Interesting thoughts David on this question of Urban V’s Rural and on connection . My understanding is that exclusion was used by tribe for anyone not pulling their ‘weight’ or being disruptive or dangerous.
Even without Governments there will have to be rules , just like in couples, friendships or small groups. Then there have to be consequences for not following the rules. Establishing those early on manages expectations and membership.
I live in the UK so a hunter-gatherer existence is not possible , is it for you ?
The problem with this is that proximity doesn't equal community. Urban living has huge numbers of people but they are not bound by any commonality. Even though separated by distance, rural people have a better familiarity with their neighbors. They are not anonymous. There are fewer people to interact with so you get to know them better. In an urban environment, you might interact with someone once in a lifetime just because there are so many possible interactions.
Short term it can work as there are people who are selfless who will take up the slack. Long term, people who don't contribute will be shunned and excluded. Yes, some those brought together by adversity might form a bond with the rest but some people will abuse trust and have to be excluded.
If I am choosing a location for long term survivability, I wouldn't necessarily choose either urban or rural but something in between. Modern life has a lot of dependencies on things that are not technologically replaceable in a rural setting. It requires a lot of resources that just don't exist in an urban setting. Yes, far enough out in the wilderness you could revert to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, assuming you have the skills, but that is a whole different scenario. Living that lifestyle demanded very small interdependent groups and had a very high mortality rate.
Interesting thoughts David on this question of Urban V’s Rural and on connection . My understanding is that exclusion was used by tribe for anyone not pulling their ‘weight’ or being disruptive or dangerous.
Even without Governments there will have to be rules , just like in couples, friendships or small groups. Then there have to be consequences for not following the rules. Establishing those early on manages expectations and membership.
I live in the UK so a hunter-gatherer existence is not possible , is it for you ?
Thanks for contributing to this conversation .
The problem with this is that proximity doesn't equal community. Urban living has huge numbers of people but they are not bound by any commonality. Even though separated by distance, rural people have a better familiarity with their neighbors. They are not anonymous. There are fewer people to interact with so you get to know them better. In an urban environment, you might interact with someone once in a lifetime just because there are so many possible interactions.
Short term it can work as there are people who are selfless who will take up the slack. Long term, people who don't contribute will be shunned and excluded. Yes, some those brought together by adversity might form a bond with the rest but some people will abuse trust and have to be excluded.
If I am choosing a location for long term survivability, I wouldn't necessarily choose either urban or rural but something in between. Modern life has a lot of dependencies on things that are not technologically replaceable in a rural setting. It requires a lot of resources that just don't exist in an urban setting. Yes, far enough out in the wilderness you could revert to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, assuming you have the skills, but that is a whole different scenario. Living that lifestyle demanded very small interdependent groups and had a very high mortality rate.