<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.33.1612729400.24575.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<p class="MsoNormal">The group offered in my opinion, some good
answers, especially,</p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="1">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1
level1 lfo2">Forgiveness 2) Access for all to unlimited
resources. </li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some years ago, I started pondering why
things are the way they are, why they aren’t better, and how we
might change this. Initially I came up with about 10 items which
I felt, if practiced, would eliminate strife and war. As I
continued pondering, I added more to the list and then continued
to drill down on each of them to reveal the most fundamental
aspect of each. Many overlapped and some, if practiced would
eliminate the need for others. I realized humanity would resist
the most fundamental so, I looked for temporary solutions, and
this added more items. Until recently I had 15 items. Of these,
I felt the most fundamental one which could possibly be
addressed, was our tendency to form groups (I’ve since come up
with what I feel is a more fundamental concept which I will post
later).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the draft of a webpage I plan to post: </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“2. INCLUSIVENESS - moving beyond WE vs THEY</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Banding together in a hostile world, we
formed groups. Today, for the most part, our environment is no
longer dangerous. The main exception comes from our own kind and
springs from the exclusion of others, a self-perpetuating
practice. If only we can see The Family of Man as one group, I
believe it would be the end of most struggle, strife and war.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is more to this of course. And from a
practical point, people will resist giving up their group
identity. I realize there are fundamental things driving the
formation of groups (which I will post later). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am interested in your input.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ivor</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is another way that people can avoid banding together in
mutually hostile groups. The complete opposite of inclusiveness.<br>
I can see that there is a problem in the whole of humanity dividing
up into groups, which then proceed to label all other groups 'other'
and therefore 'enemy'. There doesn't seem much prospect, though, of
people regarding themselves as belonging to one single, big,
all-inclusive group. The opposite is each person being a separate
item, not needing to band together with others into a defensive
group.<br>
<br>
There's no conflict, to my mind, in someone regarding themselves as
a lone individual, who belongs to no group except the giant group of
'all lone individuals'. You can be your own person, but still be
friends with everyone.<br>
<br>
The key to this, of course, is making the world non-hostile (hence
no benefit from less-than-all-inclusive groups). As it would result
in a non-hostile world, it seems to be a 'phase change' type of
situation. How we get from here to there, I have no idea. Parallels
with strange attractors come to mind. It's also probably
incompatible with current human nature.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben Zaiboc</pre>
</body>
</html>