It seems to be that, given what you've said, anarchism is the perfect ideology for the unempathic civilization precisely because it is so decentralized. anyhoo, good chatting with you, enlightening.
Also, the video makes the mistake that "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" were somehow connected - this is unlikely to be true and we shouldn't be let ourselves be dragged down into believing noble myths. It's possible the two didn't even live at the same time.
Why care? Because there would be many issues that would effect more than just your own commune. Also, there is more to caring than casting a vote. Interesting video. I believe it supports my thesis; because humans are such poor responders to things outside their immediate emotional scope, there must be institutions and procedures in place that perform the function of a collective of maximally empathic entities. You can't feel a strong emotional connection with a bunch of strangers on the other side of the map, and this has important political implications. Sure, one can claim to identify with a larger human community, but that connection lacks the visceral impact that seeing one's close associates and experiencing one's mirror neurons firing off as a result has.
I don't think so, why would you need to care about your neighboring commune? When people vote it is because the issue at hand affects them, so they'll care, region A wont vote for region B's policies. you'll like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
Perhaps I was unclear; it's not just a matter of logistics, it's a matter of empathy as well. People find it hard to empathise with crowds or stats on a report sheet. Anarchy requires empathy to work properly.
logistics was never an issue in anarchism involving large numbers, which seems to be what your suggesting
I think anarchy works fine in small groups, about 150 people or so. This isn't surprising considering that would have been the largest size of a social group during primitive communism. It's the kind of society we naturally evolved. But beyond that number, it becomes hard for most people to keep track and maintain empathy for large numbers of anonymous strangers, and institutions need to be in place to counter that.
Do you think anarchy needs technocracy?
When I said established or maintained by force, I meant by a minority over a majority. A Technate is a technocratic society.
But it's revolutionary, so this would necessarily be brought about by force. by technate, you mean?
