I have been reading along as the discussion on online community has evolved,
and it has occurred to me that some people may actually believe that it is
feasible to have such communities.
 
I am beginning to doubt it. At least by the standards being suggested.
 
I'm referring primarily to shared values. The fact is people have widely
divergent values and opinions. Even on such fundamental things as, say,
whether life is sacred, or whether ther is a God, or, well, you name it.
Agreement on values does not, IMHO, make a community. What makes a community
is acceptance of people because of (sometimes despite!) their values and
opinions. Variety is not only the spice of life...it IS life.
 
Without dragging on too much, let also say a little about creating community.
Community is not created. It is. There are good, functional communities
and there are communities that don't work. But the nature of living is that
we live in community or feel outside community. But community is living. We
can't by dint of desire create something that already exists. We can
enhance it with our presence and by sharing who we are and the many things
we have to share. But this is it. This IS community, cyber-wise. We are
experiencing it right now.
 
And I think there are real limits to the kind of community a person can
experience via computer. Nothing, no-thing, nothing can replace the live
flesh-and-blood of a person. Period. So, to the extent that a community is
based on the interaction of the people, many important things are missing:
touch. Sight. Smell. feel. It can be a mistake, I think, to impute too much
power to a machine. A computer is a great way to share information, a great
way to communicate over long distances inexpensively, a great way for lots
of people to have access to services. It does not replace live community.
 
So, maybe it would help to think about computer communities differently
from regular communities. The truth is, people will use computers and the
information and access they have with them, for their own purposes, whatever
they are.
 
While I have found so far some of the intellectual discussion stimulating and
interesting, I haven't seen people talking about how to broaden access to
the info4rmation. Where will the money come from to 1. train people to use
computers. 2. Make computers commonly available. 3. repair and maintain
the machines. 4. upgrade and update them. 5. provide paper for printing files,
equipment for storage of files, etc.?
 
Look right now at the political environment around you. Is government going to
do that? *Should* government do that. Alone? Do we, as individuals, have a
responsibility to help create this access (as in, don't buy yogurt...save the
money instead for a community computer?)?
 
I am thinking very personally, I guess, but I'm wondering when we will get
beyond the moral high ground and down into the trenches? Everyone says
community computing systems cost up to $150,000 per year (some more, some
less) to run. Where will that money come from? Tom Grundner raised that issue
somewhat earlkier in the life of the list in suggesting our collective goals
should supercede our individual desires. While he wasn't exactly *shouted* down,
I didn't see any community saying, "Well, Tom, you're right. I won't do my
community computing system so we can pool our resources." Does that mean people
aren't interested in pooling resources? Probably. At least right now.
 
OK, say you can come up ith $150K to run a system. IBM kicks in a bunch.
The local paper does, too. AT&T (or your local carrier) does the same. The
large donors will want seats on the board, to oversee their money. They
usually do. So you have a system built on the noblese oblige of local
corporations. Is that what you envision?
 
Help me here a little. I'm having trouble seeing how we propose to get from
A to B.
 
I don't mean to be contentious, necessarily, but there are serious unasked
questions that need both asking and answering, in my mind.
 
Steve Snow
<direct flames and personal assaults to: [log in to unmask]>