1. I think that our society will eventually succeed since we didn’t choose to govern and organize the people in a certain and specific way, but in fact, in a method that combined different elements and ideologies that could easily be adapted to a new society. As well, I believe that a lot of anarchy would be seen in such a type of living. So few people living at one place will result to a non-centralized or lenient government that will ultimately lead to a vast quantity of liberties and freeness for citizens. The previous statement could easily alter the environment, because it makes life for the civilians an easy one, and the dealing of difficulties will be unknown. Probably, the society won’t scientifically and technologically succeed, but in terms of surviving and creating liaisons within the people, it will surely be easygoing and relatively simple to accomplish.
2. I think that to live in such a type of society should be pretty boring and monotonous, however, it would be easy and not much fighting would be seen. My theory is that this wouldn’t be seen as a society, but in fact, more as a community because everybody would be related with everybody and whenever problems would be presented to someone, they will involucrate everybody and probably, every person would be affected by it. I think that everybody will care for every single person, and whenever anyone is having some type of dilemma with someone else, every individual will try to eliminate the hatred environment in order to prevent awkward and unwanted relations in the small area. When I mentioned the anarchy thing I was talking about how everybody would be doing their own business and their own desires all the time. There would be no president or actual government, so why would people follow certain rules that are not very important and inefficient for the development of the society? This doesn’t mean however, that there would be no laws, but better said, there would be elastic ones. If I had to live in a place under these characteristics, I would probably go crazy watching the same people every day and facing unexpected and new things only once in a while. Celebrations, like for example Christmas, wouldn’t be celebrated in different groups like we nowadays do with our families, but everybody would be united and together as one big family in these types of days. There would be as well detrimental aspects, like maybe whenever an illness attacks someone. If one gets a disease, it would be pretty susceptible for most of the individuals to be affected too, resulting then, a big issue for all and not only the first infected with the sickness.
3. The theme that created more frustration was the leader one. Everybody argued because there was equal part of students that desired a non-leader island, whereas the other half thought that it was more suitable to have some type of leader, or even dictator. At the end, the arguments for having a leader were stronger than those who defended a no leader one, so we ended up adapting this type of leadership to our urbanized island. The topic that was the most fascinating and created more discussion was the ownership one. The reason is because both capitalism and communism (group ownership and individual ownership) have both very good and very bad aspects. Both can alter a community in so many ways that choosing between the two without taking into account the other side’s position would be too hard; almost impossible. When writing the discussion, we gathered ideas of each system and transformed them into the most suitable forms of organization for our built community. We tried to have a blend between the two schemes.
4. When doing this project, I learned too many things, not only about group working, but as well when dealing with politics and organization. It was so hard to decide what the best for the island was because everybody thought differently than the other. It is funny to think about the difficulties this brought knowing that we are only five people. It makes me realize how difficult it should be when being part of a government. Last, I learned how the population could be so affective at the time of building up a society. The quantity of people is essential when choosing the most suitable systems and organizations for the individuals; after all, it is not the same to live in a large city like New York City, and in a 35 people population unknown island. Many factors should be considered before building up.
By: Catalina Llano Raffo
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario