Hacker News Reader

Comment by GuiA | Hacker News Reader

One can have the viewpoint that on average humans were likely happier 30,000 years ago, and that technology was a bad deal for us overall, without advocating that the solution is bombing society back in time.

View on HN

I don't think technology is the problem. I think the institutions that install or preserve the structures that cause a lot of people misery is the problem.

There's a reason for those institutions, though. Within any social group larger than a primitive tribe, you can't coordinate pro-social behavior or resolve disputes without some formal institutions and structures of sorts. We've got to give the anarcho-primitivists credit where credit is due: at least they understand what it would take to get actual anarchism to work!

Perhaps this will change your mind to some extent

https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10933-what_the_world_can_learn_f...

Specifically talks about how Hong Kong protestors have almost no formal hierarchical structures (to avoid the Chinese state arresting the leaders), yet remain highly functional and effective.

To have a group of protestors who volunteer for a commonly accepted goal among them be organized, functioning and effective without hierarchical structures is vastly different from having a whole society functional and effective without hierarchical structures. What every system first and foremost must face is how conflicts are resolved, because conflicts of every level of severity will arise without fail. A group without conflicts, that exists exactly because it is made of people who truly think exactly alike, like HK protesters, is not a good example. ANY group of people who truly think exactly alike is perfectly functional, no matter what it is they collectively value.

It sounds like the problem then is getting everyone to share fundamental values. If everyone has common ground to start from then it's easier to build towards a resolution of conflict.

I agree that any group of people will eventually have some form of conflict but I don't agree that a hierarchical structure is the only way to resolve said conflict. You could just as easily apply any of the methods of governance that humanity has devised to resolve a conflict so I don't think the method of governance is crucial to the resolution of conflict. I think that getting both parties to agree to a satisfactory resolution is what is critical. That can be done with force as in a hierarchy where an external party enforces a resolution on both conflicting parties or it could be done without outside intervention, this obviously happens all the time in a variety of situations.

Ideally, every conflict should be able to be resolved directly by the people involved without additional harm being caused. Maybe there is a way through education or other tools that we can build that would allow people to resolve any conflict in such a manner? Maybe prevention is the best remedy and there exists a way to defuse conflict before it reaches a level that cannot be easily resolved. My point is that resorting to authority or force is not the only solution.

You should watch the talk. She specifically talks about how disagreements and conflicts are resolved.

The institutions are all humans, I think it’s an “us” problem :)

"We have met the enemy, and they is us!"

Then what exactly is one suggesting?

"We all know what is best for us, but I'm not going to actually say what I think we should do."

It’d be a very drastic, but arguably fairly effective solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com