While it is possible that some currently nonexistant form of education could develop which allows people to learn complex skills quickly, I doubt very much that it will happen in a way that cuts learning time of physics etc down to a matter of hours. That is, however, what would be really required in order for the increasingly complex aspects of building, medical treatment, and so on to become quickly and easily accessible to everyone for their day-to-day living requirements, assuming of course that societal changes don't do away with technology -- something we both seem to disagree with to some extent. Considering the many decisions we all make every hour of every day, do we really WANT to be in the position of studying everything first before making a decision as simple as whether to cross a bridge or not?

That's what I was getting at -- that the society you described suggests either that we find a way for everyone to learn everything about whatever they come across in life, or that we restrict the number of potential situations and decisions a person might encounter. You're saying that you are proposing the former, not the latter, but I feel that it seems impossible, or at least improbable, that this sort of social structure will take form WITHOUT a necessary limiting (either at the start, or gradually as the form is seen as unworkable in a highly technologically advanced society) of options. But to me, the question is whether skills -- even highly necessary ones, or at least ones we tend to think are highly necessary -- need to be seen as automatically forming hierarchies. I personally think that the sense that they DO stems itself from our tendency to think in ways influenced by hierarchies, and so we assume that perfection of a skill equates to a higher position in society, when in fact all we need is to change our values and point of view, which itself should automatically be a part of any attempt to restructure society along the lines we feel would be best.

It's more likely, I think, that society will move away from the tendencies to view skills as a component of social stratification since such stratification wouldn't exist in the sort of society we are talking about. Skills will be shared and used for the common good, and if society works out as you and I hope, then we should be at a point where it is seen as our duty to others to use our abilities to benefit everyone and seeking status based upon such skills is seen as sociopathic.

The idea, I thought, was to get everyone to share their knowledge and combine it and cooperate, so that you can afford to depend upon the skill of the bridge-builder, for example, and cross that bridge without going to look in your physics book before deciding to cross. I for one don't want to haul a backpack full of medical texts with me every time I go to the doctor, nor wait to cross bridges or use any other more complex things until I can build one myself. And I needn't have to do so, if society is truly structured as we hope. And if that structure does exist, then hierarchies won't form because our outlook and values won't really have room for them.

Think of those societies where a person's "wealth" is based upon how much they've given to others and the number of favors they've performed -- which means they are "owed" that much in return, but everyone always tries to keep a balance of having given more than they've gotten back. Now, that's pretty counter to most all Western thinking and value systems. The idea that someone with nothing, because they gave away all they had, is the most valued and wealthy member of society seems strange to most people in this nation. Doesn't it immediately occur to you that someone in that society could act as the receiver of as many favors as possible and accumulate tangible "wealth" by taking everything from everyone else? But of course, that's not their social system so it isn't a real problem. It's still a hierarchy, obviously, since one person is valued over another, but it's a total reversal of the hierarchy of accumulation of wealth that exists in this nation. But it shows that it's possible to reverse our own hierarchies, so it's possible that if we are talking about the formation of an anarchist society that such issues will be easier to work out in terms of our own values as opposed to developing radical learning methods that seem impossible (unless brain downloads ala "Matrix" are developed, but who'd trust THAT??).