Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MoM
Yes, but let me write it out to be sure: you're saying that in the new anarchical society, the people would be forced to learn more about their job in order to do the same thing. And so they would, in order to survive.
|
They would learn about it because it benefitted them. And then they could still decide to run the factory another way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MoM
Also, why do they have the job in the first place?
|
It's for the benefit of their group, commune, society, whatever and so it is benefitial for them. As long as it remains that way, there is incentive to work at the factory. But nobody is actually in a position to run the factory, so to speak.
This is how I rationalize it. I'm guessing Smarty has another response for you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Krylo
You should go into more detail on that, Oster.
|
Social evolution is not evolution in the genetic or physiological sense. One of the oldest examples of social evolution is the evolution of a common language for a group. In todays society there are certain morals most of us consider to be the norm. They are the result of social evolution, for obviosly it wasn't always like that.
EDIT: So I see no reason why social evolution could not reach a point where a lot of things could be possible.