[Kalium]

If you define community by geography, then I have no desire to be a part of the home or "community" you lionize. I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

I'm sick of being told that I can only think and live in some antiquated way because some people in the 1960s and 1970s thought it was a good idea.

[coldtea]

Actually it's the above reasoning that it's not just antiquated, but prehistoric -- humans as nomadic animals with no ties to any specific location. Most of civilization happened after we abandoned that.

Physical space -- or "geography" and the community defined by it, is not some "antiquated idea".

And just because one can have friends (or "friends") all over the world through the internet and modern communications, doesn't mean that where one lives is not important, and they should not care of it and try to improve it -- and yes, connect with nearby people.

If you slip and break your ankle on the pavement, or your house catches fire, it's those "antiquated physical neighbors" that will come to the rescue. Or not -- if they too consider the whole "community by geography" notion antiquated, they wont.

"Community by geography" is just another term for the place we live and the people in it. One might not care for most of them, by its sad to not care of any of them, and also sad not to care for the place. It's also a recipe for a decayed urban civilization, fewer local opportunities, and a derelict neighborhood.

[porFavor]

Word.

Ever as I gain more experience with 1s and 0s, I find a greater appreciate for and a greater draw to my front porch.

Without going into neuroscience, physics, chaos theory, and what not, by acknowledging and embracing that I am human and not some abstract distributed, computing network, and by accepting the consequences of that, my life grows richer.

[Kalium]

You are free to think in whatever prehistoric mode you wish. That's fine. I simply desire to not be coerced into thinking like you. I should be free to choose to think like you or not as I see fit.

In this context, what I really mean is that a space should not be controlled entirely by the people who just happen to be there at the moment. Every space has a past. Every space has a future. The past and the future are always different from the present. That's as it should be. People who think in terms of "I control this space now, so all things should be about me" are thinking in a prehistoric mode I find distasteful.

[TeMPOraL]

I don't like the approach you're proposing. The ability of people to share the space around them seems like the most basic of the "rights" you could have. "[A] space should not be controlled entirely by the people who just happen to be there at the moment" feels to close to encouraging uninvited and unwanted guests to take over communities and reshape them.

Like, imagine if suddenly the fishing community decided to come en masse to HN and start talking and upvoting only fishing-related stories, while downvoting / flagging everything else. I think the present HN community should have the (moral) right to tell them to go and find their own spot, instead of taking over someone else's.

[Kalium]

I'm saying that new blood and new thoughts and new ideas should always be encouraged in any community, space, or location. Particularly when resources like physical space are very much finite. I think that any desire to freeze a community, space, or location in amber is unhealthy. Those with an interest in the future of a community, space, or location will not be identical to those who happen to be there at the moment or those who were there yesterday.

For an example, look at what that desire has done to the housing market of San Francisco.

[porFavor]

your line of reasoning is becoming very tangled.