Weak and strong. I've given a lot of thought to those words. What is strength? Is it how well hard you can punch? Because in the rule of brutality a lot of the times it's not the ones that are physically strongest that are at the top. It's the ones that can convince the strong ones to listen to them. The one who commands most authority. But that's just one way of doing things. You can also build structures of mutual interdependence that cannot function unless both/all parties contribute. Deny people the right to create archic structures.
But anyway back to strength. The alt-right playbook had an episode about how conservatives think "there's always a bigger fish" I believe it was called. It basically stated that conservatives believe in a single pyramid of power the strong are at the top and the weak at the bottom. They think this is natural. That any kind of help towards others is wrong because it could but them on the wrong level. But everyone is strong in different ways. There isn't one single measurement of human competence. You can't even quantify a single attribute like intelligence even though people have tried, every IQ test is nonsense as the result is mostly dependent on what skills you learned, what cultural space you're from and how well you can pay attention.
I think that a different way of looking at this is that everyone qualities. Some people are better at one thing at other people are better at another thing. When working together everyone’s good skills offset other peoples bad skills. (This is the primary reason why I need to find someone capable of condensely writing who can understand me). Everything that you are weak at can be offset by someone who is good at it. This is how I see the world. However this goes completely against the archic view of the world which seems to be built on the idea that some people are inherently better than others and therefore deserve to lead.
I know most of this talk is uselessly philosophical. In practice the most likely outcome of chaos is that whoever is capable of projecting most fear will get the most people to follow them which in turn will make them the new ruler.
Also there is a cruel part in me that keeps saying "if they're too weak to survive they don't deserve to live", but I mostly ignore that using the same reasoning as above.
Humanity was evolved enough to live in without hierarchy a couple hundred years ago. That hasn't changed. We just have a couple of centuries of idiots telling us that they were "primitive" but what could those societies have accomplished if they weren't mowed down in the name of PROGRESS what would a tribe look like if they had an electric generator. Would they immediately elect a president? Probably not. But they would figure out how to make a lightbulb. Technological progress is possible without hierarchy.
People seem to think that when civilisation collapses everything resets. But that's not how it works. The building will still be here. The libraries will still exist. And it's a lot more likely that whoever gets control of them will do their best to conserve the books. Even if the world powers nuke the shit out of themselves, enough humans will survive and at one of them will know the value of books. We can't go back to the stone age. We can't forget modern medicine.
I don't need the internet (or any computer) to be comfortable. In fact It really is a lot more bother than it's worth. I just use it because there's not much else to do.
Also I already have a computer. I don't need another one. and even if I would do you know how many computers are in that 20km radius? because I'm pretty sure it's at least 100.
By the way I'm also a programmer. I spent the entirety of my teenage life learning how to make computers do things because I think they're neat. The internet has changed my life and given me a meaning and a purpose. It's really useful. But I could do without it. Would probably even be happier because I would actually meet people.