I’ve been meaning to make this for a long time, but I wanted a good place to put it.
First of all I warn you that although I’m not a moderator to enforce it, I’m going to insist on a few strict rules.
(1) Say “Why” with a hyperlink only. No discussion.
If you want to question the reason for this thread, this is completely acceptable . . . provided that you do not discuss it here. You can start a thread elsewhere, post a link to it here, and let that be all that’s mentioned about it here. The reasons for creating this thread could be entirely ridiculous. But we won’t be debating that within the thread.
(2) Question the basis of how the plan is achievable, not why.
Something of a reiteration on #1. Suppose a poster says that everyone should be chimpanzees and then lays out a plan on how we could genetically re-engineer everyone to turn into chimpanzees. As much as you may be tempted to- DO NOT ask us “why would you want to do that.” Likewise, don’t exclaim any futility about the goal. If you wish to question a post here, try to point out where their plan might succeed or fail in the ends that they wish to achieve. Not to question the ends themselves.
(3) Avoid the debate of people’s willingness.
There is one factor of bubble-bursting I discurage anyone to bring up. That is the willingness of the population. Even if you feel it’s a statistical improbability that anyone would be willing to work the methods that are outlined by the poster, we’ll just imagine that a gun is pointed to their head or the world suddenly gets a cultish change of heart. Whatever.
So here’s what you do here . . .
Post an ends that you desire (could be as basic or detailed as you want). “Everyone happy.” Or “A new method of power distribution” whatever. Then explain how society might change in order to achieve this.
The main idea is to investigate the hows and not the whys. So it boils to this question.
What type of community are you imagining and how do you get there?
Give us some current technology, or some late experiments, or even just entire speculation. All of that kind of talk is not subject to regulation.
Everyone happy-ish, lowered (effective) population, lowered birthrate, a better sustainable ‘balance’ between those remaining and the enviroment they inhabit.
How: ‘Real life’ becomes a priviledge after an appropriate period of probation - let’s say 30. If a person hasn’t become productive in some recognisable field by that time, they are transferred from real-life to hyperlife - ie: virtual life.
This virtual life also becomes a kind of entertainment medium for the ‘realers’ lending the ‘performance’ of the hypers in virtual-land some real-life impact ie: like the gladiators of old, they can win kudos and riches through deals with the hyperlife media broadcasters, providing they get good viewing figures.
At any time, volunteering early for hyperlife is acceptable. Perhaps even given incentive. Family members can be ‘bought out’ by existing family if they so wish at a later point.
What sort of community? Much smaller. Globalization has peaked and will now of necessity begin shrinking. What will replace our spreading and sprawling all over the globe is regionalization. The cost of obtaining and transporting goods and materials will slowly begin to force human activity into smaller geographical areas. The emphasis will be on greater self sufficiency. This won’t be just energy, but in all areas of production/distribution.
A question that will be asked over and over: What is ____ worth? Can I live without an imported _____ and get what I need locally? The closer the source, the lesser the cost.
An axiom: Humans always move to the point of greatest pressure. We will see this play out over the next several decades. In part, this was the idea behind this forum. As the constant adjustments are made to contingency, what does this mean at the local level? What does it mean at the YOU level?
An example of something that is already happening: msnbc.msn.com/id/25248247
Urban sprawl is now being questioned. Why? the cost of energy, and that cost isn’t going to go away. So if we begin living in more condensed space, such as has happened in Europe for decades, what are the downstream effects?
Basicly, rather than shooting a random percentage of the world’s people in the head (which would possibly bring some modicom of distress into their albeit short lives), we must make what would equivocate physically be a near-comatose state, attractive and desirable.
The comatose state induced would hopefully reduce an average hyperlifers carbon footprint to the absolute minimum, allow those still active greater degrees of ‘carbon freedom’.
Perhaps hyperlife could also be used as a teaching tool…? Massed practice creating re-aligned neural nets producing ‘new’ cognitive/physical skills…? Could perceived life be ‘speeded up’ producing pseudo-longevity…?
One of the troubles with life today is the degree of training a person must undergo to become useful, let alone innovative within tech/science niches. Perhaps hyperlife training methods could cut that…?
Fascinating, and very resonant to some things I’ve claimed. It revolves around the fact that we have to rethink our conventional beliefs on concsiousness. Is it really there just because we walk around with human legs and talk with human lips?
If I were told that Hyperlife is completely safe, and that the option to revert is routine, then I would quite likely undergo such a process for a time, even if I didn’t have to get demoted in some way. A hyperlifer could certainly still have influence on the real world through any sorts of apparatuses. Imagine applying for a job as a forklift operator . . . except, not a “human-carrying” forklift. A “hyprelife” forklift. Same with satellites, cars, you name it.
The medical field would probably be the first to implement it, finding patients with severed spines that are still mentally perfectly functional. On the harsher end of the spectrum, inmates- that are often considered “failures” at life in some way- “correctional” patients after all, serve their sentence in hyperlife working to appease society to their reformation by using their concsious influence (whatever they’re allowed) for betterment and even a bit of personal freedom.
This seems bizarre to many, but those many could still be in denial at the rate which technology advances- and the level to which it is being embraced. Many players of Second Life start to wonder why they’re so concerned with their “first life.”
I place your avatar here as I find it very representative to the sort of ideal you suggest. The human being, a line of code (sophisticated and with metaphysical properties, perhaps, nonetheless).
I’m also fond of the “happyish” suffix. Maybe the ultimate ends is not just happiness for everyone. Happiness has to be earned on some level. We are to face consequence for cruelties, and perhaps even for poor performance.
I’ll respond to the others soon.
EDIT-- My “hyperlife forklift” example: I meant “hyperlife compatible” as in a machine that exists in the real world, but can be controlled by people in the virtual world. Certainly, you can also have virtual world machinery. Anyone seen some of the weird algorithms produced for the “game of life”?
Like some theories about the universe- that a “big bang” is followed by a “big crunch” so too might this happen with the human population. We might be seeing the rise of an exact retraction from urban sprawl. With the end of suburbia comes the beginning of mass-urbania.
I have lived the lifestyle in which we’re cloistered together in a very rigid complex. A large public washroom, a large mat sleeping area, doubling as an eatery. (No, it wasn’t prison). There are fights, immediately followed with heavy security (policing is WAY less expensive when everyone is observable together). I remember thinking to myself that if I can learn to enjoy my life as one of these cloistered people, then maybe there is hope for humanity to accept this as a consequence of their mass-consumption. It’s not a wilderness-commune free of technology as was sought in the sixties, but it’s way more energy efficient than one. You can still sit and write, think, play, etc.
“THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General…”
realunoriginal- some of this is quite original (or seems to me).
A concise delegation of imperatives to the different fields of work.
population- as I recently said in another forum, we must force ourselves to embrace a time when your success at procreation is dependant on your success in society as well. Afterall, proving your intelligence and aptitude ought to suggest the quality of genetics you’ll be adding to the human race.
Military- indeed, the concept of “world police” might be fair, if it can prove itself to dissolve as a precautionary tool after reforming the world over . . . in a fairly justified way. (We continue to question the methods).
Criminology- this surprised me greatly. Are there actually others like myself that can almost be called male apologists? Violence certainly seems to be a masculine thing. Do we have to face some dire consequences? Are aggressive feminist claims worth considering? After all- the world over had cultures that routinely killed babies in terrible ways for being female (and don’t get me started on female circumcision, etc).
Energy Concerns- As Michio Kaku claims, that we may be on the virge of becoming a “Type 1” civilization, which will gain its energy mostly from stellar sources.
Spirituality- Indeed, there is a need for broad religious tolerance without religious fundamentalism. That’s a tricky subject when lots of religions are quite fundamentalist, and might not be tolerable. I don’t have the source for this but I read that part of Muslim belief is that the “Jyhad” the “holy war,” when declared (as Bin Ladin did in 9-11), is a time when all Muslims are called upon to kill all non-Muslims. I’m not damning the religion, just parroting what I’ve heard (and not assumed).
Money- Perhaps “money” began as an arbitrary measure of property, but it is soon becoming a very literal “measure of a man.” Perhaps there is no escaping some justification for capitalism.
Equality- I had always thought that perhaps a more rigorous benchmark for currency will eventually be bandwidth, not metals ( . . . and thank the government for reducing the metal benchmark to copper). The breadth of how broadly you can influence your information across the world is the measure of what you’ve “earned” as a right.
Recruitment- I had often thought as a spartan, that men should have distinct roles because they are biologically distinct. This isn’t to ground feminism in some pointless grievance and to place men as the elite. It is to say that there is honour in men fighting to keep their country thriving, or the “man of the house” fighting to protect the safety of the home. This doesn’t mean I oppose a female president. In fact some female presidents might uphold this way of thinking. Republicans are thought to uphold this too, but I think they’re more interested in oil and babies.
Freedom- Certainly. I believe western society has gone too far in the direction of sensitivity. “My dad was so abusive because he didn’t let me cry and give me hugs and let me hold my teddy bear.” I’m sorry son, but eventually you need to snap out of it.
Education- Schools for the gifted do seem to lead this ideal. My only critique of their structure is that they seem to demand students to be good in ALL subjects and the structure of conventional compulsory subjects is very arbitrary and therefore illegitamete. You could be a 9-year-old Calculus professor and still not be a good speller- oh well, then, I guess you have to smoke dope with the rest of the inner-city Project dropout classmates.
Overall, I find all these imperatives have much to build upon. They abound of possible “hows”
Somebody gave me this link before in thread long ago. Was it you? I read it as part of compulsory school.
Although I see the overall simple message of the story: “stop obsessing over equality” (which I agree with) I still suspect that it was introduced early into schools as a paranoid retaliation against the rise of Communism as a superpower. I don’t think Marxists want to intentionally handicap their citizens. It is true that they feel there is poor justification that if you pass College you should almost hence be allowed to own several SUVs.
Is this handicapping world an end you want more opposition toward? I’d like to imagine what a community looks like, which sternly opposes this “handicap the elite” as a possible end, and efficiently enforces it.
Although I’ve blabbered here enough already, I will add that it would be very prudent to introduce Conspiracy Theory as a commonplace subject in Universities. Alumni could be valuable journalists, even insurance investigators, politicians, or public speakers.
Some would call this paranoia. But I counter that it’s much more paranoid to squeeze every possible dollar into beefing military infrastructure, and saying “go do your jobs without telling us what it’s about.” Likewise, I don’t think we should flaunt every detail of military and police operation to the public either.
Hyperlife… OK. A two-tier existence. Is this an extension of Brave New World? It seems vaguely familiar. The Alphas live life, and the rest get the Matrix… Is that the idea?
I’m not sure how this works or why even mess with it? What is the point of going to the trouble of supporting those in the matrix.? Fuck 'em. Let 'em breed themselve into extinction. Why not just do Botany Bay, let the population collapse of its own weight, and the problem is solved. We have a super-species and let the rest die. If, in the process, the planet is rendered uninhabitable, the super-race simply moves off planet and begins diaspora. It might be messy, but a far simpler solution.
I see a big die-off coming, and a lot sooner than expected, but it is in working out the nuts and bolts of how we get through it. I’d rather begin looking at ways to back out slowly than to just wait around unprepared until the bag oh shit explodes and splashes all over us. Even though I think regionalization will be forced on us, there are ways and then there are ways… That’s why I’m interested in trying to figure out what has to happen if we’re to shrink gracefully. It’s too easy to say fuck it, let the revolution begin. OK. Revolt. Against what? And what are the solutions that might keep us from repeating our obvious ignorance? Baby steps. We have to begin taking the baby steps.
As economies collapse and people become homeless, the good news is that this is what would force us to vastly reduce the big issues like war-mongering, pollution, and resource gluttony.
There’s a softer landing if international agencies can be convinced to attempt 3 simultaneous things. (a) heavy taxation on pregnancy- the male and female consentors- and abortion, whether you like the moral or not, should be considerable, (b) human life can’t be regarded as anything much different than a concentrated industrial complex, (c) that concentration for humanity would be either water-surface based or high-ground based. We have the technology to live in normally uninhabitable areas. Likewise, we can generate renewable energy through many sources like magma, wind farm, and solar farm. But they’re not the great stuff that we’re used to.
Information technology is not severely threatened by this. Running computer networks is fairly minor compared to driving cars, tearing down and building, the commerce infrastructure, etc.
The first step is to develop this reasoning (if there is broad concensus) into a set of tenets and technological blueprint to present to larger agencies. Perhaps angry “anarchist” types (paramilitary) and alternative governments could indeed propose themselves as a threat if all governments refuse to comply. You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.
There are 2 spiritual ideologies that accomany this.
we can live closely together if we can accept our differences! We can live without property if we can enjoy the simpler things!
The largest problem in this manner is the fact that no matter what division of philosophy we create, it splinters quite immediately. Everyone agrees with everyone . . . and adds a “sort of” onto it. The question is how many people (and some of them necessarily influential) could become immediately unified to such an ideology. It sure won’t happen from conventional schooling.
However, one thing I personally oppose about pre-civil war america is the right to slavery based on birth. Enslaving a person based on who’s womb they came out of or the colour of their skin is very archaic and crude (not to mention cruel) to me.
However (again), I also want to follow my own guidelines.
If this is a desired ends to anyone’s ideal community, I’m not here to ask why. I want to see how one might create that community from the modern vantage point.
It’s the breaking eggs part that kicks all the shit in the air. The chances of getting world powers to agree to anything is so unlikely that there ought to be a term for zero cubed. Assuming that we will continue to squabble and fumble around till its too late to do anything but fight for resources, regionalization becomes almost as attractive as it will be necessary. Its only a guess on my part, but when the upheaval hits, small enclaves will survive. We can assess where we are, make our best efforts at self-sufficiency, and then cross our fingers that the storm will blow over the top.
Back in the eighties there was a sci-fi book written by Niven & Pournelle called Lucifers Hammer. The scenario is a cometary strike and the results thereof. The details of how the aftermath is dealt with is the interesting part. A population crash would generate many of the same issues discussed in this novel.
I don’t mean to offer doom and gloom. It seems to me that sitting on our… uhhh… hands is the real doom and gloom. Assessment of actual conditions, projecting possible solutions, may not be as romantic as talking philosophy or running around in a rubber boat saving whales, but surviving in as good of a position as possible seems like a worthy goal. If not for ourselves, then for those who follow us.
Exactly–that’s how it works right now anyway. The physically superior get drafted. The intellectually elite postulate & produce society’s future.
The “Western World’s” secret is its subtle imperialization already in progress. For awhile now I thought this was planned by American intelligence, but now I realize that it may be unplanned. It may be happening of its own accord. This is the most likely scenario. America’s socio-cultural degradation (its leveling power) spreads across the globe and absorbs all other societies & cultures into its own. Thus, America’s military power is just an extension of itself. As other nations join into the alliance of a global super-power, all other nations fall.
The Cold War ended, but the effects rolled on, to this day.
Nobody will have the conventional or nuclear power to stop the United States after it merges with China.
It seems to me that all male violence is spurred by sexual competition.
Creating a disproportionate population between men & women (lower number of men = easier competition) will reduce a microcosm’s crime levels.
Or, the quantity of violence will be reduced but the quality of it will be heightened (as trends suggest) … maybe.
Earth is a macrocosm. Eventually, humanity will not be able to sustain resources from within the macrocosm (based on a certain human population limit that we eventually surpass). We will then need to produce vehicles that deliver us into space and return with much more energy than from when we left. Perhaps we could make self-operating coal mines in space that burns minerals from the moon… This may be a vision realized within the next millennium.
There will always be religious fundamentalism. The trick is to control it. When Al Qaeda announced Jihad, was it a coincidence that afterward America didn’t see Muslims coming across the Atlantic on boats trying to invade our country? No. Islamic fundamentalism is a fraction, just like all other religions. The threat is an imaginary one, posed by American media. It is a mere illusion.
Many Muslims decried Osama Bin Laden’s actions, because it meant their houses would be bombed. Most people are practical. Most people understand the practical consequences for radical actions. Fundamentalism becomes self-sustained from within. It’s time for philosophers to dispel the powerful delusions & illusions produced by the American media. Know nothing. Religious minds are more easily controlled by every other. Scientists are moderate. Philosophers are radical.
Personally I don’t believe that money has ever been “arbitrary”. It’s a measurement of personal value (by societies). Currency is a system of “self-worth” so to speak. In capitalism, the meaning of life itself is to acquire “dollar” symbols. Philosophers dispel this illusion for what it is rather immediately. The meaning of life is more than just a number.
However, currency is a practical system. There’s no need to change it directly. It will evolve by itself in proportion to how powerful ideas infect the minds of the masses. Give people $100 and they can buy a certain amount of food. Give people ideas and they can produce all the food in the world. I’m curious as to when mere “ideas” turn into a currency… Whoever has the “best” ideas gets “paid” for it. Again, this is a matter of metaphors and symbols…
People in general prefer an “equal” start from birth. That’s fine. It’s delusional thinking, but it’s effective and meaningful. Philosophers can clearly see that any given individual is in no way “equal” from the start. Regardless, a superficial equality needs to be imposed and reinforced. That’s why America’s “Pursuit for Happiness” is so compelling to other nations. For example, take your slavery exam, we would now see racism as archaic when a person becomes a slave just for being born. People will never be equal from the beginning, but a superficial push for it is seen as a good thing. Let it be. Strength sometimes appears where it is least expected. Equalize it all and expect the unexpected.
I imagine that “equality” is going to be based on “currency” or “debt”. Everybody begins with 0 debt. Eventually, they accrue debt in the negative or credit in the positive. Their life will be “measured” by this. If they land in the negative, then it’s their “fault”. If they land in the positive, then it’s their “success”.
Yes, men lead in war. There’s no doubt. However, women do pose a very unforeseen purpose in war (when used as soldiers). I will try to remember this point and tell you about it sometime. Essentially what I am saying here is that when women are sent as soldiers into a conventional war, then it actually traumatizes the men in the opposing army. Men are not intended to kill women or be killed by them. This creates a clear superiority physically & mentally…
More another time.
The Feminization of Man has gone too far and needs to be rebalanced.
Strength must be reasserted into the populace when it is lacking (like our present era).
Christian ideology is mostly the cause of this right now in the Western World. It will not last much longer.
Yes Gaia! “Male” education and “female” education is going to be enhanced. Men shouldn’t be “failed” (with F scores) for not learning the domain of women. Likewise, women shouldn’t be “failed” (with F scores) for not learning the domain of men. That doesn’t exempt the learning and knowledge–it just shouldn’t be quantified… (It is still necessary though; boys must memorize vocabulary and girls must memorize math)
