>>12018891Either way, you're right. It'd be cool. There's nothing wrong with starting something of the sort but living in the forest just won't cut it, and it's a lot more effort than many of us would put into it.
We would need actual shelter, a farm, people to maintain it, a dietician and general doctor to ensure we're getting the necessary nutrients and doing right by ourselves, a source of clean water and water purification system in place that can support all of us, a constant form of surveillance because it's unfortunate that you can't trust everyone to be good 100% of the time, a good teacher to relay important information, SOME source of income to buy new games/get new parts for broken games, etc. and all those plus many more things I can't think of 5x over since we have to ensure all those needs are met.
I love the idea as I honestly think every country's political and economic system is bloated and unsustainable. I believe good redundancy and stability lies in independence and self-motivated research. Too many pointless and meaningless jobs exist. We should by all rights be able to sustain a society that does only necessary jobs to keep society afloat while leaving the rest into the hands of basic knowledge. I don't see what would be wrong with a system where all basic needs were free while pleasure costs money. We already live in a system where construction workers, doctors, scientists, agricultural workers, engineers, and other basic necessity work is only a fraction of the population. If we made everything basic needs free and paid them handsomely with fun money, we'd probably still have an EXCESS of our basic needs met since those jobs would be most in demand. Meanwhile, if anyone else wants money for pleasure items, they work for it as they normally would. However, if you didn't care about pleasure, you'd still be able to sustain yourself, albeit boringly.
We'd be in a system where work is voluntary, but independence is absolutely necessary (cont)
