On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

On 10/30/2015 11:02 AM, Sean Lynch wrote:

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

I think there's a place for individualism within collectivism but the
collective comes first.

This I can't really agree with. There is no collective without the individual, and why should any individual be part of such a thing if it doesn't benefit him or her?
In a word "Survival".

I don't agree. The only reason human beings require society to survive is that all the other human beings are also using up resources, so if we did not coordinate our use of resources (via the market) we would exhaust them and perish.

I recognize that we share the planet and that we all benefit from the existence of society, but I think the only obligation that places upon us is to give at least as much as we take.
Sorry, as an anarchist I have to say it's an anarchist's responsibility to take responsibility for the well-being of all members of the collective, which for me includes ALL humankind.

As an anarchist I disagree with this characterization.

But at the end of the day the only people qualified to make the determination of whether an individual's contribution is adequate is the individual and anyone considering entering into some kind of exchange/relationship/whatever with that individual.
That is the antithesis of collectivism.

I agree.

It is the sum total of these decisions and interactions from which society emerges.
Feudal or industrial capitalist society perhaps.

No. Society is an emergent phenomenon whether or not you want it to be. It does not pre-exist individual interactions with one another. A thousand people who never meet and whose actions never affect the others do not form a society. It is not until they get together and interact that you have a society.

My longer term hope is that sharing the planet is just a temporary constraint that we'll eventually overcome. There is a lot of room in the galaxy and even the solar system. "If you don't like it, leave"
More like "We fucked it up. Let's go somewhere else and fuck it up now"

This is an anti-human, anti-life sentiment. If you'd prefer we leave the universe as dead rock, please feel free to kill yourself and leave it to those of us who believe in life.

(visualizes moon-based fast-food chain trash fired from a rocket hitting alien on head starting an intergalactic war humans are unprepared for leading to their annihilation)

Even if there are aliens, the galaxy is almost certainly unimaginably sparsely populated. Even on Earth, I can think of no tale of a human being ever having been hit by a meteor, much less a piece of falling space debris.

You like "Role-Playing" games Sean? I've watched people create alternative personas just as fucked up as their pre-existing one. That IS the lesson from role-playing. If you can't get your 'first life' right, good luck with any other you might conceive.

I've had thoughts about letting all the people who think escape from the planet is an option do it, and kill each other off elsewhere so the rest of us who remain can live in peace repairing the damage ... collectively. Almost every enthusiast of the relocation-to-space idea I've ever met is a closeted feudalist. Good luck.. Bon voyage!

I'm certainly happy to leave the planet to you when I go. I'm guessing your descendants will still be here when the sun renders it uninhabitable. Or maybe they will have wiped out the planet in a war over ideology, because they believe in a fictitious "collective."

is a lot more realistic of an option when the choices and resources available are practically infinite.
No known resource is infinite.

Go look up the definition of the word "practically." I'll wait.