Originally posted by rwingett
I admit it would be difficult to transfer an arrangement with a homogeneous population with a shared religious principle to a heterogeneous population without such a binding principle. But no one ever said saving the world was going to be easy.
it does have to be practical.
You have a self selecting group of people indoctrinated into a certain way of life.
This group is reasonably large, but tiny as a proportion of all people
All people WILL NOT agree to live like this... period.
This makes it by definition impractical.
Also, as I say, there is not close to enough space for everyone to live like this.
Also they are supported by the big societies they are embedded in.
they are defended by them, and regulated by them.
If one group of people decide that they can no longer live where they are unless
they get more water, so build a dam, they effect all the people downstream, who
now don't get enough water.
The droughts in africa that sparked the live aid concerts were almost certainly
caused by particulate pollution from America and Europe.
This effect was unintended, and not at the time predictable.
It is one example that as we live on the same planet with the same resources
in an interconnected system where everything you do in one place effects someone
somewhere else you need to have people coordinating and regulating what people
can and can't do to ensure that everyone gets their fair share, and is not unduly adversely
effected by anyone else.
Something we don't do enough of.
Small self governing societies which can't see any further than the next society along can't do this.