Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q2876: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Latest revision as of 23:48, 24 July 2026

Main entries

Communities can't scale infinitely
/ A community cannot contain infinite people / A socially-linked graph of people can never contain the entire number of people in the world -> here I am speaking super, super literally, like, about the concept that if you put a billion people in one city it would be a nightmare to take out the sewage. I'm not talking about people's attitudes toward each other or the Ideals they believe or the prejudices they have. I'm talking about the fact that physically you can't put a billion people in a city, you can't physically watch every video on youtube, you can't physically buy every art commission, you can't physically read every book. but especially the fact you can't physically put two billion people in one city

Physical city containing infinite people

USSR of 5 billion?
/ 5 billion in USSR? / Would the entire population of the world fit into the Soviet Union region? [that's a minimum of pronounced 5.4 billion people as of 1991] / Would the entire population of the world fit into the United States? / U.S. of 5 billion? -> this sounds silly, but if you think about it, if you cram everyone into Eurasia then nobody destroys the Amazon rainforest and every time some group of people pollutes the earth it comes closer to affecting their neighbors and making everybody complain about it. so, like, this might have been an ideal configuration to avoid climate change. the question then becomes, what are the real-world practical reasons we didn't do it? when you examine those you start to see what the real problems are with both philosophical (Idealist) multiculturalism and Idealist republicanism where people think that just teaching everyone an abstract Ideal can get everyone to make better policies. is "everyone" or are "we" truly a singular entity, or does "humanity" fundamentally exist as multiple entities that don't want to be governed by each other no matter how closely you pack everyone on earth?
impossibly tall city as symbol of multiculturalism / impossibly tall city as symbol of the unsolvable conundrums inside multiculturalist philosophy rather than as symbol of "The Future" / Coruscant problem (generic) [1] -> you've gotta figure out how to unite people into one civilization without building Coruscant if you really want to get rid of "Stalinism" and Liberal-republicanism alike. and it is not an easy problem. it appears impossible to even get to the naïve solution of "build Coruscant anyway" for somebody not knowledgeable about the deepest levels of Marxist theory. (which in my mind is sublating all philosophies and disciplines as their physical narratives and convincingly proving they all point to the correct version of Marxism.)

City physics

city cluster (not fused) / conurbation / urban agglomeration -> note: some people say urban agglomerations are different from conurbations. look into that again later
megalopolis (fusion of cities) / city cluster / 城市群 [2] / agglomeration (fused cluster of cities) -> note: the word agglomeration is no longer used because there is a looser kind of city cluster that is now called an urban agglomeration. so, that's been left perfectly confusing.
travel to work area / area defined based on the furthest distance from an urban center where people could plausibly commute to work [3] -> this is exactly the kind of thing we need to think about to solve what an unbreakable era of socialism looks like, because if the expected size of these gets too big then capitalism basically reverts to small capitalism and people cease to have agency.
atomic forces of a city / attractive and repulsive forces of a city [4] -> this was being used to create an objective measurement system for cities. interesting idea.

Are apples made of givanium?
/ Are apples a single chemical substance perhaps containing crystal structure but consisting of one chemical element containing infinite protons? / (9k) ->

rhetorical question you answer anarchists with. "wouldn't you prefer a civilization without political divisions or formal political organs to one with cops and soldiers?" "are apples made of givanium?" answer: "no; I wouldn't prefer something that doesn't make material sense and doesn't reflect the way material reality actually works, because if something is based on faulty premises and makes no sense I cannot want it; it is essentially a scam".
chunk competition
(motif; meta-Marxism) / all-directional contradiction between individuals (MDem v3) / (9k) -> as a real-world process, chunk competition can be characterized as a consequence of agorism (blue anarchism). to even say it comes "from capitalism" is a little misleading because then what does capitalism come from? it's all too easy for people to mistakenly think you can stop capitalism by combating "greed" and getting people to magically stop before society develops more. so the thing you have to tell them is that community and tolerance lead to chunk competition because tolerance makes cities expand and corporations grow to accommodate more people and if anyone says "stop!" people turn into bigots. then people will maybe begin to see what the problem is. would you want to stop tolerance or multiculturalism? no, you wouldn't. and yet if you let it run without examination, the exact same process eventually leads to racism, imperialism, and international war, when populations keep growing in parallel and smash into each other. United States: "oh god no we don't want to be part of the Soviet Union" Soviet Union: "nobody should want to be part of the United States" and then there's an international conflict, because the systems both have to grow in order to become more tolerant but they can't both grow over each other at the same time. unless you want global Dengism, I guess, where the entire world is ruled by a ring of bureaucrats and all countries have capitalism and are colonies of what amounts to a global monarchy. nobody wants that.

oh and in 1948 the United States tried to prove that it was better than the Soviet Union by creating a box in which to toss all the world's Jews; that was part of the story. the U.S. tried to win by "proving" that simply creating Israel as an extension of the United States and fighting enough wars (and believing in God enough) would fix the entire problem, so nobody would have to worry about passing laws about racism or managing the layout of populations, they could just make the amount of space in a country infinite with ethical commandments and imperialism.

Ideology codes

MX / meta-Marxism

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=meta-Marxism|User=RD|E=Q28,76|Contents=y}}
+{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Communities can't scale infinitely|User=RD|E=Q28,76|Contents=y}}
 == Main entries ==
 {{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">
-{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR, MX onto ES|Q=28,76|Q2=2876|rem=city A is free from people B}}A community cannot contain infinite people / A socially-linked graph of people can never contain the entire number of people in the world  ->  here I am speaking super, super literally, like, about the concept that if you put a billion people in one city it would be a nightmare to take out the sewage. I'm not talking about people's attitudes toward each other or the Ideals they believe or the prejudices they have. I'm talking about the fact that physically you can't put a billion people in a city, you can't physically watch every video on youtube, you can't physically buy every art commission, you can't physically read every book. but especially the fact you can't physically put two billion people in one city
+{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|tradition=MX onto LR, MX onto ES|Q=28,76|Q2=2876|rem=city A is free from people B|h4= Communities can't scale infinitely }} / A community cannot contain infinite people / A socially-linked graph of people can never contain the entire number of people in the world  ->  here I am speaking super, super literally, like, about the concept that if you put a billion people in one city it would be a nightmare to take out the sewage. I'm not talking about people's attitudes toward each other or the Ideals they believe or the prejudices they have. I'm talking about the fact that physically you can't put a billion people in a city, you can't physically watch every video on youtube, you can't physically buy every art commission, you can't physically read every book. but especially the fact you can't physically put two billion people in one city
 </li></ol>
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 <ol class="hue clean">
-{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|tradition=LR, IV onto LR|Q=28,75|Q2=2875|rem=Q28,76}}Would the entire population of the world fit into the Soviet Union region? [that's a minimum of {{TTS|tts=5.4 billion|5,418,735,891}} people as of 1991] / Would the entire population of the world fit into the United States?  ->  this sounds silly, but if you think about it, if you cram everyone into Eurasia then nobody destroys the Amazon rainforest and every time some group of people pollutes the earth it comes closer to affecting their neighbors and making everybody complain about it. so, like, this might have been an ideal configuration to avoid climate change. the question then becomes, what are the real-world practical reasons we didn't do it? when you examine those you start to see what the real problems are with both philosophical (Idealist) multiculturalism and Idealist republicanism where people think that just teaching everyone an abstract Ideal can get everyone to make better policies. is "everyone" or are "we" truly a singular entity, or does "humanity" fundamentally exist as multiple entities that don't want to be governed by each other no matter how closely you pack everyone on earth?
+{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|tradition=LR, IV onto LR|Q=28,75|Q2=2875|rem=Q28,76|h4= USSR of 5 billion? }}  / 5 billion in USSR? / Would the entire population of the world fit into the Soviet Union region? [that's a minimum of {{TTS|tts=5.4 billion|5,418,735,891}} people as of 1991] / Would the entire population of the world fit into the United States? / U.S. of 5 billion?  ->  this sounds silly, but if you think about it, if you cram everyone into Eurasia then nobody destroys the Amazon rainforest and every time some group of people pollutes the earth it comes closer to affecting their neighbors and making everybody complain about it. so, like, this might have been an ideal configuration to avoid climate change. the question then becomes, what are the real-world practical reasons we didn't do it? when you examine those you start to see what the real problems are with both philosophical (Idealist) multiculturalism and Idealist republicanism where people think that just teaching everyone an abstract Ideal can get everyone to make better policies. is "everyone" or are "we" truly a singular entity, or does "humanity" fundamentally exist as multiple entities that don't want to be governed by each other no matter how closely you pack everyone on earth?
 {{li|I=S1/MX|tradition=|Q=618|Q2=618}}impossibly tall city as symbol of multiculturalism / impossibly tall city as symbol of the unsolvable conundrums inside multiculturalist philosophy rather than as symbol of "The Future" / Coruscant problem (generic) {{YouTube|ndTtiggfVsA}}  ->  you've gotta figure out how to unite people into one civilization without building Coruscant if you really want to get rid of "Stalinism" and Liberal-republicanism alike. and it is not an easy problem. it appears impossible to even get to the naïve solution of "build Coruscant anyway" for somebody not knowledgeable about the deepest levels of Marxist theory. (which in my mind is [[EC:9k/RD/Q697|sublating]] all philosophies and disciplines as their physical narratives and convincingly proving they all point to the correct version of Marxism.)
+</li></ol>
+== City physics ==
+<ol class="hue clean">
+{{li|start=y|I=Z1/HAS|Q=51,98|Q2=5198}}city cluster (not fused) / conurbation / urban agglomeration  ->  note: some people say urban agglomerations are different from conurbations. look into that again later
+{{li|I=Z1/HAS|Q=51,99|Q2=5199}}megalopolis (fusion of cities) / city cluster / {{TTS|lang=zh|城市群|title=chéngshìqún}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalopolis] / agglomeration (fused cluster of cities)  ->  note: the word agglomeration is no longer used because there is a looser kind of city cluster that is now called an urban agglomeration. so, that's been left perfectly confusing.
+{{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=51,96|Q2=5196}}travel to work area / area defined based on the furthest distance from an urban center where people could plausibly commute to work [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_to_work_area]  ->  this is exactly the kind of thing we need to think about to solve what an unbreakable era of socialism looks like, because if the expected size of these gets too big then capitalism basically reverts to small capitalism and people cease to have agency.
+{{li|I=S1/HAS/STM|tradition=STM onto HAS|Q=51,97|Q2=5197}}atomic forces of a city / attractive and repulsive forces of a city [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalopolis]  ->  this was being used to create an objective measurement system for cities. interesting idea.
 </li></ol>
 == Related ==
-<!--
 <ol class="hue clean">
-</li></ol> -->
+{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|Q=618|Q2=618|h4= Are apples made of givanium? }} / Are apples a single chemical substance perhaps containing crystal structure but consisting of one chemical element containing infinite protons? / ({{9k|RD/Q618-ApplesMadeOfGivanium}})  -><br/>
+rhetorical question you answer anarchists with. "wouldn't you prefer a civilization without political divisions or formal political organs to one with cops and soldiers?" "are apples made of givanium?" answer: "no; I wouldn't prefer something that doesn't make material sense and doesn't reflect the way material reality actually works, because if something is based on faulty premises and makes no sense I cannot want it; it is essentially a scam".
+{{li|I=S1/MX/ES|Q=14,84|Q2=1484|h4 = chunk competition }} (motif; meta-Marxism) / all-directional contradiction between individuals ({{book|MDem}} v3) / ({{9k|RD/Q14,84}})  ->  as a real-world process, chunk competition can be characterized as a consequence of [[EC:9k/RD/Q618-SquareOfNonAggressiveActivities|agorism]] (blue anarchism). to even say it comes "from capitalism" is a little misleading because then what does capitalism come from? it's all too easy for people to mistakenly think you can stop capitalism by combating "greed" and getting people to magically stop before society develops more. so the thing you have to tell them is that community and tolerance lead to chunk competition because tolerance makes cities expand and corporations grow to accommodate more people and if anyone says "stop!" people turn into bigots. then people will maybe begin to see what the problem is. would you want to stop tolerance or multiculturalism? no, you wouldn't. and yet if you let it run without examination, the exact same process eventually leads to racism, imperialism, and international war, when populations keep growing in parallel and smash into each other. United States: "oh god no we don't want to be part of the Soviet Union" Soviet Union: "nobody should want to be part of the United States" and then there's an international conflict, because the systems both have to grow in order to become more tolerant but they can't both grow over each other at the same time. unless you want global Dengism, I guess, where the entire world is ruled by a ring of bureaucrats and all countries have capitalism and are colonies of what amounts to a global monarchy. nobody wants that.<br/>
+oh and in 1948 the United States tried to prove that it was better than the Soviet Union by creating a box in which to toss all the world's Jews; that was part of the story. the U.S. tried to win by "proving" that simply creating Israel as an extension of the United States and fighting enough wars (and believing in God enough) would fix the entire problem, so nobody would have to worry about passing laws about racism or managing the layout of populations, they could just make the amount of space in a country infinite with ethical commandments and imperialism.
+</li></ol>
 == Ideology codes ==