Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[Zefelius]

inspiring

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...723351393.html

Always interesting reading about the personal experiences of the troops. Some of my students have been to war as well, and they seem split on the question of rightness or wrongness. I suppose all their experiences are different, as one would imagine.

Over here in the States 9/11 is in the news quite a bit. It's always strange for me to hear about how much people say they're affected by it, when personally I never really thought too much about it---not any more than most tragedies.

[ShowtekGER]

Over here in the States 9/11 is in the news quite a bit. It's always strange for me to hear about how much people say they're affected by it, when personally I never really thought too much about it---not any more than most tragedies.

i know that we don't give two f*cks about atrocities being carried out elsewhere in the world and that we only care when something happens to ourselves but i still find the magnitude of response to 9/11 surprisingly enormous. i remember that in germany all tv stations reported only about that incident and about nothing else for a few days after 9/11 and already then (i was 11 years old) i couldn't understand why this claimed to much attention since every time i watched the news i saw that people were dying all the time because of conflicts and unjust causes. 9/11 didn't matter to me, didn't seem to be a very significant event, just like all the other people the news showed dying and suffering.

[ScottieX]

9/11 didn't matter to me, didn't seem to be a very significant event, just like all the other people the news showed dying and suffering.

But news isnt about keeping you equally informed about every death on earth.

Anyway Sept 11 was significant becase it was significant. Ie The fact that it had the ability to generate wars and shape air travel and international relations, and that these things would effect viewers and other news they might see - made it somthing to report on which helped its ability to do those things (circular, I know).

It also probably matches a sort of "fairy tale" model to have someone come out and do somthing so obviously evil (as opposed to where the info is more confused like in most cases) against people obviously innocent and thus to waken the sleeping bear with this poke with a stick. And then for the bear to come and break a whole lot of stuff.

[Zefelius]

But news isnt about keeping you equally informed about every death on earth.

Anyway Sept 11 was significant becase it was significant. Ie The fact that it had the ability to generate wars and shape air travel and international relations, and that these things would effect viewers and other news they might see - made it somthing to report on which helped its ability to do those things (circular, I know).

It also probably matches a sort of "fairy tale" model to have someone come out and do somthing so obviously evil (as opposed to where the info is more confused like in most cases) against people obviously innocent and thus to waken the sleeping bear with this poke with a stick. And then for the bear to come and break a whole lot of stuff.

That's a reasonable explanation. I don't blame the news for covering it extensively, I just feel out of place sometimes because people talk about how their lives have been so dramatically changed whereas I don't feel quite that way. Of course if I had been there or lost someone that would be completely different for me...

[ScottieX]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us...ts10.html?_r=2

time to vote Palin?

[Zso_Zso]

Scott Keller still sounds better:

http://keller2012.com/

[SVPM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us...ts10.html?_r=2

time to vote Palin?

That was interesting. Part of her read of the situation reminded me of the analysis of the first marxist that were saying that states were used by the economic power to reproduce a corrupted system (capitalism). She was saying exactly that in fact. Sarah Palin a marxist, who would have believed that?

The problem in her analysis is that I'm not sure that making the government smaller would solve the problem that she pointed out. The big corporation who doesn't create job (her idea, not necessarly mine) could do what they want if there wasn't any law preventing them.

It was also funny to have a publicity in french (which is my language) about something in Montreal (where I live) on the NY Times internet page... Those add business are getting better and better.

[apandisit]

Ben konuya uzak kaldim

[SVPM]

Ben konuya uzak kaldim

You subject your news?

[Zefelius]

The problem in her analysis is that I'm not sure that making the government smaller would solve the problem that she pointed out.

Like a modern day Hoover who thought the economy would take care of itself. If the world economy does get worse there's no doubt people will look to governments around the world to intervene and play a role in turning things around. Right now in the States we haven't reached that turning point yet, otherwise the Tea Party wouldn't still be popular.

[ShowtekGER]

will america recover from this? i am beginning to buy into this apocalyptic feeling of the west losing its privileged status in global affairs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-2354789.html

[ScottieX]

will america recover from this? i am beginning to buy into this apocalyptic feeling of the west losing its privileged status in global affairs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-2354789.html

not to say there isn't an issue - but poverty isn't quite what it used to be. Food and really basic clothes and a few other necessities have become a very small fraction of or incomes in recent years (more so lately but still not that much relitively speaking). maybe we can thank China for some of that.

I suppose one of the problems is that the world is getting more complex and it is getting harder to work ot how to reciev $300 or so and then spread it over your expenses ,and some peopel are screwing up and lets say bying a washing machine they cant afford or not bying a fridge on rent to own, when they should.

Or that they are getting overwhelmed by advertising and bying their kids happy meals for the thosand odd toys they end up storing in their garage.

[ShowtekGER]

not to say there isn't an issue - but poverty isn't quite what it used to be. Food and really basic clothes and a few other necessities have become a very small fraction of or incomes in recent years (more so lately but still not that much relitively speaking). maybe we can thank China for some of that.

I suppose one of the problems is that the world is getting more complex and it is getting harder to work ot how to reciev $300 or so and then spread it over your expenses ,and some peopel are screwing up and lets say bying a washing machine they cant afford or not bying a fridge on rent to own, when they should.

Or that they are getting overwhelmed by advertising and bying their kids happy meals for the thosand odd toys they end up storing in their garage.

well, it's a typical conservative position that people aren't really poor but simply live above their means. i believe this is true but not because of poor people's moral deficiencies but because of the kind of societal influences that you mention, like advertisement. "living above your mean" here translates to "buying stuff you think you want and need when, in fact, nobody needs this junk".

anyway, i don't think that this really applies to people who aren't working at all or who earn extremely little. i know that it's fairly hard in germany and denmark when you're out of work and have to manage a family at the same time and i would suppose that it's a lot harder in the US based on their politics. in the article they say living below the poverty line means $22,113 for a family of four.

[Zso_Zso]

I am not sure how meaningful a specific cut-off figure like $22,113 is. If the family has a $1500/month mortgage amounting to $18,000 a year, then it is sure impossible to live from $22,113/year. But if they live in a small fully-paid house then $22,113 might be enough for basic food, heating in the winter and basic utility costs (water, electricity, but no internet or any luxuries).

It is also interesting to note, that on the picture of the article you can see a leather sofa in pretty good condition just out on the "street" of the shanty town. This is suggestive of previously middle-class family who could afford such furniture but loss of jobs and house fore-closure forcing them onto the street. I think that is the biggest problem of the economy now, that the middle class is shrinking, transferring into poor homeless who are not able to buy products which in turn causes more business failures and job losses => vicious circle.

[ScottieX]

anyway, i don't think that this really applies to people who aren't working at all or who earn extremely little. i know that it's fairly hard in germany and denmark when you're out of work and have to manage a family at the same time and i would suppose that it's a lot harder in the US based on their politics. in the article they say living below the poverty line means $22,113 for a family of four.

I suspect there is still quite a spectrum of people in that band in terms of their apparent poverty.

Some of them will be saving money even on unemployment or even on charity, and others will be pretty much starving themselves and not see any way out.

[ShowtekGER]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-2356110.html

this is giving me furious satisfaction. i just love to see how the israelis, americans, and other westerners are crapping their pants while they are trying everything in order to prevent the grand, inevitable final embarrassment.

[Zefelius]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-2356110.html

this is giving me furious satisfaction. i just love to see how the israelis, americans, and other westerners are crapping their pants while they are trying everything in order to prevent the grand, inevitable final embarrassment.

In my amateur opinion I think they should be recognized as a State. Seems perfectly reasonable. Of course it won't bring peace anytime soon, but it gives them a level playing field in terms of negotiations.

[ScottieX]

In my amateur opinion I think they should be recognized as a State. Seems perfectly reasonable. Of course it won't bring peace anytime soon, but it gives them a level playing field in terms of negotiations.

It should just be a matter of fact I suppose. Ie they are a state if they have the attributes of a state. (that might be up for debate but it should be about the facts and then create case law).

Otherwise we should just remove North Korea's statehood, and Zimbabwae's and then give it individally to all the members of congress to give an automatic UN majority on all issues.

[Zefelius]

In my latest experimental ruminations I'm drifting closer to the opinion that there should be counter-democratic reforms in America. Just as democracy is gradually winning out over dictatorships, historically speaking, democracy will need to evolve and be replaced as well. Some of these reforms should increase certain types of inequality within democracies, as with voting rights. Right now, everyone has the right to vote, and each vote counts as much as anyone else's. That should probaly be changed. What we could do is adminster a test every 5 years and those who show greater knowledge of civics, history, economics, logic, and whatever else is critical to a healthy, thriving society, will earn the right to have their votes count for more in comparison to others. Serving one's country in the military might also raise the proportional value of one's vote.

As it is right now, we tend to believe that everyone deserves the right to have their voice count just as much as anyone else's, but that's rather questionable. Dialectically democracy replaced the excesses of tyranny, so perhaps now it is time for a new poltical vision to replace the excesses of equality and democracy.

[ShowtekGER]

In my amateur opinion I think they should be recognized as a State. Seems perfectly reasonable. Of course it won't bring peace anytime soon, but it gives them a level playing field in terms of negotiations.

my opinion is equally amateurish but i think the difference between the palestinians and other peoples that try to be recognized as a state is mainly that israel, the US, and others think it would mean a political loss to them.

the funny thing about this is that israel and the US will definitely lose this, regardless of what they're trying to do to prevent it (all the time, pathetically). the US will have to veto the request which will result in quite severe global political implications, a lot of even more hatred in the middle east. israel is already now f*cked down there after turkey and egypt, two of their modest allies, have just given up on them. it looks bad for them. some critics like chomsky argue that israel is destroying itself with its policies and perhaps that's true.

[ShowtekGER]

In my latest experimental ruminations I'm drifting closer to the opinion that there should be counter-democratic reforms in America. Just as democracy is gradually winning out over dictatorships, historically speaking, democracy will need to evolve and be replaced as well. Some of these reforms should increase certain types of inequality within democracies, as with voting rights. Right now, everyone has the right to vote, and each vote counts as much as anyone else's. That should probaly be changed. What we could do is adminster a test every 5 years and those who show greater knowledge of civics, history, economics, logic, and whatever else is critical to a healthy, thriving society, will earn the right to have their votes count for more in comparison to others. Serving one's country in the military might also raise the proportional value of one's vote.

As it is right now, we tend to believe that everyone deserves the right to have their voice count just as much as anyone else's, but that's rather questionable. Dialectically democracy replaced the excesses of tyranny, so perhaps now it is time for a new poltical vision to replace the excesses of equality and democracy.

the problem with this tactic is that it gives an elite the power to decide, which always ultimately leads to abuse of this power. the elite will be able to dictate for everyone what will be done politically. of course, they will choose what serves themselves best. we create more divisions between people by the social hierarchies of elitism and more divided people feel less connected to each other and will thus make more egoistical decisions. soon we would have more censorship, more coercive social enterprises, and overall less freedoms as we move closer to a dictatorship. i believe that this would result in less happiness and therefore it is directly counterproductive in regard to what i would want for humanity.

i doubt that you would want this because you believe it would work better practically than what we have now. your motivations behind such ideas are ideological. it's your view of humanity as lazy, irresponsible, arrogant, and overall just disgusting and bad. of course, these are all relative moral value judgments and aren't productive in any social way. but if that's how you want to view humanity we should try to look at how and why such traits develop (which will make us discuss endless nature vs. nurture questions again).

BTW, i somewhat felt that this post was directed at me or that you at least had in mind that it would provoke me. "Serving one's country in the military might also raise the proportional value of one's vote." lol

[ScottieX]

Serving one's country in the military might also raise the proportional value of one's vote.
.

you seem to be merging two diffirent principles here. soldiers get the vote becase it is a bribe to get them to protect the country, informed people get to vote becase they are better informed. but at the same time - soldiers get to fight becase they are expendable (eg if you are in a key job you get out of conscription), so you may end p working against yourself with this policy.

We should probably just decide if we are trying to be conceqentialist or trying to be "fair".

anyway i think man power in the military is becoming less important. Better to have less people with better eqipment than more.

[ScottieX]

some critics like chomsky argue that israel is destroying itself with its policies and perhaps that's true.

But israel has been acting this way (and even worse) since it came into existance (and before in a sense), if its destroying itself it's doing it VERY slowly.

[ScottieX]

the problem with this tactic is that it gives an elite the power to decide, which always ultimately leads to abuse of this power. the elite will be able to dictate for everyone what will be done politically. of course, they will choose what serves themselves best.

what if we put in place a lot of checks and balances? Courts that owe no allegence to the politicians, councils with the sole job of censoring politicians and with the power to eject them from government on the basis of corruption (with balance of probabilities level proof). public funding of everything to do with the process and severe penalties for trying to inflence it in iligitimate ways, all that sort of thing. Then checks on your checks and balances for your balances.

And over time make the rules ever stricter untill any corruption results in ejection from government and procecution.

maybe constant survelance and public record of most of your politicians activities and communications?
(besides the government secret stuff like when they wil raise interest rates) and even that could be trawled through by the anti corruption council.

[ShowtekGER]

But israel has been acting this way (and even worse) since it came into existance (and before in a sense), if its destroying itself it's doing it VERY slowly.

well, perhaps they can continue to exist like this for another 50 years. it's not like i argue that israel will be taken down anytime soon. how should that be possible right now. the US is far too powerful. also, israel is not an entirely constant stream of unfairness and dictatorship in regard to its neighbors, it's a little fickle. sometimes it actually approaches them positively in some kind of way. but i wouldn't be surprised if there would be a last straw some time. that's all i'm saying.

[ShowtekGER]

what if we put in place a lot of checks and balances? Courts that owe no allegence to the politicians, councils with the sole job of censoring politicians and with the power to eject them from government on the basis of corruption (with balance of probabilities level proof). public funding of everything to do with the process and severe penalties for trying to inflence it in iligitimate ways, all that sort of thing. Then checks on your checks and balances for your balances.

And over time make the rules ever stricter untill any corruption results in ejection from government and procecution.

maybe constant survelance and public record of most of your politicians activities and communications?
(besides the government secret stuff like when they wil raise interest rates) and even that could be trawled through by the anti corruption council.

i don't know if it's intentional but you're more or less describing western democracies or what they're supposed to be. it doesn't work out quite that well IMO. our elites seem to be more powerful than ever.

my problem with this kind of solutions is that they aren't solutions at all. by installing structures like the ones you describe we suppress societal tendencies but we don't solve them. moreover, first we create them by means of the very foundations of our system and system values, then we suppress that what we have just created. monitoring and punishment doesn't solve, it only suppresses.

besides, such institutions just don't seem to work as well as you would want them to. our courts are supposed to owe no allegiance to politicians, right? yet, they do. our laws are supposed to prevent injustice not only within these institutions but everywhere else as well, right? but it's not working at all. this is all made possible by the incredible power of the elites IMO. they are simply more powerful than the many. they misguide and sometimes outright brainwash the masses until they lag behind exhausted and disoriented (and uneducated). we can't see the injustice. at least that's the best explanation i have for out blindness.

[Zefelius]

BTW, i somewhat felt that this post was directed at me or that you at least had in mind that it would provoke me. "Serving one's country in the military might also raise the proportional value of one's vote." lol

Haha! It's true I like to be provocative, just like you sometimes, but I don't think I had you in mind specifically. Most everyone in the West is pro-democracy, so it's kind of fun to think about possible alternatives. If I remember correctly, Heinlein's Starship Troopers also had something like this in mind, namley, serving one's country to become a genuine citizen. I coule never tell from his book or the movie if that was meant to be ironic.

[Zefelius]

the problem with this tactic is that it gives an elite the power to decide, which always ultimately leads to abuse of this power. the elite will be able to dictate for everyone what will be done politically. of course, they will choose what serves themselves best. we create more divisions between people by the social hierarchies of elitism and more divided people feel less connected to each other and will thus make more egoistical decisions. soon we would have more censorship, more coercive social enterprises, and overall less freedoms as we move closer to a dictatorship. i believe that this would result in less happiness and therefore it is directly counterproductive in regard to what i would want for humanity.

I think you have a good point about corruption and elitism. I thought about that as well when I formulated my comment. I think my tentative answer is that there is corruption in every system, and I would prefer that if there is going to be corruption we might as well emphasize the kind of values and virtues which will combat that corruption. In my vision, for example, each person's vote will count more or less according to their knowledge of civics, history, logic, etc. That means politicians voted into office will have to appeal to a more informed populace. Misleading ads won't work as well in that kind of environment. Today politicians are mostly influenced by money and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Although a system based on knowledge can still be exploited, that's preferable to a system based on either a) mass opinion, or b) money, since in both cases corruption and the exploitation of ignorance are even more likely.

[Zefelius]

you seem to be merging two diffirent principles here. soldiers get the vote becase it is a bribe to get them to protect the country, informed people get to vote becase they are better informed. but at the same time - soldiers get to fight becase they are expendable (eg if you are in a key job you get out of conscription), so you may end p working against yourself with this policy.

Perhaps some politicians see them as expendable. If so, this would be one way to have their vote count for more. Politicians would need to consider their treatment of the troops in their policy-making, as votes of vets would count for more. This gives more respect to those who are willing to put their lives on the line for their country---and helps offset the intellectualism of my overall position.

[ScottieX]

i don't know if it's intentional but you're more or less describing western democracies or what they're supposed to be. it doesn't work out quite that well IMO. our elites seem to be more powerful than ever.

hahaha ... I think you mean "what they're supposed to be" you can drop the "western democracies" part. what is confusing you is that western democracy often gets confused for "everything good".

we suppress societal tendencies but we don't solve them. moreover, first we create them by means of the very foundations of our system and system values, then we suppress that what we have just created. monitoring and punishment doesn't solve, it only suppresses.

ok I can solve those problems but that'll require selective breading and some eugenics. Otherwise I don't think anyone has a workable plan.

I also dont know if i see the distinction you are tryng to make between permanent supression of a trait and eliminating the trait and so not sre i I'd argue your solution wouldnt eliminate it (whatever it is) or if I'd argue that mine effectively would.

besides, such institutions just don't seem to work as well as you would want them to. our courts are supposed to owe no allegiance to politicians, right? yet, they do.

who would have guessed that would happen in the US system with the president picking supreme court judges....... um EVERYONE...
But I still dont get why you are quite THAT defeatist about this sort of thing - afterall these structures are somewhat effective at preventing incidents of corruption in modern systems, just obviously far from perfect.

[ShowtekGER]

Haha! It's true I like to be provocative, just like you sometimes, but I don't think I had you in mind specifically. Most everyone in the West is pro-democracy, so it's kind of fun to think about possible alternatives. If I remember correctly, Heinlein's Starship Troopers also had something like this in mind, namley, serving one's country to become a genuine citizen. I coule never tell from his book or the movie if that was meant to be ironic.

why do you want to go back in time again politically? why not go forward? i rather have democracy than dictatorship but i'd much rather pursue revolutionary ideas of marxism and anarchism. there are many credible theories out there which allege that we can be a lot freer and live in more authentic societies than what we do now.

[ShowtekGER]

I think you have a good point about corruption and elitism. I thought about that as well when I formulated my comment. I think my tentative answer is that there is corruption in every system, and I would prefer that if there is going to be corruption we might as well emphasize the kind of values and virtues which will combat that corruption. In my vision, for example, each person's vote will count more or less according to their knowledge of civics, history, logic, etc. That means politicians voted into office will have to appeal to a more informed populace. Misleading ads won't work as well in that kind of environment. Today politicians are mostly influenced by money and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Although a system based on knowledge can still be exploited, that's preferable to a system based on either a) mass opinion, or b) money, since in both cases corruption and the exploitation of ignorance are even more likely.

apart from the practical difficulty of appointing the people who are more politically informed than others (and designing a neutral institution for this purpose), i disagree with the sentiment. if we want a more informed populace, why not work towards installing societal structures that inform them more? i don't see why we always have to split each other up into groups, ignoring that everything that seems to distinguish ourselves from each other is constructed by humans. i think this backwards kind of thinking defines a lot of what keeps the world in its miserable status quo. the idea of essentialist characteristics of groups of humans belongs to the dark ages.

[Zso_Zso]

why do you want to go back in time again politically? why not go forward? i rather have democracy than dictatorship but i'd much rather pursue revolutionary ideas of marxism and anarchism. there are many credible theories out there which allege that we can be a lot freer and live in more authentic societies than what we do now.

In a sense, one could say that anarchy is the oldest form -- before any other have emerged, back in the cave-men era. Then you can see some dictatorship in the ancient era (Pharaos, Kings etc), then we got classic Greek democracy, then Roman republic, followed by dictatorships (Kingdoms) again in the medieval era.

So I do not see it as a linear change advancement pattern at all. Same ideas seem to return to be refined, perfected, e.g. Democracy and Republic. There was also a first attempt at Communism in the early 20th century which failed due to bad implementation and horrible planned economy attached to it. In the next iteration it may be paired with Resource based economy and better implementation without deep corruption and personal cults.

[ShowtekGER]

ok I can solve those problems but that'll require selective breading and some eugenics. Otherwise I don't think anyone has a workable plan.

it's incredible how many of the practical political debates boil down to nature vs. nature or other philosophical subjects.

i don't know how you want to breed away the egoism and corruption genes as they don't exist, at least not in a way that predetermines behavior. there are no such genes. if we absolutely have to discuss human behavior in terms of biology, then we have to install the social structures that make sure that certain genetic predispositions that we ALL carry stay inactivated. for example, in western societies, we could try to focus less on competition, exploitation, and instrumentalization and we might just activate less psychopathic genes.

this crap is discussed over and over again, yet virtually nobody serious in the social sciences still argues like this. get this, human behavior is not predetermined in any way.

I also dont know if i see the distinction you are tryng to make between permanent supression of a trait and eliminating the trait and so not sre i I'd argue your solution wouldnt eliminate it (whatever it is) or if I'd argue that mine effectively would.

permanent suppression of a trait? you mean something like perfect suppression? first of all, even if that would exist in any practical way, we would still waste a lot of resources on suppressing while we could instead solve the problem. second of all, it doesn't exist in any practical manner. if we fabricate the groundwork of corruption and crime we can't suppress this entirely as you see all over the west and elsewhere. some countries like NZ, denmark, and finland have minimized corruption in regard to other areas of the world but i doubt that the cause of this is more effective counter-measures. no, here corruption doesn't come into existence to a large extent in the first place. the same goes for crime and other undesirable behaviors.

who would have guessed that would happen in the US system with the president picking supreme court judges....... um EVERYONE...
But I still dont get why you are quite THAT defeatist about this sort of thing - afterall these structures are somewhat effective at preventing incidents of corruption in modern systems, just obviously far from perfect.

it just makes it worse that it is often that obvious. i sometimes wonder why people put up with this all the time. it must be because they aren't educated enough.

of course, our methods succeed in suppressing undesirable dynamics to some extent. however, as aforementioned, i'm not satisfied with the method of suppression in itself and i always think we can do better. there is too much crap going on in the world for me to tolerate it.

[ShowtekGER]

In a sense, one could say that anarchy is the oldest form -- before any other have emerged, back in the cave-men era. Then you can see some dictatorship in the ancient era (Pharaos, Kings etc), then we got classic Greek democracy, then Roman republic, followed by dictatorships (Kingdoms) again in the medieval era.

So I do not see it as a linear change advancement pattern at all. Same ideas seem to return to be refined, perfected, e.g. Democracy and Republic. There was also a first attempt at Communism in the early 20th century which failed due to bad implementation and horrible planned economy attached to it. In the next iteration it may be paired with Resource based economy and better implementation without deep corruption and personal cults.

hm, the first humans were organized in groups of hunter-gatherers. within those groups i suppose there was social organization. between the groups i suppose there was trading and conflict. i think this is similar to anarchy because there were no written rules and no other absolute authority of organization like the state. if you want to call that anarchy, fine, but i don't think that a modern anarchy based on theoretical political anarchy would look like this in many ways.

the zeitgeist resource based economy is an anarchy in my opinion. there are no rules and laws, no installed authority, only human relations and all social organization is derived from these relations.

[ShowtekGER]

is it a fact that rich people in the US pay a smaller tax rate than other people? the news seems to allege that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...onaire-tax-war
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...h-2356864.html

[Zefelius]

why do you want to go back in time again politically? why not go forward? i rather have democracy than dictatorship but i'd much rather pursue revolutionary ideas of marxism and anarchism. there are many credible theories out there which allege that we can be a lot freer and live in more authentic societies than what we do now.

There are some important ideals associated with Marxism and anarchy. To some extent democracy channels a few of those ideals, as with equality, but not sufficiently for someone like you who would like to see radical change. If you believe that absolute equality across all social phenomena (not just in terms of voting or civil rights as in modern democracy, but also economically), then something like communism will be preferred. But if there is any value to be linked with inequality, then someone like me will push for another system.

Now, originally, capitalism was supposed to be the economic half of our system which rewarded inequality in terms of rewards for innovation and competition (ideally speaking... I'm temporarily ignoring its historical abuses). But capitalism in its third stage (consumer cpaitalism) rewards superficial appearances rather than genuine progressive thinking. I think one way of correcting that would be by transforming our voting system into a knowledge-based democracy: If you do very well on certain exams testing your history, logic, and civics, then your vote counts 2x, 3x, or maybe 5x more than before.

This way we reward knowledge. Those who have more of it have more of a voice in politics. Those who have less of it likewise have less of a voice: their opinions count for less! It may seem unfair, but this system acknowledges that some opinions are better than others. That's simply how it is. Furthermore, you can't run for office unless you score in the top percentage, maybe the top 10%. People like Perry and Bachmann couldn't run for president in my society!! They're smply not qualified. Or if they would like to qualify, they will have to work harder to understand basic truths of economics, logic, and history.

[Zso_Zso]

Have you guys heard about this ?

https://occupywallst.org/

Looks like the only media covering it is Aljazeera:
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/us...py-wall-street

One of the comments on the Aljazeera article:
"I'm an American that would like to say bless you Al Jazeera for providing truthful coverage about what's happening in America. We sure as hell can't count on the propaganda networks we call "news" stations in this country. Home of the free, eh? "

A response to that:
"Corporate zionist media in the US wont even cover the fact that thousands marched on Wall Street yesterday. They are owned by corporate america, they covered the freaking Sarah Palin rally that had a few hundred people in attendance though...do you see whats wrong with america. Mussolini said, when media, government and corporations work together its fascism...well isnt that what we have america? "

Looks like the world is going from Arab Spring ===>>> American Fall pun fully intended

[ScottieX]

i don't know how you want to breed away the egoism and corruption genes as they don't exist, at least not in a way that predetermines behavior.

I strongly disagree with this. There are genes that are very strongly associated with these traits. I can see them in my own family and there are tonnes of academic studies looking at various aspects of this.
Unless you mean that in certain scenarios you will get some corrption anyway (even if hugely reduced), which doesnt seem to be a very useful point.

Anyway I am happy to try to do whatever works - the problem with eugenics is you are in danger of becoming the problem not the solution. But I suppose central and very scientific management of sperm banks might be acceptable.

if we absolutely have to discuss human behavior in terms of biology, then we have to install the social structures that make sure that certain genetic predispositions that we ALL carry stay inactivated.

that's what my plan did.

for example, in western societies, we could try to focus less on competition, exploitation, and instrumentalization and we might just activate less psychopathic genes.

your difference from my plan is just that yours is less targeted...
you aren't removing traits from people either, just changing the environment so they dont get to use them.
Mine is better though because we know we can do it, and it wouldn't be nearly as hard to set up.

get this, human behavior is not predetermined in any way.

this is just a semantic debate. your behaviour is obviously determined by the existance of your arms and the fact you are a human. That being said no matter what your genetics - an asteroid will still smash you into atoms if it hits you.

first of all, even if that would exist in any practical way, we would still waste a lot of resources on suppressing while we could instead solve the problem. second of all, it doesn't exist in any practical manner. if we fabricate the groundwork of corruption and crime we can't suppress this entirely as you see all over the west and elsewhere. some countries like NZ, denmark, and finland have minimized corruption in regard to other areas of the world but i doubt that the cause of this is more effective counter-measures. no, here corruption doesn't come into existence to a large extent in the first place. the same goes for crime and other undesirable behaviors.

everything has a cause.. so WHY?

[ShowtekGER]

There are some important ideals associated with Marxism and anarchy. To some extent democracy channels a few of those ideals, as with equality, but not sufficiently for someone like you who would like to see radical change. If you believe that absolute equality across all social phenomena (not just in terms of voting or civil rights as in modern democracy, but also economically), then something like communism will be preferred. But if there is any value to be linked with inequality, then someone like me will push for another system.

Now, originally, capitalism was supposed to be the economic half of our system which rewarded inequality in terms of rewards for innovation and competition (ideally speaking... I'm temporarily ignoring its historical abuses). But capitalism in its third stage (consumer cpaitalism) rewards superficial appearances rather than genuine progressive thinking.

what do you mean by absolute economic equality? if you base this on our current society, it would mean that money is simply redistributed equally to everybody. i don't think this would work. my concept of total equality implies that everybody gets what he needs and wants--not because some authority decides this against the will of a majority but because this would be the system accepted by everybody. i wouldn't want to force anybody to participate. people must be convinced that this would result in increased happiness for everybody, including the current rich people, which is what i believe. if someone needs or wants something and this means he will control more resources than someone else, that's not a problem. (note that artificial consumer wants would be removed in this kind of society and that it is theorized that this society would reach resource abundance at some near point, if it isn't reached already in 2011). i think this is a central concept in both theoretical communism and marxism as well as most anarchist theories of the social tradition.

I think one way of correcting that would be by transforming our voting system into a knowledge-based democracy: If you do very well on certain exams testing your history, logic, and civics, then your vote counts 2x, 3x, or maybe 5x more than before.

This way we reward knowledge. Those who have more of it have more of a voice in politics. Those who have less of it likewise have less of a voice: their opinions count for less! It may seem unfair, but this system acknowledges that some opinions are better than others. That's simply how it is. Furthermore, you can't run for office unless you score in the top percentage, maybe the top 10%. People like Perry and Bachmann couldn't run for president in my society!! They're smply not qualified. Or if they would like to qualify, they will have to work harder to understand basic truths of economics, logic, and history.

i suppose i can only repeat my earlier criticism. i think this will give an advantage to the knowledge elite which will abuse its powers firstly by dictating what is correct knowledge and what isn't in a way that suits them and secondly by thus remaining in power and benefiting those that they want to benefit. "knowledge" as a status will simply be inherited which reminds me of our current society where similar status is inherited. in theory, everybody would be able to acquire knowledge according to their own skill and effort just like in our current society in which, theoretically, everybody can gain the fruits of society by using one's skill and working hard, but that is and will not be the case practically. the disadvantaged will stay disadvantaged through the power structure and this will be justified by referring to genetic inheritance instead of social inheritance. i.e., it's the peoples fault, not the system's. which is exactly what happens in our societies, especially the ones more stratified like the US.