>>But maybe this brings about a larger, more diverse pool of talented advocates that attract people in their cities and countries, and more local hubs grow?
Some truth to this I’d say, but it’s just tradeoffs. Obviously the best thing is for there to be lots of fully remote roles, AND lots of in-person roles and, especially, in-person communities.
>>Do we have examples from other movements in the past that grew geographically disconnected through small communities and achieved their goals or managed to change the game?
This is why I’m skeptical of remotely driven movements haha. Because it seems to me like we don’t have many examples of this. The very modern age does provide some though—in particular, I’m thinking of Black Lives Matter and other more viral forms of activism in the US recently. However, I think a lot of these, including BLM, were more like a rapid upswell that quickly died off, without achieving many lasting results. And I expect a large part of this lack of results is because you really do need sustained, in-person community organizing in order to build lasting and cohesive public support that is able to change culture and institutions.
>>Additionally: what about offering this to jobless people, over 25, or people taking a career gap? As someone close to say bye to her 35th lap around the sun I start noticing ageism.
Could be a good idea. My intuition is still that the bigger gap here is engaged college students dropping out of the movement, as opposed to professionals who can’t find a job for whatever reason. But I could be wrong! And would love to see data one way or the other.
And as usual, of course it’d be good to have both programs: We should have programs more programs targeting students, and we should also have more programs engaging working professionals and people at basically every other life and career stage. We’re going to need a much bigger, more dynamic, and more comprehensive movement if we’re going to bring about the fundamental change we seek!
All makes sense!
>>But maybe this brings about a larger, more diverse pool of talented advocates that attract people in their cities and countries, and more local hubs grow?
Some truth to this I’d say, but it’s just tradeoffs. Obviously the best thing is for there to be lots of fully remote roles, AND lots of in-person roles and, especially, in-person communities.
>>Do we have examples from other movements in the past that grew geographically disconnected through small communities and achieved their goals or managed to change the game?
This is why I’m skeptical of remotely driven movements haha. Because it seems to me like we don’t have many examples of this. The very modern age does provide some though—in particular, I’m thinking of Black Lives Matter and other more viral forms of activism in the US recently. However, I think a lot of these, including BLM, were more like a rapid upswell that quickly died off, without achieving many lasting results. And I expect a large part of this lack of results is because you really do need sustained, in-person community organizing in order to build lasting and cohesive public support that is able to change culture and institutions.
>>Additionally: what about offering this to jobless people, over 25, or people taking a career gap? As someone close to say bye to her 35th lap around the sun I start noticing ageism.
Could be a good idea. My intuition is still that the bigger gap here is engaged college students dropping out of the movement, as opposed to professionals who can’t find a job for whatever reason. But I could be wrong! And would love to see data one way or the other.
And as usual, of course it’d be good to have both programs: We should have programs more programs targeting students, and we should also have more programs engaging working professionals and people at basically every other life and career stage. We’re going to need a much bigger, more dynamic, and more comprehensive movement if we’re going to bring about the fundamental change we seek!