Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_y0fjnr in philosophy
just1monkey t1_isfsf3q wrote
Reply to comment by Sea_Personality8559 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 10, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt
I think the mobility point makes sense, but what sort of mobility are we talking about here?
Is it limited to social mobility within a single unified system, or can there be like sideways or orthogonal movements to alternative societies where that particular behavior fits in better?
I think you could achieve the latter through functional boundary rules creating discrete interaction zones. The most rigid (but accordingly simple and very enforceable) rules should apply to these boundary and movement rules, to make sure people can’t be trapped. I’d even permit a voluntary interaction zone of 1.
Once within an interaction zone, the rules could be set by the people within that interaction zone. This allows for a broad range of people to just be who they are, with people who will accept them for who they are, without forcing the same poorly fitting straitjacket on everyone.
I agree somewhat tough to imagine readily implementing now, but if we can get to a point where we can build livable structures out in space, we have a lot of the latter to work with. We could consider and apply interaction zone concepts even now and start taking some baby steps in that direction, thanks to some geographical detachment, which we’ve seen works very well in many contexts during the COVID response.
EDIT: And in terms of the adrenalin junkies that get a kick out of participating in or watching bloodsport, can we point them in the direction of the as-yet unexplored dangers of like the nearest galaxy that isn’t where the people who want to stay safe all the time live? Like it doesn’t even have to be a galaxy away, as long as they’re occupied doing a thing they enjoy, channeled in a way that doesn’t hurt others.
Edits made.
[deleted] t1_isft1me wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments