>>4010299

The important thing to keep in mind is that value is determined by an object or skill/task's desirability. The current system is designed to compel people to accept working tasks well below their value. The studies done have shown that managers who streamline a factory floor will then use those gains to pad their office staff (because being a manager over more people is better) with people who have nothing better to do than make cat memes all day (and justify the $400,000 student loans they still have to pay back with a comparably sized paycheck).

Ultimately, a "stable tomorrow" looks very different from today. People who own property and have few bills will not be willing to perform work that is undervalued, but will also be able to place a far lower PRICE on that work, as their cost of living is lower. Average pay goes down, but people are largely just paying for their utilities and food - there may even be a shift back toward sustenance gardening/farming, which would further shift how we live.

Many communities in Europe prior to World War 2 were somewhat communal. In small groups who stick together, people do gravitate toward a "i scratch your back and you scratch mine" sort of structure. There were community gardens, tool/workshops, bakeries, and community meals/feasts were rather common. This doesn't really scale as well to city life, but we could see many suburbs and rural areas default back to this very quickly. Many things people currently pay for would become part of the local community economy, where "social credit" systems can work within the Dunbar layering of our species (worth looking up - Dunbar Layers). All of this becomes radically amplified by the internet and today's automated manufacturing and "printing." A community could easily, with the trades within, afford to automate large parts of a hydroponics setup or to build the machinery necessary to produce textiles, electronics, etc.

For dealing with those outside the "tribe" - there is money. These are purchasing hard resources. Steel will almost always be more practical to purchase as a bulk refined resource. Aluminum - the same. Specialties are sure to arise within each community that appeals to its natural resources or historic skill set.

Depending on the local population density, what this "community" becomes may differ. It may literally be small towns, in some cases. In others, it may be residential subdivisions. In more urban areas, it may be social clubs or residential complexes. More dense populations have more need of money to deal with the lack of social credit tracking. We can't process that many people, and need money to faithfully execute/negotiate transactions, many of which will be things that those from more sparse communities generate on their own. Task specialization means greater efficiency, but also means greater dependence for other resources.

Depending on how that all pans out, we could see a massive collapse of most urban areas as people find them not worth the stress next to the gains in "3d printing" - while some things will always need factory settings to make, it is possible many would become redundant. Why make billions of plastic forks when the metal ones made at the 3d printer will last nearly forever and meal cleanup can be automated?

What will be worth producing in a factory and what will be made by micro-fabs will be up to the proverbial market - and I have long argued that human beings are not meant to live in cities. I believe they will ultimately migrate out of them once the technological advancements made recently take hold, spare for a few cases here and there. But it is a belief I am curious to see tested against the history of the future.

>>4014871

Whoever said we moved "forward" in the first place?

If you look back through history, you'll notice that families often owned large amounts of property and looked after each other. I am not proposing a commie or hippie anything - simply saying that old cultures tended to behave this way because it was effective and consistent with how our psychology naturally stratifies.

The age of young men seeking to head out and form their own nuclear families was a product of the immigrant culture as people migrated and were uprooted from that social structure in their homeland - if it was held at all because of serfdom in some regions.

Two world wars and the Vietnam draft also reinforced this pattern and expectation, now financed by the fractional reserve lending system that amplifies the already hideous power of the federal reserve. After the hereditary family was split up and destroyed - the community - the nuclear family followed as a target. The war on poverty destroyed the nuclear family by inserting the state in the position of the father.

Then the war on even sexual relations between men and women could begin, followed by the concept of self and individual identity.

Since all of this has been destroyed in our current system and only small vestiges of each remain, there will be no return to the family estate - at least for a long time. Those structures are largely gone within America, as are the concepts of familial clans that you still find in Europe and Asia. Thus, they will largely fall back onto local communities and who happens to be around at the time. Whatever "local" ends up being, as the internet now supports a form of locality beyond geography.

Very little of what we are currently living in is natural or beneficial. What benefit is there to cities? What benefit is there to denoting everything into a dollar value or exchange?

In my travels to the East for the holidays, there is apparently a new fad among the womenfolk - Ray Dunn (or Rei Dunn?) - various ceramic sets with inscriptions on them that are sold and collected like beanie babies. It makes for an interesting sociology study as you see women trading with each other - some "hunt" and stake out the stores to buy these things, depending on who they are buying them for depends on whether or not the exchange is done "at price" or not. Women who are "upsellers" are looked down on within the social group. Most prefer to trade within their "tribe."

Like I said - look up Dunbar Layering and you'll understand. None of this is surprising or actually "backward." Money and government are both tools we have developed to operate in increasingly large groups beyond the tribal restrictions of our mind.

The current system is designed to destroy inheritance, to break up the family, and to keep the individual subservient to the media and state. It is an evil thing and has done a very effective job of making everyone believe it is the paragon of progress.

Just go back and ask what the benefit is o of x, y, or z. Why are we living this way? Do we actually enjoy it? What factors weigh on our decisions?

Perhaps people will choose to keep cities. Perhaps my assessment misses something or is weighted by my suburban biases - or perhaps people will still live in cities, but the dynamics will change so substantially as to be unrecognizable, socially.

I do not really know - I just know how people have arranged in the past, what technology is more than capable of (particularly some stuff I am working on), and how people are currently arranged.