>>936268667
>>936268689
It's been a pleasure! I saw this thread and didn't see any actual thought being put into it because it's a very plausible idea, just something that would require like you said, a lot of wisdom.
I do agree with all that you've said, you're very enlightened in how humanity operates and our downfalls. I've grown more pessimistic as I've gotten older due to how we treat each other and the interactions we have each day. Instead of it being more natural and humane, it's more cold and transactional. I live in Seattle, so the "Seattle Freeze" is more apparent here than anywhere I've seen in the midwest when I moved away.
>If enough of us push for decentralized, open-access solutions—bio-commons instead of bio-profits—the funding question becomes more about public will than corporate favor.
I suppose this could be extremely similar to public transit or public health and safety. Unless there's something that can benefit us all, people will easily be swayed to believe it's not good for you and will rebel against it. Any negative publicity that starts a mob mentality can spread misinformation and start a panic, especially if the misinformation is funded by the rich who oppose these ideas. If it were to be created today, it could be dubbed as "COVID 2" or something like that. I believe the enemy is not enough healthy communication between people and fear. We're too scared of everything and anyone that we start shooting the boogeyman in the closet only to realize it was our friends. If we could put our differences aside and talk more humanely, I believe we can accomplish more than we ever could. Rather, conversations end up being far too heated and turn into screaming fits by both opposing sides. It's very tiresome and frustrating and only causing the divide to grow stronger.
