A lot of the things we do on a daily or weekly basis have ways of doing them that can either be private or communal, some of these which we do not think to consider as having that characteristic.

For example, bathing in the Roman Empire used to be communal, but then Rome fell and citizens in the splinter countries began taking baths privately.

Receiving mail is another example. There are countries which don’t have mailboxes and everyone gets their mail at the post office in the PO boxes. It was the United States which pioneered the idea of the modern mail system, which is why we associate it as a private act.

There are activities as well which don’t have any history as jumping between one or the other that might benefit from it, for example I think towns might benefit if internet was free and freely accessible but only at the local library.

What’s a non-communal aspect of life you think should be communal?

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      That would mainly be because they can’t easily get to the library, probably because your city is too low-density and car-dependant.

      Once again, all problems are zoning problems in disguise.

    • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Google your city name and “maker space” to see if there’s any near you. Not only does my local library district have them, there’s another local option with a monthly membership fee. They have large equipment like laser engravers, CNCs, drill presses, etc. They usually also have small stuff like drills that you can check out and bring home. Also a great way to meet other makers in your community

      • TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        I tried looking for something like this in the UK and it turns out the nearest one for me got shut down during COVID, the rest are all an hour or two away at least. It’s a great idea but I guess it’s unsustainable without some sort of external funding cause the local one was already running at a loss before 2020 according to their website.

  • SavvyWolf@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    … Why should private internet be banned or discouraged? What benefits would that being?

    It’s a bit of a cop out, but maybe talking about and dealing with feelings. At best people usually only talk privately with a professional for money. Normalise just having regular group therapy for everyone that they can just drop in and out of.

    Or if we want to really push boundaries: Orgies and kink parties. Sex is a natural part of life, no need to keep it secret.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      I’m not sure that something like a public orgy would be a good idea, not because of “morals” (I tend to think modern society is far too repressed about sexual stuff), but because of the health implications that would come of encouraging sexual contact between large groups of strangers. That sounds like a recipe for STI spread unless you were very strict and thorough with testing, vetting participants, and enforcing protective measures, which inevitably not every instance would be.

    • CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      A few reasons.

      1. The internet is taken for granted and this would be like a social cap. In theory, something could take its place in limited form in private settings.

      2. The internet travels around the world through undersea cables (long enough to encircle the Earth 180 times) which then go into servers which then go into cables which then reach your residence, and that’s a lot of service strain we add onto by putting the internet wherever we can.

      3. Knowledgeability isn’t as appreciated as it used to be, and having a hub for it would un-devalue it.

      4. It would help maintain the right flow of interaction and information and combat things like misinformation.

      5. So that people don’t pose a hassle to administration.

      6. To bring people together.

      7. Some countries want to ban it entirely, and it would serve as a good middle ground to pacify the urge to do this without eliminating the internet.

      It’s no different in my opinion from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

  • otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    I think towns might benefit if internet was free and freely accessible but only at the local library.

    Are you saying that private access to internet should be illegal?

    Or that your libraries don’t offer internet access to its patrons?

    • CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      If it’s only available at one place, it’s not freely accessible.

      Logistically, how would that work? Libraries would have to be everywhere and they’d have to be massive. The IT infrastructure to support that would be immense. How would privacy work? Where could I go to have a private telehealth appointment, for example?

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Freely accessible just means anyone can get to a library, no? I’m not saying that internet should ONLY be at the library. That’s OP, lol

        Libraries where I live offer internet access to any patron (who must be a resident of the city). I can comfortably walk to 3 libraries, but only 1 is within a 15-minute walk. Not everyone in my city is so fortunate, but someone with limited internet needs has many options for free here.

      • CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        In such a system, people would still have their own devices that can connect wirelessly to a library, even from outside the building (people who live immediately near the library I work at get free wireless internet, at least from 10 to 8), it’s only the signal that would come mainly from the library.

        Another factor that comes to mind that I forgot to mention in my other replies is that the internet comes from undersea cables that are long enough to wrap around the Earth 180 times, which then enters into servers which then enters into cable lines which then reaches peoples’ houses, and these are all an absolute hassle to maintain, both because of wildlife attacking them (yeah, a single fish can take out a country’s internet) as well as bad actors, and on the cable side, bad weather can take them out. The service strain would be a lot less if we didn’t try to put too much on our plates, allowing more maintenance to be maintained.

      • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Gonna be honest there are few things I would like less than the criminalizing of my main way of keeping in contact with people. I genuinely think doing that would cause a spike in suicide rates because there are so many people who would just suddenly be completely isolated from having any community

        • CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there’s a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn’t willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn’t run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it’s impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone’s fingertips, which isn’t a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It’s no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

      • Vedlt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        You do realize a significant portion of the internet is porn, right? There is no world in which everyone has to go to a communal public building for their pornography consumption that I’d be happy with.

        • CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          You do realize adult content can be printed or watched on TV, right?

          When I was younger, I used my radio.

        • CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there’s a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn’t willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn’t run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it’s impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone’s fingertips, which isn’t a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It’s no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

      • ChexMax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 days ago

        Isn’t that already true? Internet is available for free at the library. The discouragement part is that you have to pay for it at home or on your phone

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        I’m also curious as to why! (And I didn’t downvote you)

        Please let me know if you share in another comment!

        • CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          Thanks for not downvoting then.

          So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there’s a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn’t willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn’t run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it’s impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone’s fingertips, which isn’t a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It’s no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 days ago

            I don’t think “pacifying over-controlling authorities” and “gatekeeping knowledge” are good reasons to restrict internet access to public libraries. Forgive me for oversimplifying a couple of your points; that’s just how I interpreted them, haha

            I can understand some of your motivations, but I think the harm would be greater than the good if one were to restrict internet access like that.

  • Oka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    Clothes being optional

    Im not saying we should be nude all the time. Clothes have their purpose.I think we should have the option to be nude in public, without making it sexual

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    Generally think private homes are a giant waste, both in terms of wasted physical space and energy lost due to poor insulation.

    Living should be communal. No residential construction should hold less than eight housing units.

    After you do this, you can consolidate a bunch of an amenities - washing machines, parking, central heating/AC, pools, gardens, outdoor grills, wet and dry bars, basements, rumpace rooms, home theaters.

    It all gets so much nicer when it’s a communal living space.

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      washing machines, parking, central heating/AC, pools, gardens, outdoor grills, wet and dry bars, basements, rumpace rooms, home theaters.

      Aw hell naw. Tell me you’ve never been poor enough to have to use a shared washing machine or even a laundromat without telling me you never had to. Those things are absolutely disgusting.

      I used to believe in dense housing in cities until I had two sets of psycho upstairs neighbours and no thanks, I want to be as far away from another human being as reasonably feasible at all times, nevermind not share a fucking pool with one.

      • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Greetings from Sweden, here shared washing machines are really common and generally not disguisting at all.

        There are also solutions to people behaving badly in apartment buildings. Unfortunate if nothing was done at yours, but it’s definitely not an impossible problem to solve.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Tell me you’ve never been poor enough to have to use a shared washing machine

        Literally every college kid ever. Lots of apartments and dorms have laundramats. They save space within the units, you can do two or three loads at once, and when you’ve got one per floor its never really a problem except on the day after exams when everyone is cleaning up and shipping out at once.

        I used to believe in dense housing in cities until I had two sets of psycho upstairs neighbours and no thanks

        In my experience, a little insulation goes a long way. A couple of extra inches of wall thickness transform shouting/cheering/screaming kids into faint muffles. Meanwhile, anyone that’s had to live in an HOA community knows the annoyance of getting a nasty-gram from a neighbor down the street who might as well have had her ears shoved up against your window in order to complain that you had a party.

        Folks in the suburbs somehow manage to develop Superman hearing and still complain about everything. Folks in midtown townhomes experience night-and-day differences when they get double-panned glass. Nice apartments have thick walls (good for heating/cooling as well as sound-proofing) and let you enjoy your privacy as soon as you shut the door.

    • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      I’ve lived in shared housing. Never again. I’m way too introverted and can’t stand how poorly some people clean nor how badly the behave to others (loudness, using resources inconsiderately, etc.)

      I’ll be social when I have the energy. I help out my neighbors when they need it. We do have community events about monthly where we cut grass, clean up, etc.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      Some people like living in communal spaces and some, like me, loathe it. Seriously, fuck that. Maybe more and affordable complexes do need to be built, but it should never be the only option.

    • Jimmybander@champserver.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      Yeah, no. Apartment living sucks ass. I’d rather live in the suburbs. My neighbors are close but far. We can’t hear each other normally. It’s great.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Apartment living sucks ass. I’d rather live in the suburbs.

        Live in a nice apartment. Makes all the difference.

        The suburbs are horrendous. Everything is five miles away, you’re in gridlock when school starts or lets out, and the only social activities are pay-to-play. Spent my childhood in the suburbs and it was miserable.

        We can’t hear each other normally.

        Lived in an apartment for ten years and I couldn’t hear a peak from my neighbors, because the walls were wide and padded. Moved into a townhouse with single-pane glass windows. Neighbor’s kids were practically in my living room until I upgraded to double-pane a few years later. Insulation is a total game changer.

        Past that, anyone who lives in a neighborhood with teenagers will hear those teenagers. As soon as someone gets a motorbike with a cut-out muffler, everyone on the block knows what time they get home.

        • Jimmybander@champserver.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          Where I live apartments are places that people try to leave. People who live in apartments are generally less well off and have problems with crime and anti-social behavior. There were 2 murders in 3 years where I lived. Moved back to my parent’s house and then was lucky enough to be able to buy a house.

          It’s just not something that I would want to do again unless I was forced to.

    • ChexMax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      This is a wild take. There is value in privacy. There is value in quiet! There is value in space. Electricity efficiency isn’t the only important thing!

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    Cooking. 5 people working together can cook for 100 people easier, cheaper, and less wastefully than 100 people can cook for themselves/their families.

    Unfortunately the current restaurant system in the US is incredibly wasteful, expensive, and pays fuckall.

    • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      Verified: group cooking is the way.

      I have friends and family who live in a cohousing building. About 50 people in 30 units. Each apartment is complete but the kitchens are slightly smaller than typical.

      Cohousing is mutual ownership of the building. About 20% of the building is common areas, like widened hallways with couches and bookshelves, or a games nook, music room, workshop, laundry, etc. It’s basically a tall village, and they are like roommates with privacy.

      The giant kitchen and dining room is used six nights a week. One person is chef with a small crew, and dinner is for around 30 people. It costs $5 CDN per meal, though if you raid the leftovers later it’s pay what you want, usually $2. The cooking volunteer roster is optional and organized by a Slack channel. Food is usually awesome and everyone wins.

      If you want you hardly ever have to cook dinner for yourself.

      • vaderaj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        I am from India and currently work in IT. Due to a lot of reasons I did not pursue cooking but my main motivation to pursue cooking was this aspect, and if you are interested check out community kitchens in India (Mega Kitchens docu series is a good place to start)

            • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              17 days ago

              You are familiar with the concept of #cohousing, right? I don’t think anyone is renting there, all owners. Land values have been fucked in Vancouver since capitalism arrived, and in fact when the group bought the three house lots they needed, they had to deal with one of them being shadow-flipped during the purchase.

              Still, pooling resources did make it very possible for the group. The hard-to-swallow expensive part was actually building to passivhaus standards and dealing with bureaucracy, if I understand correctly.

  • MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    This is very close to your mail example but can we please move on from delivering items directly to houses? Just give me a destribution center or box at a 10-15 min walking distance and I’ll gladly pick up everything from there when it’s actually convenient. We can still keep the other model for special cases.

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 days ago

      “special cases” being everyone who doesn’t live in a town? I’m lucky in that my village post office hasn’t been shut down, but I’d still have to drive to collect my post every day. It’s much more efficient that a single vehicle delivers post to hundreds of houses.

      Maybe it makes sense in urban areas for able-bodied people. Still a drag to have to walk there every day when you don’t even know if you’ve got post because something important might have arrived.

      Sorry, I didn’t mean to poop on your idea so much, it is a genuinely interesting idea, I just don’t think it works with the way society is currently set up in my country

    • catbum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      What if we work backwards on this?

      1. Introduce community boxes at junction points where USPS already delivers, and/or next to a parks so you can say hi to your neighbors and stuff. Ensure any box is within a tolerable walking distance for the average community member served. (Best figure five minutes here folks.)

      2. Allow residents with mail being delivered to their physical addresses to opt in to delivery at their associated neighborhood box.

      3. Market the boxes as happy medium between visiting a staffed post office at the center of a city and risky doorstep delivery. Locked boxes large enough to accommodate everyday parcels basically nix those pesky pilfering porch pirates.

      4. Continue regularly scheduled deliveries to individual addresses because the route will continue to exist at some level of specificity anyway no matter how many or how few community boxes materialize. Carriers essentially keep the same routes but get to drop mad loads of male mail into a bunch of ready and willing local slots near you, driving efficiency up and logistics strategists wild.

      5. Promote additional box patronage by offering a slight discount whenever postage/shipping is purchased for a specific physical address utilizing delivery to a community box. Immediate and total coverage of community boxes across America is neither expected nor necessary, but hell, reward those who lighten that load for others.

      Thank you for coming to my TED talk!

      sincerely, louise dajoy

      Edit: got high while writing and it took a turn for the weird

      • Lux18@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        But doesn’t this already exist? For most packages I get, I can choose to either have them delivered to my door or to a package station, where I put my delivery number in and it unlocks the compartment my package is in. Same for sending packages.

        Here’s an example:
        .

        I’m in Europe though, not sure if it’s a thing in the US.