Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Veni, vidi, teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Caveman Sanctuary

For those who prefer the simple life.
  [vote for,

I think it's wrong that every person who is born has to pay taxes in one form or another simply to live because the land they are born on is already owned.

Many times It's occurred to me that, if I could simply live in the wilderness I could build a shelter that would suit my needs and live out my life perfectly happy without all the modern conveniences that taxes are required to pay for (like plumbing, electricity, emergency services, roads, etc...).

Even to put a roof over your head, you must pay, either to buy a used home, have a new home built and inspected, or rent.

My problem is this: Why should I have to pay a constrtucion company to build/inspect my home, when I can build one myself? Because the public has decided that you must meet their standards of safety and they charge you to have the place inspected. Not to mention that you have to buy the land, which I think every person born on this planet is entitled to.

What I'm proposing is a large portion of land that is currently unused (like large areas of Montana) to be set aside for anybody to live there who doesn't want to play by the rules of society. After all, we have a right as living beings to decide if we want to be part of a community. If we wish to exclude ourselves, we should have a place to go.

This would be a lawless area, surrounded by a 20-ft wall (built by those who wish to live there) with a guarded entrance. Anybody who wishes to enter must sign a form waiving all constitutional rights and protection from the law. The guard shack is to prevent escaped prisoners and other fugitives from fleeing to these areas to escape the law. You must have a clean record to enter, which is checked by the guards using the national police database (whatever that database is actually called, I have no clue).

You can bring in whatever you can carry (if you have a vehicle, it must be fully paid for). Once you're in, you're on your own. You don't pay taxes, you don't get any assistance from the government. You are completely free.

There is a 6-month trial period wherein one can decide if his/her newfound freedom is worth sacrificing the perks of civilization. As I said, you pay no taxes. As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. I think that a lot of people would be returning to society within their first 6 months, with a newfound appreciation for what they were so willing to cast away. Others would not return, finding more satisfaction in the natural lifestyle this Sanctuary provides. I think a trial period to weed out the ones who don't have what it takes would result in a more harmonious environment for everybody. If you stay more than 6 months, chances are you know you want to be there. 6 months should be plenty of time to know if you're cut out for life without luxuries. Of course, the 6 months is not a definite thing, were this to actually be baked the trial period would be debatable.

21 Quest, Nov 14 2006


       You might find the simple life ain't so simple, me thinks (the action, not the name). But more power to you.

       Am I also to assume that once in, ther is no coming out? Because I don't want you to change your mind when your foot gets a scratch on it, turns to gangrene, and all of a sudden you gotta see one of them civilization docs. Or your kid gets a case of the sniffles that turns to a regular cold that in turn is killing him because you have no medicine?
NotTheSharpestSpoon, Nov 14 2006

       That assumption is correct. I don't go to hospitals, anyway. I've found that there is almost nothing I can't fix with a properly-maintained herb garden and some very basic medical tools (tweezers, scalpel, needle, thread, and a few other esentials).
21 Quest, Nov 14 2006

       OK, you've invented anarchy. I think this exists in parts of the world.

       What's to stop me and my fellow gangsters friends from saying that I own your girlfriend and you and forcing you to be my slaves? We may have had a clean record when we entered, but we did not have good intentions.

       How about firearms, will you control their import? How about education, will you have education or is everyone just going to be back in the stone age in a generation? What will you do the first time you get an appendicitis, or an infected tooth? Will there be hospitals? Roads?

       Society 2.0..interesting!
jmvw, Nov 14 2006

       I think this already exisits, its called "the Woods".
jhomrighaus, Nov 14 2006

       ...well really, it's what the White Man stold from the Native Americans...
xandram, Nov 14 2006

       Actually, I was thinking maybe there could be a 6-month trial period, so if you decide you made the wrong choice, you can leave and re-enter society.

       Also, I was thinking a 21+ age limit. Sorry, no kids unless they're born there. The specific age limit is debateable.

       jmvw, rcarty, what's to stop me and my friends from kicking your friends' asses when you try? It's a risk you take when you sign the form. How much is freedom worth? As far as firearms, that's arguable. I mean, how would you get ammo once you ran out of what you carried in?

       If there are firearms permitted, then you're just as likely to get shot in your little slavery attempt as you are to actually enslave anybody. It's called survival of the fittest.
21 Quest, Nov 14 2006

       this could be a good thing if you did have medicine from the outside, and made sure that everyone had high morale standards-- which is something that has to be taught cause your definetly not born with it. there would have to be at least some sort of order established to prevent murdering freaks from running rampant, an eye for eye attitude might work, people lose interest in killing if they know they will be killed immediatly( not years down the road like in prisons) for such a crime.
Ozzy, Nov 14 2006

       Im not sure that one could ever call living in a place surrounded by a 20 foot wall "free".
jhomrighaus, Nov 14 2006

       Heinlein has already been there, although I don't recall which book.

       His protagonist got pissed off at the State, and opted out. He bought a jeep, weapons, provisions, and drove over to the entrance to the "free" area.

       The State made him sign a waiver, and then let him drive through the neutral zone, to the gate that led into the "free" area.

       He was greeted by the "free" area customs people, who punched him in the nose, took his jeep and provisions.
normzone, Nov 14 2006

       //Im not sure that one could ever call living in a place surrounded by a 20 foot wall "free".//

       You are free to go there in the first place, nobody's forcing you to go. And you are free to roam at your will inside the free area.
21 Quest, Nov 14 2006

       Wasn't this the plot of the film 'The Village'?
hidden truths, Nov 14 2006

       Never saw that movie. Not a big fan of that producer.
21 Quest, Nov 14 2006

       <side note> I have noticed people citing plot elements from novels and films that are similar to ideas, and then presenting what happened in the book as if it were evidence or proof of what would happen in the real world. I really don't see how what happened in a book could be considered relevant to this conversation. This isn't an attack at normzone (really, no offence NZ I just don't see the relevance), just an observation of something that many people do in this site, that bugs me a little.. I mean all sorts of weird shit happens in books, doesn't make it likely or real...</sn>

       I do kinda like this idea, it's similar to a scenario I often think about. It would have to be a case of "what happens in the zone, stays in the zone", and so it would really require a large island or otherwise isolated location. [Ozzy], I don't think that would work. I mean, if some of the inhabitants band together and form a band of vigilante police, well then fine. I see this as an all or nothing proposal. In agreeing to enter you are rejecting all things associated with society such as human rights, etc. Otherwise, someone would have to pay for the perpetuation of services such as guarding the walls, supplying medicine, etc.

       In our society, if someone doesn't want access to benefits such as roads, runnning water, electricity, government etc, they simply have no options available. I do think you would find that many people would sign up for this.

       BTW [21 Quest] ok, you are fairly self-sufficient. But what happens when your appendix swells, you get an impact wisdom tooth, tumor, etc? Youd have to accept the fact that there will be NO option for outside assistance. Otherwise you'd be asking the society you have rejected to help you out. I don't think it would be fair to do so.
Custardguts, Nov 14 2006

       There are examples of less organized societies. Without guns: Amazon Indians. With guns: Somalia. Both are fairly violent and people don't get very old. You can decide if that's good or bad, but I wonder how many women would join Cavemen Sanctuary.
jmvw, Nov 14 2006

       At one time, (here in North America), there used to be squatters rights where if you built a homestead with only hand tools and were self sufficient for a number of years, that crown land then belonged to you.

       Even though it is no longer legal, if I ever discover the right cave system...   

       [custardguts], I'd no intention of presenting that Reader's Digest summary of a Heinlein story as evidence that this is what would happen in the real world.

       I did not append the tag that I often do when I reference a fifty year old story line [preheated].

       But this site is about ORIGINAL ideas, and there's got to be several hundred here that have been thought of and written out in great detail, often very well, by somebody else several decades ago.

       These are ideas that anybody who could do a little reading would know about, or even somebody who knows how to use Google.

       This doesn't make the idea baked, but what do you do with the oven before you bake something?

       [if some of the inhabitants band together and form a band of vigilante police]. It's called a government. We just can't seem to avoid it. It's like religion - if there isn't one around, you can rely on humans to start one.

       EDIT: Here's a Halfbakery idea for somebody to craft. Create a software tool that you drop a summary of a potential bakery idea into.

       This tool cross-references your idea with a database of the most commonly known scifi storylines and the summaries of the best-known authors works.

       The tool returns either a finding of "I don't know, doesn't look like it's been done before to me" or a "Are you kidding? Have you been reading Samuel Delaney, Stars in my Pockets Like Grains of Sand".
normzone, Nov 14 2006

       Demographics kill hunter-gatherer societies.

       That is to say, a given area of land can always support a larger population if that population is more specialised and interdependent (and less self-reliant and free).

       When the Plains Indians lost to the U.S. Cavalry, they were not so much out-gunned as simply out-numbered, and the main reason why they were out-numbered was that they were a hunter-gatherer people competing for land with a semi-urbanised people who, ipso facto, had a much larger manpower base.

       The same process is still happening to Aboriginal lands in parts of Australia, though more politely and with less shooting.

       In North America, you may not be so conscious of competition for habitable land, because population density has not yet reached European or Asian levels, but that's a matter of time.
pertinax, Nov 14 2006

       'Nother quote, I'm afraid, from one of my all-time favourite books.

       Isn't there something in living dangerously?..... I like the inconveniences."

       "We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably."

       "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."

       "In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

       "All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."

       "Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.

       "I claim them all," said the Savage at last.

       Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.
squeak, Nov 15 2006

       It all seems a big waste of money. If you've got people that want to be removed from society and live independantly and self-sufficiently, they can go and live in Siberia or become a gypsy. Constructing an enormous wall and manning it with 24 hour guard patrols seems redundant. Tell them to live in a jungle with a tribe, or with the Aboriginis in Australia.

       I think it's an honourable wish, to cast off your social binds and be free with the animals and nature, but you can do that already, the only problem being you need an enormous amount of courage and determination to do it which not many of us have.

       Also, a civilisation will grow inside the walls, whether you want it to or not. It's how humans have survived for so long, using their intelligence and collective force. Otherwise we are weak, slow and prone to illness.
theleopard, Nov 15 2006

       Nothing except police and range patrols who will arrest you if you don't have a permit, which you have to PAY FOR. And if I was born in the U.S.A., I shouldn't have to move to the other side of the world in a barren, frigid, near-lifeless environment.
21 Quest, Nov 15 2006

       //who will arrest you if you don't have a permit, which you have to PAY FOR//

       You don't have to pay for one in Siberia. Besides, no one will know you're there.

       Fair enough [21] but if you're releasing your life to a world without money, presumably, if you auctioned off all your worldly possessions (or just your car) you could afford one of these licences of which you speak.
theleopard, Nov 15 2006

       //if you auctioned off all your worldly possessions //

       I want to take my worldly possessions with me, and I need my car to pack them in. I've spent my life thus far accumulating them by playing by the rules of society, I've earned them and I'm not giving them up.
21 Quest, Nov 15 2006

       [21], all I'm saying is that upon changing your accomodation needs, ie, to none, you'd have a bit of spare change lying around, having sold your house, retained your flat's deposit or your plain not spending any more money on rent and bills, and that cash could, or could not, in whatever fashion you see fit, be spent on something that may, or may not, make your newly adopted lifestyle a little easier, like, for instance, a license, with which you can legitimately live in the woods as a bearded wildman, if you so desire, which you evidently do, in this case.
theleopard, Nov 15 2006

       Fair enough... :-)
21 Quest, Nov 15 2006

       I think this is overly-complex, even for the HB.

       'Twould be easier to just buy a plot of land in the middle of Montana and live there yourself anyway. You can always create an account with a bank to cover the cost of taxes on property as an automatic withdrawal from a checking account before you go.

shapu, Nov 15 2006

       The whole point is to not have to buy the land in the first place, based on the concept that I am entitled to free land as a native-born citizen.
21 Quest, Nov 15 2006

       The term citizen implies a state. States depend on taxes.
jmvw, Nov 15 2006

       I'm sorry I used a politically inaccurate term. What word would you use to describe a non-citizen native?
21 Quest, Nov 15 2006

       //...a right as living beings to decide if we want to be part of a community. If we wish to exclude ourselves, we should have a place to go.//

       ... your gated 'community'? This doesn't make sense.

       If you want to do this without creating a new community, there are plenty of places to do it. I have a friend who lives in the mountains, in a house he built himself. He was a teacher, now runs a wilderness survival program and goes home to see his kids for the weekend every 5 weeks. When the kids are through school, his wife (and the kids if they so choose) will join him in the woods. At this point he will discontinue his program. Close enough?
Shz, Nov 15 2006

       //What word would you use to describe a non-citizen native?//

       I don't know. I just thought I'd point out that if you want access to be exclusive to citizens of a country (US is assumed) that the Sanctuary relies on the existence of that country. As a consequence a small amount of taxes for defense and administration of the country might be in order. Also, you'd need either taxes or community service to maintain the fence. It's just a detail, that's all.
jmvw, Nov 15 2006

       [I am entitled to free land as a native-born citizen]

       Interesting concept. Currently we believe we are entitled to free air, but when we colonize the moon there will be an air tax.

       We are entitled to the potential for pain and some opportunity. Anything else is merely an agreed-upon convention by current societal agreement.
normzone, Nov 15 2006

       //What word would you use to describe a non-citizen native?//

shapu, Nov 15 2006

       Sounds kinda sinister, don't you think?
21 Quest, Nov 15 2006

       [Shz], I'm very curious about the house in the mountains bit. Did he just wander up there & build it?
Zimmy, Nov 15 2006

       I hadn't been to the doctor in years. Still, now that I have torn my ACL I am damned glad I have health insurance and access to skilled surgeons. Limping sucks, even for cavemen!
GutPunchLullabies, Nov 15 2006

       [Zimmy], my friend (Rob) had permission. I met the owner, some years ago, a friend of Rob's. He was in his 90's at the time and has since passed away. He owned a ridiculously large chunk of the mountain range which he logged for his paper company. He retired in the 50's and sold the paper company, but kept the land and set up some sort of fund to pay the taxes indefinitely. Logging isn't allowed there anymore and the forest has since healed completely, which is as he wanted. Presumably one of his children or grandchildren has a claim to it, but I don't know for sure. The only interest I've ever heard of for the land is from the Army, to use as training ground. Rob has some say in how the land is used. He's the caretaker, I guess you'd say, but I don't know the extent of his legal rights.
Shz, Nov 15 2006

       //I've found that there is almost nothing I can't fix with a properly-maintained herb garden and some very basic medical tools (tweezers, scalpel, needle, thread, and a few other esentials).//

       Try fixing a transposition of the great valves.

       Oh you could also tape this "experience" and call it "Survivor"
Chefboyrbored, Nov 15 2006

       Its pretty funny that for the past hundred thousand years or so (less if you follow creationism), we have never done anything this , for lack of a better word, silly. I would place large sums of money on the assumption that any farmer a few hundred years back, would kill for a better life. In fact, I'm sure that if you went back even futher, to the nomadic tribes of people, they would go to any means to live a (reasonably) modern life. Like the Amish.

       What I'm trying to say, is that evolution (if it exists), life, God, everything has pointed us into the direction where the human race is now. Jumping back a thousand years is not productive, or very fulfilling. It is just plain silly.
Raithah, Nov 15 2006

       //past hundred thousand years or so (less if you follow creationism), // + //evolution (if it exists)// Ditch the pointless parentheses, they aren't necessary. (Unless you were joking, in which case I apologise)

       Otherwise I do kind of agree with your point [Raithah] However, it is beneficial (in evolutionary terms) to have members of our population spread as far, and living as diversely as possible so that, when the great catastrophe comes, there'll be more chance of at least one of those populations surviving - perhaps we should encourage [21Quest] and others of his ilk to go and live in the woods?

       Or perhaps not - I quite like the fact that the woods, and other areas of interest are largely uninhabited. I quite like being able to visit the woods, without fear of being stripped of my technological goods and being a possible food source for the wild-men.
zen_tom, Nov 16 2006

       A few years ago, I lived in an abandoned hut up in the mountains in Ibiza (albeit for only 3 months). I fabricated a shower for hygiene purposes, but lived without electricity. It was the most alive I've ever felt.
jtp, Nov 16 2006

       What did you eat?
zen_tom, Nov 16 2006

       Disco biscuits?
calum, Nov 16 2006

       //I am entitled to free land//

What a bizarre concept
hippo, Nov 16 2006

       //(Unless you were joking, in which case I apologise)// It's impossible to properly pass sarcasm on the internet, isn't it ?

       Anyways, my main point was that people have survived thus far by being in society, or at least organized groups of people. I understand that there will be small groups of people banded together, but still : we are evolutionarily programmed to build civilisations. Repressing that and living out your life alone is actualy a medical condition, albeit it concerns islands (http://tinyurl.com/yk8kwn)
Raithah, Nov 16 2006

       Berries. And disco biscuits.
jtp, Nov 16 2006

       And a lovely little Spanish girl named Bruna. Ah, the memories...
jtp, Nov 16 2006

       Oh please...
squeak, Nov 16 2006

       I was walking along a beach the other night at about 3am with one of my friends, discussing the whole survival thing, and how it makes for a kind of half life, the way we live. Human beings seem to have an unparallelled ability to and desire to adapt the environment to us rather than adapting ourselves to the environment (of course some other animals do this a bit too, just not to the same extent, and the environment we have 'adapted' to us of course is poisining us not to mention the rest of the planet so I'm not sure how adaptive it is). We don't really have to do anything ourselves to stay alive anymore, and I think sometimes it makes us feel only half alive.

       I know the most alive I've ever felt was going on a 10 day hike in Tasmania. We didn't quite bring enough food, the weather was terrible (on one day we couldn't actually leave the tent because we thought we might freeze and all our stuff was soaked!) and we were miles away from anywhere and anyone (no other idiots were out walking at that time of year). But I just felt so alive!

       I don't know I would like to live like that permanently, but maybe people should get the opportunity to do that more. The problem is I suppose that if more people did do that then we would sprawl more and destroy more... It's a thing, same as with people just walking out in to the wilderness 'disappearing' from civilization to be nomads (and I don't think that's really possible these days, realistically), that only works when few people do it.

       Also, the concept of a 'right to free land' only seems weird if you look at it from the prespective that land should be bought and sold. If this is not how you look at land, if he land is not yours to buy and sell then it is not bizarre at all. The land belongs to no-one and we are all merely visitors upon the earth. Then the idea of buying and selling it begins to look odd...
cetacean, Nov 16 2006

       It's interesting that this society (or anti- society) you want to build would have to rely on the very State that you are trying to escape.

       If you intend to release yourself of the supposed shackles of society, you should not burden society with any of what it has to give, including clothing, computers, cars, guns, etc. Even when we are most removed from society (living in the mountains, etc) we still rely on it (and therefore the other people within it) for many things that we take for granted (like tools, for example).

       This society should not exist on the mainland - that gives it the benefit of the US military in border security, and also makes it a tempting target. Instead, your society should be on a remote island somewhere. That would also give it the benefit of fish as a food resource, and force your society to have to protect itself without any help from outside. Also, you'd be surrounded by ocean, so it would be harder for invaders to sneak up on you. Agreements would have to be made on how much of the surrounding area you could use for fishing and scouting. Since this island, and this space, would probably be within the territory of some country (US or otherwise), you'd have to buy it. You'd have to buy the land, anyway, since if you didn't, what's to prevent some national force from destroying your society and taking back what it would consider to be its land?

       Finally, because you would have limited resources, you'd have to establish a limit on how many people could stay there. Without the benefit of contraceptives, some people would probably have to be killed anyway, to spare resources for the good of the majority. Expect the average lifespan to be significantly decreased.

       Don't get me wrong; I've always loved the idea of creating a small sustainable place where I'm mostly self-reliant and removed from the normal pains of society (such as this annoying invention we call a "credit rating"). However, I've also come to recognize the fact that I can never really leave this human society - I can only minimize my contact with it slightly.
Alex Yeh, Nov 17 2006

       Why must it be on an island? If you're born on the mainland, you have a right to a chunk of the mainland. I was thinking of having it somewhere along a coastal shoreline, that takes away the "relying on protection" issue. You can't ask it to be completely isolated, like an island would require, because the U.S.A. isn't completely isolated, we neighbor Mexico and Canada. That's hypocritical.
21 Quest, Nov 17 2006

       You're right; your country (you would essentially be founding your own country) *could* be located on a coastline. I'm just thinking that if you simply take the land, claiming it to be yours by birthright, your society would face a mighty battle. Also, an island would make for an interesting plot device ;--)

       The US took over this land by buying it or invading it with military force.

       Certainly, if anyone has a "right" to this land, it would be the Native Americans, who have been here the longest. And, indeed, Native American tribes do have some (small) sections of land that they lay claim to, although not without some of the laws of society (just look at the Leonard Peltier case).

       I guess I'm just feeling really serious today ;--)
Alex Yeh, Nov 17 2006

       Ask the "native americans", you know, the primitive tribes who lived here before the whites came. Well, I'm just as native as any of those people.

       (note: or read the above anno, Ian)
21 Quest, Nov 17 2006

       I don't think anybody does actually have any intrinsic right to anything. Rights are constructs.
cetacean, Nov 17 2006

       well I say the earth is mine, I own it cause I was born on it, everybody is past due on their rent so as soon as I have a way or a place to evict all of you freeloaders too, I'll finally have this almost destroyed world all to myself. Ha-HA
Ozzy, Nov 20 2006

       Is the idea to avoid modern society or just society in general?

       Surely eventually the same system we have now, or something near it is going to form naturally just because thats the way people as a whole are.
Helixthecat, Nov 20 2006

       This works for people who have a "live and let live" mentality. Everyone else will be interested in fighting, stealing, and conquoring control of this "city". There are plenty of national parks and public wildlife reserves in america where one can freely live off the land without being bothered or harassed by the authorities.
Jscotty, Nov 20 2006

       [normzone] I think the story was either called "Coventry" or "Sanctuary", and of course other stories about colonizing a new planet.

       So "homesteading" is illegal now ? :( crap, there goes my retirement plans.
FlyingToaster, Feb 22 2009

       Syphilis would probably be rampant inside the sanctuary.
bungston, Mar 16 2010

       // OK, you've invented anarchy //

       You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
BunsenHoneydew, Mar 16 2010

       you haven't walked far enough into the woods you lazybones. The scrub behing the megamart isn't even trying. You need to get at least 50 miles from the nearest paved road.
WcW, Mar 16 2010

       All the criticisms levelled at this idea seem to miss the obvious: We've been here before, people lived for millions of years without the luxuries of medicine etc. It worked for a lot longer than our current industrialised society is likely to last.

       The problems would be in persuading the rest of the world to keep their hands off the Caveman Sanctuary. In not too many years time, oil will become too scarce to rely on, food production will reach the limit as population increases adn things will start to go badly wrong. When this happens, an established self sufficient society suddenly looks very attractive. Those who still have power will prefer to simply walk in an take over rather than actually create their own.

       I think we will have to wait for the current system to collapse before we start building the new one. Too much conflict of interests.
Twizz, Mar 17 2010

       Sheesh. As a dominant species, we humans are pretty pathetic. Having got this far, we just turn around and say "Oh no - it's all going to go wrong! We are so baaad, let's all learn to eat string and catch malaria."

       Come on humans. Get some fucking balls.
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 17 2010

       You tell 'em, [Max]. They ain't listening to us, for sure.

       (By the way, is that a metaphor, or are you referring to the item bottom right of page 43 of ther Ann Summers catalog ? Just asking...)
8th of 7, Mar 17 2010

       [MB], I think you are incorrect. It is our "save the whales" (guilt for being at the top of the food chain derived) social pussyfying that has us, as a species, castrated. What my good friend, and almost qualifying as a testicle owning airman here proposes, is a safe haven for those who would prefer to keep thier balls, in lieu of trading them in for the illusion of a transcended esoteric state of social and moral superiority.

       This planet, and her cyclic climate, is entering into a season of extremes.

       This, historically, weeds out the weak.
MikeD, Mar 17 2010

       [8th] your catalogue is last season's.

       [Mike] You're probably right, but the solution lies surely in reviving our pride as a species overall rather than creating enclaves? I dunno. (Warning - rant about to begin....) We spend so much effort and energy on all kinds of angst (can't go to the moon until we've resolved all the social and economic issues; can't do X and Y because of their carbon footprint...) that in fact we do more harm than good, overall. None of the environmental angst, or at least very little of it, actually helps the environment - it just helps salve our conscience. Witness the gross carbon footprint of "green" biofuels, which turn out to produce more CO2 than fossil fuels over a century-long timescale, and which just bugger up all kinds of ecosystems.

       There, I feel a bit better now. Nurse.....
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 18 2010

       //It worked for a lot longer than our current industrialised society is likely to last.//

       Dead by 30, astronomical rates of infant mortality. An interesting definition of "worked".
BunsenHoneydew, Mar 18 2010

       Also a sustainable population and mortality rate.
21 Quest, Mar 18 2010

       And here we are again...

       Looking again at the original idea, I found this part amusing -

       " What I'm proposing is a large portion of land that is currently unused (like large areas of Montana) to be set aside for anybody to live there who doesn't want to play by the rules of society...

       ... This would be a lawless area, surrounded by a 20-ft wall (built by those who wish to live there) "

       Too funny.

       "You know how it works. If you want to live here, you'll show up and work on the damned 20-ft wall on Tuesdays and Thursdays like everybody else , or else you can go back where you came from. We should be done with it in only 5 more years, so just suck it up and dig. "

       So much for lawless.
normzone, Mar 24 2010

       That @!%~&^! wall is more of the same pussifying I came to get away from! No wall or an 80 foot Kongproof wall, I say!

       Plus it's ladies night in the Caveman Sanctuary, and I hear the chicks don't dig 20 foot walls.

       Vote changed to +.
bungston, Mar 24 2010


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle