h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Neighbourhood Community - A2722592
Author: Stoopher - U738896

I have written this guide as I feel that the majority of people both in the UK and outside would rather see some realistic efforts towards a more sustainable future through-out the world. I feel that 'community' is at the hart of this, and the guide is a beginning for people to think more about what a community really can become. I have already thought of ways that changes in community habits can be of significant benifit to society as well as those within a specific community...but at the end of the day it is the choices of the individual, and the co-operation of those who share their communities that will make any realistic difference.

Hiya Stoof,

First a couple of little bits: I think you mean 'heart', not 'hart'; and 'defined', not 'difined'.

Now:

I commend your goals (peace, beauty, truth, harmony, and love, etc.); but, I'm afraid, there are more significant barriers to these than mere religion.

You're correct that most 'major' cultures agree on some basics; but not ALL do. Not all people even 'follow' a religion. And some cultures have such ties with their belief system that a world not entirely dominated by it is unthinkable.

To commonise a set of rules or guidelines can only start with each individual defining themself as an individual. and not part of a group. From there, you can extend an 'I have rights equal to your rights' concept.

This is key. My rights are absolute, UNTIL they begin to interfere with YOUR rights; and, vice versa.

We then have the common right to define how we will handle our ability to relate and interrelate with one another, UNTIL our exercise of our rights interferes with those of another individual or group.

This would, indeed, gradually create a community of mutually agreeable and intra-supporting group.

But, here's the rub. Some people will never want to play nice. We always have the Atilla, the Hitler, et al. Someone will always want what someone else doesn't want to give up, and not be willing to take 'no' for an answer. Remember Kuwait?

If you haven't seen it, please find and watch 'The Gods Must Be Crazy'. It's a great movie on its own, but the message is important too.

Here is a tribe of Australian aborigines, who do not even have a word for 'mine' or 'ownership', that find themselves in possession (for the first time) of something for which they have no duplicate: an empty CocaCola bottle.

Very quickly, they succumb to the 'need' for the one-thing. Each person's need, in their mind, supercedes the others'. A very telling statement on the human mind.

Good luck in all life has to offer, but we won't see this until we've undergone more evolution than I'll see in my lifetime.

Cheers for the reply. Sorry about the spelling, I do suffer a touch of the old dyslexia but these things happen when one doesn't do a spell check....doh

I would agree with all the points you make but I myself weight them differently.

Those cultures you point out, who can't think of a world not governed by their beliefs, also know that the world is not governed by them in the present nor is it likely to be in the future. In a Global community "ideal" those who follow such beliefs will find the knowledge that they themselves CAN carry out their beliefs system freely WITHOUT the threat of other's prejudice (or should in theory).

Those who believe that a world not entirely dominated by their beliefs is "an unthinkable reality" are truly in a minority. Given something real alongside understandable changes that make their existence(s) in this world better, with ideas that are not so far away from their own beliefs, may well offer such steadfast believers find agreement with change. (remember, once the was no religion, then there was, and it has been changing and evolving alongside humanity ever since)

I personally do not agree however with "I have rights equal to your rights concept" My concept goes... "My rights are only equal to the respect I give others and therefore their rights" if that makes sense.

" My rights are absolute, UNTIL they begin to interfere with YOUR rights; and, vice versa".....

Very true and commendable but rights and working together are not the same. I can believe as I do, and through such a conversation as this we may disagree, but our freedom is the right to disagree. What we can do instead is find common agreement and use this to strengthen ourselves or gain improvement. This means we both gain, but may both still fundamentally disagree. What you are truly pointing out to me is the lack off open mindedness in the world but I feel the world is far more prepared to open their eyes and minds to a Global Community if in reality the ideal is offered to ALL.

The evolution you believe must happen is happening. The world is shrinking and those on this side of the world can learn from those on the other side. The evolution is in communication, and as DEMOCRACY can prove, the majority of collective thinking usually holds true.

I understand the concepts of ownership as an individual, as a collective or as a kind of agent on behalf of either an individual or collective. I understand that something owned by the individual will only be shared if, the individual is willing to, is prepared to exchange it, or it is taken. I know that a collective can destroy what they share through disagreement or lack of co-operation, or they can make great things by working together. I also know that an individual can create just as positive or negative results when acting on another's behalf.

I thank you for your reply and I hope this may clarify my side a touch. I have found it insparational that anyone may have even taken a slight interest in my ramblings and if I were to offer you something from this...think towards the future, be less pesermistic about how fast reality can change for the good, but keep an open mind an open eye and an open heart. (spelt it right this time)

Stoofs.

PS not seen the film......will do.

Good to hear back from you. There are a lot of 'researchers' who put forth an opinion, and never bother to check back to see if their is reply (you may run across A.R. Sham, on this site. (Nice, peaceful guy, I'm sure; but he doesn't yet 'get' the sites areas, and doesn't seem to want to learn or reply).

I understand what you mean about the 'Those who believe that a world not entirely dominated by their beliefs is "an unthinkable reality" are truly in a minority.', the there's the rub. Properly indoctrinated, some of these minorities would give their lives for their beliefs, and beliefs (especially irrational ones) are the hardest thing for those interested in 'community' to fight.

Your thought on 'my vs. your' rights is marevelous among those who have respect for others. Respect, has dropped in popularity as a value since I was young, and was reportedly at a low ebb then. My definition of rights was actually just supposed to be one of those 'universal' starting points you were looking for, that didn't stem from religion. It is a small, but crucial, first step toward the level of rights embodied in your construct.

The world is shrinking in many ways. Democracy, though, has become such a vague and redefinable word, as used worldwide, that I'm not sure what YOU mean by it. And what happens when there are those that don't want that proffered jewel?

Working together can be a very noble goal, the trouble is getting that universal buy-in. Until basic needs are met, the baser instincts will still cause upheavals. Are you familiar with the famous and well-respected 'Maslow's heirarchy of needs' concept?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression of being pessamistic. I'm actually very positive about the future of the human race; but I do consider myself something of a realist about utopias.

Glad you enjoy the exchange of ideas. Live long and prosper.

Hi,

Check out my space an give us an opinion on my ideas about neighbourhood community development while thinking about those social problems we often see on our TVs.

Chrz Stoofs

Oh......democracy... = referendum process for ALL major international, national, regional or local and even neighbourhood community wise decisions. Votes would be weighted by those of whome the decision effects most, by those who have the most social responsibility for the implementation of the decision, and by the qualifications of the voter while taking into account the subjective nature of those qualifications. ie. a vote on the use of an area of woodland can be voted on by anyone. Those who's vote would be weighted would be those local to the woodland, those in charge of environmental issues in the neighbourhood/region etc and those with environmentaly related qualifications, plus all those who would deam to use the land for other perposes.