#lishia

[realkatsunemiku]

i can't believe i've committed myself to the ownership of two love live posters

how weeb me be

[realkatsunemiku]

lightcruisertatsuta I was scrolling to see how long the script was and my phone crashed and reset. My phone couldn't jam with the best so it slammed with the rest

[catskid100]

I want chrom to squart 

[basch420]

im too uguu for スクール

[basch420]

lishia,,,,,,,,,

[justbytes-blog]

Wales has a higher percentage of older people than anywhere else in the UK

JB on There's My Case, Right There!

[justbytes-blog]

Why is exclusion bad and inclusion good?

Being included means one has access and therefore choice. When one is included in a group that has access to X (health, education, security, housing, insurance, religion, etc), the person/community then has a choice - to take/adopt/use or not to take/adopt/use X.

But with the newfound freedom of choice, another set of needs/wants arise, and when not met, they become excluded.

Let's say inclusion is good - the more people have access to vaccines and drugs, the longer people live, the stronger the workforce, the bigger the economy, the stronger the state, and so on. Then what? Overpopulation, not enough resources and/or opportunities, greater gaps, more exclusion.

Maybe inclusion is good only as far as providing access to deciding whether one wants to be included in a particular system? For example: Including an illiterate farmer in a remote Indonesian village for legislation-making in agricultural trade gives the farmer the choice of inclusion/exclusion in free or fair trade systems.

While we strive to include as many as possible into existing systems, do we also work towards accommodating new inclusions, ensuring sustainability of the system with the overload? Or do we feel that if they fall off the wagon again after inclusion, it's their fault and no longer our responsibility to retrieve them?

-JB on Making governance work for excluded communities