Tadeus ā I think I might see what you are suggesting here. Let me see if this is perhaps where you are going with this (and might I point out the interesting fact that you, Patrick and I are having what is almost the very same discussion in two different places ā one might suppose from this that the three of us are rather passionate about the subject 
). I believe I may see where the differences lie in your perception versus Patrickās. Please let me know if I am correct here.
If I perceive Tadeus correctly, you believe that, by continuing to participate in the overarching system that has evolved around us for the purposes of enriching and further entrenching STS ideals and entities ā such as, for example, using a bank account with fiat money to purchase things, or using a traditional hospital for treatment if sick ā we are, by default, continuing to enrich and entrench this system simply by virtue of our participation. In addition, through our continued participation in the system, we are tacitly implying our consent to its existence.
Now. At the present time (December 24, 2022 by the Gregorian system), Patrick points out that it is quite possible for the seeker who is sufficiently awakened to live within that system quite comfortably, without compromising too many of his or her ideals to a tremendous degree. While said seeker may well grind a few teeth at the prospect of, for example, parting with his or her hard-earned fiat in order to fund a bloody torturous murder machine, or the 19th yacht belonging to a serial child rapist who regularly sacrifices infants to Baāal, this same seeker may also recognize the fact that the murder machine would grind on without his or her active participation, and that the infants would be sacrificed regardless. Therefore, it is far more harmonious, at this precise time in history, to simply find ways to work comfortably and without too much dissonance within the confines of the system, rather than trying to find a way to live without it (which is, I might point out, nigh-onto impossible in the northern latitudes, and cannot possibly be all that pleasant in the southern ones given the dramatic influx of southerners our way ā cough southern US border cough).
Put another way, while it would be nice to cut out of the system entirely, were I to try and do so right now, in totality, I would very literally freeze to death.
If I have understood the thrust of both Tadeusās and Patrickās points in the debate, I might at this point point out that I agree with both of you. I would also point out that I used the word āpointā 3x in that sentence, and I would change it, except that the fact entertains me.
The looming doom, then, comes with the additional point (again) that I think that Tadeus is making, which is something like this. We have all heard that, in the not at all distant future, the existence of a āsocial credit scoreā tied to oneās digital presence in the system will necessitate everyone on Earth to make a choice. This choice, in essence, is: Do we allow ourselves to have our social conduct, our biases and preferences, dictated by the Borg in order to continue to participate in the Borgās system? Do we acquiesce to being scrutinized and judged because, after all, everyone is doing it, you canāt live a normal life without it and, heck, itās ājust one more thing?ā What if the things on the social credit score arenāt so bad, at first? What if itās basic courtesy stuff, such as stopping at crosswalks to let pedestrians cross? Would you really wish to be shut out of all commerce just because the Borg wants you to have good traffic manners?
ā¦ Or would you indeed say no, and commit to the struggle of making your own way, if that happens?
Perhaps you are aware that today they are asking you to stop for a pedestrian in traffic, but tomorrow they might just as easily request that, given that we are currently over our global population quota by 0.79%, you will be shut out if you refuse to run them over?
