Evolution of your political views?

Discussion in 'The Alley' started by Dex Luis, Sep 13, 2013.

  1. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,149

    the world has changed alot. I mentioned in another post how the political problems of the ancients have taken on new dimensions in the modern world of nation-states. but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant. many of their concepts and ideas are still valid, and human nature hasn't really changed. even their political questions are somewhat relevant, they just have to be considered in their different context.

    I believe that providing necessities to everyone is much easier said than done. for example, the european model of socialism has been going through a crisis in recent years. and even when all is well, new burdens and problems crop up when you shift away from capitalism and towards socialism.

    I'm not sure what you mean by post-scarcity. there will always be scarcity, even if it's reduced to a negligible level. A society of overflowing abundance would be excellent, but that is not viable while we're all on one planet.
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    democratic republic and direct democracy are both democracy but nobody actually means the direct democracy of antiquity when you use the word democracy. i dont know what purpose bifurcating the two here serves or what point where you were making by bringing up the discontents of direct democracy as a relevant critique of democracy at large. i honestly dont know why you did that. as for a social side of eugenics its not eugenics then anymore since it doesnt deal in the realm of genes. maybe you should call it soft eugenics instead of neo eugenics since it seems one of the themes you carry over from the old eugenics is sterilization of whosoever is considered dead weights
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2013
    test
  3. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,149
    I was just trying to be accurate. I'm not against democracy at all. I'm just making the point that at a certain size and complexity, delegated powers are necessary and become more important.

    soft eugenics, maybe. I just want to emphasize the difference between this and misguided efforts of the past.

    I do agree with sterilization, but only under very specific circumstances, such as genes that are so flawed that they are dysgenic and don't meet a minimum standard.
    test
  4. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    The utilization of nanoaugmentation to breakdown matter into energy and reconstructing it into whatever desired form of matter thus satisfying all needs at a 1:1 ratio of recycling.

    So... Star Trek's replicators. Once that's done, that would change humanity in all sorts of manner.
    test
  5. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Also, how do you feel about a technological-direct democracy in which all humans are embedded with nanites which connect everyone's neural pathways to one cloud-style AI which directs affairs in accordance with the decisions of the majority?
    test
  6. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    is technological direct democracy different from direct democracy
    test
  7. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Yes. A technological democracy through an neural network is instantaneous and uncorruptable.
    test
  8. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    what difference does speed make and how does it alter opinion so that opinions become suddenly uncorruptable
    test
  9. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    You ask very interesting questions.

    The difference in speed is incredible, and not just speed, but also the efficiancy. It's hard to make laws and govern societies when you're wrapped in beuracracy. But the part with everyone being connected would change society dramatically. Imagine everyone 'knowing' everyone else. No more secrets, no more shame. But a deep rooted understanding of each other. We make laws to protect ourselves, but do we have to protect ourselves when every shell of every human has the mind of all other humans inside it? We'd all still be individuals, yes, but individuals that are truly no longer alone.
    test
  10. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,149
    it sounds like perfect governance, but then there is the potential for abuse. if someone hacked into the neural cloud, it could cause extreme disruption to civilization, eg terrorists jamming peoples minds with disruptive thought signals, or a dictator enslaving an entire country with real-life voodoo.

    it certainly would bring many changes. first of all, pure energy transmutation is very radical technology and is very far off, if it's feasible at all. that would definitely create an Eden, and its flexibility would minimize the scarcity problem, although the information problem would still be there.

    A less wildly ambitious replicator would construct anything you want, provided you fed it with the needed chemical elements. This is still far off, but it's much more plausible. This would have both the scarcity and information problems.

    the information problem: if you can create anything with a replicator, that means that you can create weapons with it too, including nukes. you can also counterfeit/forge with high efficiency. a high priority would be placed on access to the instructions/blueprints of various goods. in order to replicate, you'd need an exact informational model of what you're creating. there would have to be strict controls placed on replicator information, which opens up more questions as to who should control this technology and how they should do so. if not, society will quickly collapse as people slaughter each other with military-grade weaponry, while breaking the system with mass forgery.

    we're seeing the very beginning of the information problem with file sharing and intellectual property on the internet.

    the scarcity problem: this is much more of an issue with replicators that require natural resources, rather than one that can transmute everything. there are billions of us, and if these replicators existed, everyone would want to use them for every sort of consumer good. there would be a ravenous demand for more natural resources to fulfill our enormous appetites. this would quickly exhaust the earths natural resources, especially rare earths which are needed in technology. you would need large-scale space mining to merely keep up with demand. and if demand outstrips the supply, resources dwindle.

    when we start running out of natural resources, governments will wage wars on each other for conquest and control of whatever is left. this would only escalate, and since replicators can copy military tech as well, it could easily lead to armageddon. the logical endpoint of this is a reversion to nomadic tribal societies, living in a worldwide junkyard of technology.
    test
  11. doslavozes

    doslavozes Neg This Post If You're Gay

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,985
    I just stopped caring as much. Regardless of who's president, Bush, Obama, we're still screwed. Both parties can't stop arguing about stupid shit and everything becomes a matter of "who said what" rather than "what was said". In other words there could be a bill about curing cancer and the other party would block it simply because the legislature came from the opposite side.

    And fuck those little ho's starved for attention that have to filibuster like a 3 year old who didn't get his way trying to prevent everyone else from getting their way. Cruz needs to pull up his pants and take his loss like a man.
    test
  12. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    @x calibur, very good points. Since this is a discussion and not an internet-fight, I don't have much to say except I'll think about this.

    Especially regarding the issue of finding a way to abuse the system. I would hope that many of these issues would be solved by negating the need for them to occur. People don't commit acts of terrorism because they are evil, but because they have a legitimate reason. But since there are, in fact, people who do crazy things for no reason at all... the only ideas I have off hand then involve removing free will, and that's not a pleasent thought.
    test
  13. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,149
    Indeed, it's been a good discussion.

    I wouldn't assume that most people are evil, but there will always be deviants. replicators would have to be very carefully regulated in order to avoid chaos.
    test
  14. Put it in my Mouth

    Put it in my Mouth member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,559
    I used to be prochoice, now I'm pro stop being a hoe & practice safe sex #prolife
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)