyle choice is ok and everything is equally valid.

As for working, at first I thought 4 days was a lot! But that's because my preconceived ideas are that I hate 'work' as it is, but I highly doubt that in the future the way it is managed would be as corrupting as it is. Working towards a goal with an obvious benefit for all is a much greater motivator than mere solo survival. Thus the idea of retiring may become moot. Because 'working' will actually be integrated into 'living life'. I don't presume that all work will be pleasurable but being raised in an environment where responsibility for oneself and the community is the norm, from birth you will be accustomed to chores, to work, so the idea of hard work will again come from within. A real life example might be, had I been taught to do chores around the house, and I was shown the reasons for it, I wouldn't have had such a struggle incorporating it into my later life once I moved out. Doing the dishes for example is thus something you're used to and the effort required is reduced.

Regarding the transition; I think this is kind of answered by saying that: everything is a work in progress and growth often requires change. And if we continue to observe reality, and aim to work with the planet/DCM, then again, these changes will really come about through organic processes that may just seem obvious rather than enforced or 'created' with no relation to what is.

 

[kalibex]

So, everyone starts out pretty much equally. And, because of the agricultural nature of the society, things can depend on the land and weather and other variables. If one person has better land, he has more surplus and can live through a period of drought. But the other guy has bad land and a bigger family to feed, so he has to borrow from his neighbor who has surplus. Then, things being as they are, he can never catch up with this debt and he borrows more, and more. Eventually, his land, his wife and children, and then he, himself, go under the ownership of the neighbor who then may repeat the process again and again until he owns a lot of land and plenty of slaves to work it just for his benefit.

Sounds like agriculture/ non-communal property really was the tipping point. I find myself wondering, though... was the concept of 'debt' so very inevitable?

Perhaps due to the increase in community size so that people no longer knew everyone else and so couldn't know who truly had had a run of bad luck (and weren't lazy or freeloading) and needed some help, plus a growing trend towards individual resource hording? Another reason for the importance of small communities in the post imperialism concept model.

To this day, so many people are terrified of having the fruits of their labor 'taken away' and redistributed to the 'undeserving'. Projection, I guess, to distract themselves from their own indebtedness to their creditors.

 

[Buddy]

It's not just reading the history that has affected me, it's been the process of entering events in our database and seeing the associations and repeats. And here I'm talking about taking history as far back as one can utilizing all available methods.

The main problem that has erupted again and again and again, from as far back as there are written records, is DEBT SLAVERY. When the imbalance between the elite and the masses gets to a certain state, not only does the state collapse from internal conflicts, it seems to bring on other kinds of destruction from the planet or cosmos itself. In some cases, the state makes the slavery tolerable to the masses, so they may go along for a very long time without objecting. But when they begin to suffer a lot for various reasons, including being forced to participate in wars of conquest and thievery, things deteriorate rapidly.

Imagine a group of people arriving at a location after some sort of catastrophe. They set up camp on a ruined city and proceed to apportion out lots of land to everyone equally. So, everyone starts out pretty much equally. And, because of the agricultural nature of the society, things can depend on the land and weather and other variables. If one person has better land, he has more surplus and can live through a period of drought. But the other guy has bad land and a bigger family to feed, so he has to borrow from his neighbor who has surplus. Then, things being as they are, he can never catch up with this debt and he borrows more, and more. Eventually, his land, his wife and children, and then he, himself, go under the ownership of the neighbor who then may repeat the process again and again until he owns a lot of land and plenty of slaves to work it just for his benefit.

That is a simplistic version of how it happens. It happened in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in Greece, in Rome.

Now, the Mesopotamian civilizations had a way of dealing with this. When a new king ascended the throne, he would declare that all debt slaves be freed and maybe that they could have some of their land back. Or he would transport them to a whole other region where he had killed off all the inhabitants and created a colony. But there was a sort of amnesty that kept things from getting too bad too fast.

Solon was famous for having done something like this.

The early habiru are thought to have been escaped Canaanite debt slaves who banded together as sort of Robin Hood types in the hills of Judea. This deep background is reflected in their legislation about Jubilee years when land that originally belonged to a certain family went back to that family and all debt slaves were freed.

The Romans didn't really have a method to deal with it and we see there the prototype of our own world, though they had declared slaves, nowadays we just have people who "owe their soul to the company store." It's the same thing.

So, this debt slavery problem really weighed on my mind. Moses Finley wrote probably one of the only objective studies of the problem: "Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology" and there is a LOT of food for thought there.

Thanks for writing all that and, yeah, I get what you're saying.

As soon as I saw the first forum reference about your database, I knew you were hunting and that something would be coming out of this and I'm happy to have a look at what info is coming out of the associations and what repeating patterns are there to see.

The whole debt slavery thing, along with what kalibex posted last, reminds me of some research where I ran across the story of King Aśoka who, as conventional history has it, ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from circa 268 to about 232 BCE. At some point in his life he began the practice of giving away everything every five years. He really took on the role of "father" to his "children" (the citizens) and people loved him.

A story from my life experience which follows, gives an idea of personal debt-free living, except to the tax man, and as it relates to possessiveness out of a sense of still owing for it. It may not directly relate to the concepts of debt slavery in the same scope as what you're saying, but there may be some kind of principle here that can be brought out and maybe extrapolated to a community or society level as an aid to prevention (or maybe not):

I look back on my own life when I lived as a single man from my late 20's into my early 30's. I would change jobs or move from one place to another and would give away or throw stuff away with no problem. I simply looked at my vehicle carrying space, compared that to my basic needs for clothes, toiletries and what not and simply packed what I had room for. Everything else was gotten rid of.

In the early 90's, I once made the mistake of having a male relative help me to move. He became livid at the stuff I was willing to throw into a dumpster and I became annoyed at his reaction. He thought I was being retarded. I told him I didn't want to be forced to explain this, but I don't even care if someone stole the stuff. If I didn't really need it, it's a burden off my shoulders; if I did need it, then now I can buy a new one. Geez, there's no problem there. So, anyway, he wound up taking the stuff himself, and as I also knew would happen, after a couple of years, I found it still in storage, rotting away. A disgusting sight at the time.

Also, when I helped my family to organize and open their own pizza business (and before infighting destroyed it), I told them how important it would be for the first few years, not to remove accumulating assets from business earnings to start buying personal stuff and trying to enjoy the new success. The money has to available on demand to be put back into the business because you will eventually have to repair coolers, keep the property clean and pretty, look for ways to save money on ingredients without sacrificing the quality that customers are raving about, add to your menu items as people start asking for certain things, etc, etc. They were paying cash for everything when they started and not all their initial vendors of food and supplies were prepared to establish a business relationship with a credit-free, debt-free business model.

Anyway, I said all that, not to make myself look good because there were a lot of stupid mistakes involved in almost everything I've done, and with regard to moving, I actually was going about my adventures the wrong way. I should have taken more time to make sure that the stuff I didn't want, got to the people who could use it, but at the time, I was just wanting to be "shed of it", as the old-timers say.

As far as people being worried about the State or some community leaders taking from them and redistributing to people they feel haven't actually earned anything (or whatever the concern is), maybe some kind of a benevolent practice could be figured out that keeps needed values in circulation, or at least ready for circulation while still keeping a big or important producer of values for the community from feeling robbed. I don't know how that would work initially, though, but it's maybe an idea, FWIW, to those with related concerns. Somehow, though, I think this is going to take care of itself.

 

[Neil]

I think the one key factor that was not included in the article (although it sort of informed the idea) and therefore isn't really a part of most members' conception of this kind of 'postimperalist society' is that we may not be talking about a 3D society.

I saw you hinting at that in the beginning, but I didn't want to go too deeply into it because it tends to lead to magical thinking.

Finally, the context of even imagining the scenarios is that of a world that is nearly completely bereft of population, taken back almost to ground zero, but still with some survivors who can quickly and efficiently salvage some of the better things about modern life, though utilize them in positive ways. Otherwise, what has happened over and over and over again WILL happen again: psychopaths will take advantage of the situation and it will be just another long haul of millennia of suffering and strife.

This post implied to me that we were looking at more of a 3.1 type of reality instead of 4.0.

In the 4.0 version, some of the notions become a bit quaint or radically different.
-With variability of physicality gender becomes more of a preference based on your desires rather than something you're born with. Things such as sexual orientation and the whole gay/straight thing become kind of a moot point. There's no such thing as homosexuality unless you want there to be.
-Jobs and employment become kind of interesting. If time doesn't exist as we understand it and is "selective and variable," working 25 hours a week becomes kind of problematical, I think that becomes like telling someone they will work 2500 sq ft a week. Doesn't make much sense unless you're laying tile or something. A 4D entity would experience time...perhaps as the shifting of possibilities into probabilities as a result of their choices. However, I do understand the point would be that the total energy output would be the equivalent of 25 hours a week in our linear time reality.
-Food and agriculture becomes radically different. The Cassiopaeans said we would absorb nutrients through skin, and that would probably be more prevalent in the beginning when we existed in our denser 3D+ type of body. The main source of nutriment for 4D seems to be the impressions generated by lower beings. We would have to choose whether we want to squeeze it out of them by sowing fear and chaos like the Lizzies do, or work on ourselves so that we can develop something objectively beautiful to give to life, and the excess "happiness" that spills out from that beauty is what sustains us, if we share it equitably.
-Most communication would be telepathic, there would be no need for an extensive communications network and that's how the communities would stay in contact with each other. There might be some kind of special crystal you could use that amplifies the effect or gives you more bandwidth or whatever, but that would be about it.
-There would be no need for money, although there would still be energy. Michael Topper described the soul energy as "the coin of the higher realms," therefore there would still be banks of some sort, and ostensibly debts. I could see, as an extension of our present reality, some STS overlord sitting on top of a giant crystal where the excess energy is stored from the society's activities. They may offer you a loan so that you can get past some problem or get more "juice" to create whatever reality you want. So he gives you some energy and slaps some kind of "ethereal bracelet" on you that takes a cut out of all of the energy you get and everything you do. It is probably set up in such a way that most who do business with this guy spend their entire lives paying him interest. We don't want to move into that sort of situation, which makes Laura's post about debt all the more poignant. On the STO side, energy would be interest free, and the role of the "lord of the bank" would be to prevent thefts and anyone from overdrawing more than their share.
-I see the overall society/economy, national and supranational levels, looking a lot like G Vale Owen's Life Beyond the Veil. You seemed to have city-states with the center of administration and the wisest and most powerful beings gathered in the administrative center, and then you had various villages/institutes that were in its sphere of influence which were dedicated to serving others or specific attributes of world creation and world maintenance. I think that book was trying to describe lower 5D, so 4D would probably be a bit more physical and a bit less "angelic," but the principle holds. It appears that Pierre attempted to craft a 3D facsimile of this system in his article.
-I see a lot of the social bonding aspects, sports, education, community gatherings and so forth remaining exactly the same. Even if it is possible to communicate on a deeper level, these would be just as important, if not more so in 4D. And the first order of business would be cementing a social memory complex.
-Ponerology would still be very important. We would probably still be dealing with the interference of the Lizzies in the early days, plus there would probably be 4D STS candidates milling about that we would have to keep an eye on. Dealing with the "directors" of psychopathy and being able to "stalk" them like a true warrior would probably be the next big test in our discernment. If we succeeded, I expect we be required to teach other races how to do this in the distant future as part of our evolution, a bit like the Cassiopaeans have done with us.
-Militias would be needed in case there was some kind of "attack" either from an internal 5th column or some kind of "portal" opened, but most of the fighting would probably happen in a para-martial arts fashion, like "thought-wave focusing" instead of shooting guns.

I think I'm going to stop there because I don't know how germane all of this "far out" stuff is to the goal of the discussion. The great beauty of Pierre's template is that it could be conceivably applied to a 3D planet, but the vast majority of it could carry over to a hypothetical 4D reality as it is related to us by the Cassiopaeans. Even though some of the outer forms and processes would change, the core foundation is pretty much self sustaining and could bridge the gap between 3.1 and 4.0. It drives home the importance of mastering the 3D things if you want to have a shot at functioning in higher realities.

 

[Buddy]

I don't know how helpful this might be, Neil, but your last sentence is important, I think. FWIW, I've done my best to avoid extrapolating anything that has been said about 4D into an actual communal living situation for right now. If transition to 4D consciousness is relevant at the time a community organization like this becomes critical, the reality we collectively share might be more of a phased-based thing.

Considering the focus here and now, and as far as the public who may just be getting some awareness of this thread and post-imperialist thought, it would still be necessary to address and iron out all the 3D relevant stuff in 3D thought because 3D is our foundation and launching pad as far as our current awareness is concerned. And 3D is where we learn those lessons that we're going to learn.

IOW, I'm suggesting the need to stay 'grounded.' Don't know if any of this makes sense, though.

 

[Pierre]

I think the one key factor that was not included in the article (although it sort of informed the idea) and therefore isn't really a part of most members' conception of this kind of 'postimperalist society' is that we may not be talking about a 3D society.

I saw you hinting at that in the beginning, but I didn't want to go too deeply into it because it tends to lead to magical thinking.

Finally, the context of even imagining the scenarios is that of a world that is nearly completely bereft of population, taken back almost to ground zero, but still with some survivors who can quickly and efficiently salvage some of the better things about modern life, though utilize them in positive ways. Otherwise, what has happened over and over and over again WILL happen again: psychopaths will take advantage of the situation and it will be just another long haul of millennia of suffering and strife.

This post implied to me that we were looking at more of a 3.1 type of reality instead of 4.0.

If a 3D STO civilization emerges it may be able to resonate with 4D STO beings and benefit from their 'guidance'. This may be illustrated by the following excerpt:

(Pierre) When they say it's amazing what a few aware people can do, does it mean that there are a lot of positive forces around here, but there's not enough connectors? See what I mean? What is lacking is not higher positive forces, but aware people who can transduce them if it is awareness that makes the difference...

(L) Is that the case? There is plenty of positive force in the cosmos, but there just aren't enough people working on being awake and aware and following their instincts and letting the universe guide and drive and develop for all this to manifest?

A: Yes

 

[kalibex]

I look back on my own life when I lived as a single man from my late 20's into my early 30's. I would change jobs or move from one place to another and would give away or throw stuff away with no problem. I simply looked at my vehicle carrying space, compared that to my basic needs for clothes, toiletries and what not and simply packed what I had room for. Everything else was gotten rid of.

Shades of the current 'minimalist' and 'voluntary simplicity' movements. At least some people are exploring the idea of getting off the conspicuous consumption / (unnecessary) material goods hoarding merry-go-round. After having been exhorted to consume, it can take some time to recalibrate and decide what one personally needs to live comfortably. As well as to understand that many items that people cling to for sentimental reasons have that status due to symbolizing something which itself cannot be destroyed - such as a meaningful relationship with a person.

I suspect that McMansions stuffed to the brim with cheap gimcracks won't be much in vogue post-imperialism.

 

[Mal7]

At least some people are exploring the idea of getting off the conspicuous consumption / (unnecessary) material goods hoarding merry-go-round. After having been exhorted to consume, it can take some time to recalibrate and decide what one personally needs to live comfortably.

I don't see conspicuous consumption of material goods as being predominant in the current society around me in New Zealand, maybe it is different in the USA. Most people OSIT find their allocation of spending fully taken up by the basics of rent (or a mortgage for a declining percentage of the population), food, fuel and repairs for the car, and utility bills. If you are a smoker here, the weekly spend on highly-taxed tobacco will also likely be twice as high as your power bill, and perhaps approaching half of the weekly budget for food.

The actual price of some classes of consumer goods such as technology has fallen since the 1980s and 1990s. For example, when VCRs (video cassette recorders) first came out, they cost around $1,000. Now you can buy a new DVD player for $25.

 

[Buddy]

Shades of the current 'minimalist' and 'voluntary simplicity' movements.

Maybe so. The thought that seems right for me amounts to the same thing, I suppose, but I'd call mine something like indifference to dependency.

If I'm surrounded by stuff...even something I might not need or use for a few months, that's ok, because by the time I need it, it'll save me a trip to the store. On the other hand, if I find myself on the street homeless, that's ok too. Hey, is that a piece of soap on the ground? Wonder where I can find some water? Wonder where there's a shelter giving out clothes? Food? Hey, there's a dumpster behind that restaurant! Excuse me sir, can you point me to the library? I've got some time on my hands so I could be catching up on some reading, thank you. And on and on. Life is an adventure, anyway, might as well face it, I think.

Some things like drugs, medical equipment and other stuff can't be detached from so easily, though, so this wouldn't work for everyone. Maybe the minimalist movement could help them, I don't know.

 

[Laura]

As far as people being worried about the State or some community leaders taking from them and redistributing to people they feel haven't actually earned anything (or whatever the concern is), maybe some kind of a benevolent practice could be figured out that keeps needed values in circulation, or at least ready for circulation while still keeping a big or important producer of values for the community from feeling robbed. I don't know how that would work initially, though, but it's maybe an idea, FWIW, to those with related concerns. Somehow, though, I think this is going to take care of itself.

I think the community points thing might be the solution though it would take some thought and hammering out. If these points and what they represent - STO - are the desirable attainments, that should shift the value system away from money and power. Though obviously, there are always those who seek power over others, hopefully, the points system and smaller communities can deprive them of their modus vivendi.

So, with that in mind, points can be given or deducted. Obviously, the elderly and disabled who have plenty of points from their whole life, deserve the support of the community. But the young who COULD be doing something but find ways to avoid it, might lose points for having to be helped by the community funds. But, if families are extended, it actually should be their responsibility to take care of their members and if a member is a parasite, the family can say so at a community meeting and the individual loses points or goes negative. If they go too negative, they could be sent to one of the centers of rehabilitation where the problem would be sorted by professional therapists of various sorts.

Regarding children, I think that prospective parents should have a certain number of community points to be permitted to have children, in addition to receiving training and counseling. Also, since, as noted, families are extended, houses are big, etc., gay members of families would continue to live with their "tribe" and be available to help with child rearing. We need to get rid of the idea of single family situations where mom and dad and kids are off on their own. So the issue of adoption would hardly ever come up. And if it did, community points would count for a lot in that respect, so that gay couples with more points would precede those with fewer points if they are applying for custodial care. But again, remember, this concept hardly applies when you consider families as extended groups of grandparents, parents, children, aunts, uncles, etc. How these would sort out would, of course, be subject to modification and some choice on the part of the members, but in the end, the idea would be that if something drastic happened and only a single "family" survived, it would be capable of doing a lot because of its extended membership.

Anyway, just a few additional thoughts.

 

[SeekinTruth]

I mentioned it early on in the thread, but the farthest away from land ownership and possessions, etc. one can get is to be hunter-gatherers. I like the idea of salvaging the best of whatever we can of modern life, but I like the idea of being a hunter-gather just as much (if not more). I think it's incredibly liberating to have just the most bare minimum of necessities as possessions (and these can be easily replaced if need be in the hunter-gatherer context). Having thought about it for several years, the only things I might miss are things like taking showers. But I really find the hunter-gatherer model thrilling.

Living in a community such as being discussed and described in the article is quite thrilling too, though. Both cases are so diametrically opposite to the current social structures. FWIW.

ADDED: Just saw your post, Laura.

 

[kalibex]

I like the idea of salvaging the best of whatever we can of modern life, but I like the idea of being a hunter-gather just as much (if not more). I think it's incredibly liberating to have just the most bare minimum of necessities as possessions (and these can be easily replaced if need be in the hunter-gatherer context). Having thought about it for several years, the only things I might miss are things like taking showers. But I really find the hunter-gatherer model thrilling.

Just be aware, you'd probably be 'competing' with the local bigfoots. ;) Although there is ambivalence here due to some past info. from the Cs (I'm hoping there is more than one group of forest people so that it turns out that not all are functioning as 4D STS flunkies, just the way some natives have stories of both good (or at least neutral) and bad (human-eating) groups of sasquatches - yeah, I know - possible sacred cow here), the observations of sasquatch behavior that have been made by groups like NABS (Paulides' group) and BFRO are pretty fascinating - obvious hunter-gather behavior has been observed. And yeah... a human not tied down to just one spot - is an undomesticated human! They go wherever they like...

Reportedly hunter-gatherers had a lot of free time. What do they did/do with it?

Another possibility that comes to mind are the traditional semi-nomadic lifestyles of some North American natives - settle down in a re-used, traditional spot and grow up some (I assume fast-growing) crops, but later move on to a well-sheltered winter camp, etc. With hunting and gathering still going on alongside all that. Might be it was the livestock husbandry that tied people down more than the farming per se...

 

[Buddy]

Reportedly hunter-gatherers had a lot of free time. What do they did/do with it?

What would you do with it if you were really good at hunting because you had to be and it only took a few hours of the day to bring home the bacon? Probably rest a bit or scout for the next day's advantage. Then tell tales around the campfire before bed. :)

Interestingly, some hunters even became very good at avoiding being tiger dinner. I read one story where a bushman accidentally ran up face to face with a tiger. Not missing a beat, he strolled off casually in a diagonal direction while talking to the tiger respectfully, calling it 'sir' and everything. Mr. Tiger just watched him stroll away...probably because his "that's my food" program wasn't triggered. I suppose you can also learn a lot in the wild from experience that you won't find in the history books and instructional literature.

Another possibility that comes to mind are the traditional semi-nomadic lifestyles of some North American natives - settle down in a re-used, traditional spot and grow up some (I assume fast-growing) crops, but later move on to a well-sheltered winter camp, etc. With hunting and gathering still going on alongside all that. Might be it was the livestock husbandry that tied people down more than the farming per se...

Might be. I'm told the main reason for the constant traveling was simply following the game where it goes.

So, while staying on the move, if we find that the herds are thinning out for some reason, it wouldn't be long before the idea would come to us to gather up what we could find and take over the job of replenishing them ourselves and that would require settling in somewhere.

Besides, as attractive as the hunter-gatherer way of life is to me personally, and as much as I might think of myself as having that temperament and tendency, I would have no advantage over any other type of person in that environment if I should find myself there with others today. The main reason is because it's been cultured out of us.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Laura]So, this debt slavery problem really weighed on my mind[/quote]

Banks in Libya (Khadaffi) where state owned and loans were given to all citizens without zero % interests by law. Could this remove debt slavery?


[quote author= Laura]Regarding children, I think that prospective parents should have a certain number of community points to be permitted to have children, in addition to receiving training and counseling. Also, since, as noted, families are extended, houses are big, etc., gay members of families would continue to live with their "tribe" and be available to help with child rearing. We need to get rid of the idea of single family situations where mom and dad and kids are off on their own.[/quote]

Being community active and holding up to true family values might create a civilization where all centers are stimulated. Most importantly the higher centers. If it works, adoption should be available to all with enough community points.


[quote author= Piere]If a 3D STO civilization emerges it may be able to resonate with 4D STO beings and benefit from their 'guidance'.[/quote]

I always assumed that 4STS could only be banished by 4STO candidates? (Since this would be the natural way) Can 3D STO happen with 4STS lurking over them? I suppose it could, if enough keep their polarity? All 4STS can do is to deceive and attempt to make them lose their STO polarity.

You can’t invade something that exists in 'spirit' form? It wouldn’t resonate on the same level. But before STO ascension happens, what stops 4STS from sending a 3STS alien force that does resonate on the same level? Isn't leveling the playing field with them our only hope ?