Post by @transform@climatejustice.social

2026-05-08 06:19 UTC

@mzaman@todon.nl you are right, characteristics like intangible issues, uncertainty, affected beings not present can also apply to questions not related to future needs. I think an additional characteristic when discussing questions related to needs is that this tends to get more emotional than other topics because the idea of not having important needs met evokes existential fears and feelings of not being accepted as a being. So this, combined with the three characteristics you mentioned which get more challenging the further into the future we look, might make future needs topics especially challenging. I do think anarchist ideas are a good way to address questions of future needs, not only because we can change decisions as you wrote, but also because of decentralization. IMO it is still worth thinking about more concrete ways to facilitate discussions about future needs. I liked your idea of defining acceptable risk levels first. I think people might even want to form decentralized groups depending on the risk levels they are comfortable with.

Replies (1)

@mzaman@todon.nl 2026-05-08 08:36

@transform@climatejustice.social Forming decentralized groups depending on risk levels is something that already happens during mass actions. Of course, in those cases the risks are about arrest, bodily harm, and maybe physical intensity rather than the potential loss of access to food, shelter, companionship, etc. Still, the basic model exists. One thing group might do to reduce the chance that people are getting emotionally invested to the detriment of the conversation is to just explicitly lay out in what way the groups is willing to guarantee (or at least try to) meeting certain needs. Without going into too much specifics, I was once part of a drawn-out consensus discussion about something that _could_ absolutely impact certain needs. One break-through came through our collective making it explicit that continuing to try to meet those needs was a continuous goal we all shared. We were also aware that if we couldn't figure it out, we would end up with two different collectives, each with their own view on which needs were more important to them. Which can also be an acceptable outcome (though maybe not the most desirable one).

Open ##2455397