Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: sharonneedles on April 07, 2013, 08:23 pm
-
If you could think of a concept/ company with unlimited time and resources, what would it be?
As a thought experiment I'm thinking of current world issues such as starvation, country debt, etc. and trying to come up with ideas to solve them. They don't have to be practical solutions, could be purely theoretical. Although ending the country debt issue above could be solved using BTC which would have a practical element too :)
Ideas welcome here,
Peace
-
I would found a company that seeks to analyze society itself and weed out / fix inefficiencies of ignorance or misinformation. It would thus seek to bring larger portions of the population to enlightenment, because this is what has frustrated me in making societal progress:
No matter what social programs, fixes, and steps we take, if some 60% of society is ignorant, and raises their kids ignorant, then all of our problem remain. We need to reduce the proportion of the population that is ignorant, and then a better society will follow.
Unlimited time and resources would allow for a shadowy global organization removing from power those who knowingly perpetuate harm for their own good, and hijacking media that's spouting propaganda or outright lies. Finally remove the absurdity that is creationism from textbooks, remove anyone who has cited a religious reason in their administration of power over other people, just clean up the parts of the world that would make any sane, thinking individual hold his head and go, "dammit, why?"
You may ask, "how is this better than just taking over the world and establishing your own dictatorship?"
We'd have one tenant: critical thought. No organization that seeks to mislead teaches critical thought. The US GOP? Fiercely opposes any measure that seeks to introduce higher-order thinking skills such as critical evaluation, because it relies on an ignorant support base. An aware people would be able to organize and lead themselves justly, and my organization would become unneeded after completing its task.
-
We need to reduce the proportion of the population that is ignorant, and then a better society will follow.
We'd have one tenant: critical thought. No organization that seeks to mislead teaches critical thought. The US GOP? Fiercely opposes any measure that seeks to introduce higher-order thinking skills such as critical evaluation, because it relies on an ignorant support base. An aware people would be able to organize and lead themselves justly, and my organization would become unneeded after completing its task.
LOL... Like the US Dems are any better! lol (Especially love the fact that the only 2 US Senators actively attacking SR are Dems)
"my organization would become unneeded after completing its task"... That's like Stalin promising to hold free elections. So after you starve all the ignorant Ukrainians, you'll let us vote? Sounds like a real hoot.
And please, could you employ Al gore to teach us about the interwebs n stuff?
OP.
Where would this unlimited time and resources come from?... I imagine if you answer that, you'd have your answer.
-
It's idealist, and I'm not saying the US Dems would be in power once my shadow gov't had run its course :)
I was just handpicking examples of ignorance in the modern world that hurt large portions of the population.
Vote? Maybe. I think in many matters, expert decisions should count more than who has more people clamoring for one thing or another.
And I'm not *saying* starve the ignorant ukrainians, I'm saying remove the systems that are exploiting them / perpetuating that ignorance. As for stalin's free elections, again, he had no intent of following through, as he was maneuvering for power, and relies on subjugate-able populace. One with full, private communications within itself would be far harder to control.
OP asked the question, I answered. "make the world smarter, fix its problems"
-
It already exists, just like the endless-motion machine.
Literacy and the human mind. It's an enterprise that has existed in excess of 7,000 years. It's still going strong. If you dedicate yourself to education and health, then you will realize how this enterprise is not only in play, but thriving.
WikiLeaks has broken the control over information, and hackers and hacktivists have made things like Liberte and knowledge free--open source. Silk Road has gone public... globally public. Those with basic education can get here. It's where you go from here that determines if you'll live forever: your legacy.
Remember: Al Capone was a big bad, rich gangster. He also died from syphilis while living in a cage. The more love you share, and the closer to Right you are than to Wrong, the better everything will be--for everyone.
-
If you doubt the idea of "endless energy", then think about how long it will take to use up the Sun's irradiance... 5 billion more years... then there's a billion more stars in our galaxy alone...
We already have NUCLEAR FUSION. Why aren't we using it??? WTF.... Human Fail.
-
Literacy and the human mind alone aren't enough - we've seen that ignorance will perpetuate itself just as well, often more aggressively.
We need to take steps to make sure literacy and the human mind are able to thrive - that those who would prevent its growth are unable to.
Fusion: The eggheads havn't gotten it quite down yet. We can release it all at once, but so far getting a constant, controlled reaction has been difficult. Though the industry is hardly trying to help out, as the completion of such a project would be huge blow to the oil industry... That's often the case with progress. Someone with a vested interest in the old ways is keeping it down.
-
Literacy and the human mind alone aren't enough - we've seen that ignorance will perpetuate itself just as well, often more aggressively.
We need to take steps to make sure literacy and the human mind are able to thrive - that those who would prevent its growth are unable to.
Fusion: The eggheads havn't gotten it quite down yet. We can release it all at once, but so far getting a constant, controlled reaction has been difficult. Though the industry is hardly trying to help out, as the completion of such a project would be huge blow to the oil industry... That's often the case with progress. Someone with a vested interest in the old ways is keeping it down.
WikiLeaks is one response to those vested in ways of old. Another is the internet. Eggheads? Why the fuck aren't WE the eggheads? Do you know Rayleigh-Jeans? Lorenz? Tuples? Strings? Thermodynamics? Q.E.D.? Astrodynamics?
If you leave work to others to do, then it will never get done. Ignorance is aggressive because intelligence is lazy.
College entrance exams are designed to weed out the garden, but how many people graduate college? Is a higher score GRE more likely to graduate? There is a Bell Curve in education distribution, but that is a fault of teaching--not the natural distribution. Human intelligence is unique: the human brain is the most complicated machine in the *known* universe. Don't fuck it up by falling behind or getting locked up. Make your money on the Road and carry on with survival in mind--as a civilization--and we will survive.
Sumerians.
Egyptians (ancient)
Mayans
Aztecs
Incans
Greeks
Romans
Ottoman Empire
Third Reich
What do they all have in common?
-
I say eggheads because though I avidly study the sciences, I don't know a fraction of what they do, and so won't claim to understand WHY what their doing doesn't work yet. Maybe it was a poor choice of word because it comes across as derogatory.
I'm not saying, "can't be done, leave it be," I'm saying, "I'm not part of the team figuring it out, so I leave their work to them until I know enough to contribute"
unlike the many forums full of people discussing hyper-unity engines and other thermodynamically impossible ideas as if it was just a matter of knowing the right science.
-
My company would rule the world and take all the time and resources from your unlimited companies, fuck you bitches you didnt think bigh enough
-
As I've said elsewhere on this forum, every forum is the same. It's contains a few very smart, very frequent contributors, and inundated by lazy contributors. We all know how to do drugs--they all know the laws of thermodynamics and some interesting maths--but in the end, there are only a few people that manage NOT to fuck up all the time.
I don't like any one group getting a special label. In implies they are beyond error-checking by people like you and me. No one is above error-checking. If a computer program doesn't work, then it is either debugged or deleted. Human affairs should be no different. Our prisons are full of dangerous and violent people, but instead of seeing the problem as a safety and necessity, we could look at ourselves and see that it is a management problem. Society has not chosen to manage the mentally ill, so instead, a system not much different than slavery continues. People aren't willing to blame themselves and take responsibility for error-checking. Same with US Congress. Economics. Law.
Marijuana isn't legal because the majority that consume the sweet grass are either too lazy or too stoned. Drugs will remain such until you take responsibility and undertake the endeavor of error-checking society. It's an engineering problem. It falls under the same categories of thermodynamics as everything else.
-
Marijuana isn't legal because the majority that consume the sweet grass are either too lazy or too stoned. Drugs will remain such until you take responsibility and undertake the endeavor of error-checking society. It's an engineering problem. It falls under the same categories of thermodynamics as everything else.
It seems pretty legal to me. I can go down to the store and just buy it. ;D I understand that's not the way it is yet for most of the US, but the error checking on weed began a long time ago.
-
I would found a company that seeks to analyze society itself and weed out / fix inefficiencies of ignorance or misinformation. It would thus seek to bring larger portions of the population to enlightenment, because this is what has frustrated me in making societal progress:
No matter what social programs, fixes, and steps we take, if some 60% of society is ignorant, and raises their kids ignorant, then all of our problem remain. We need to reduce the proportion of the population that is ignorant, and then a better society will follow.
Unlimited time and resources would allow for a shadowy global organization removing from power those who knowingly perpetuate harm for their own good, and hijacking media that's spouting propaganda or outright lies. Finally remove the absurdity that is creationism from textbooks, remove anyone who has cited a religious reason in their administration of power over other people, just clean up the parts of the world that would make any sane, thinking individual hold his head and go, "dammit, why?"
You may ask, "how is this better than just taking over the world and establishing your own dictatorship?"
We'd have one tenant: critical thought. No organization that seeks to mislead teaches critical thought. The US GOP? Fiercely opposes any measure that seeks to introduce higher-order thinking skills such as critical evaluation, because it relies on an ignorant support base. An aware people would be able to organize and lead themselves justly, and my organization would become unneeded after completing its task.
Not to stray too much from the topic but I find this an interesting concept because it's great in theory. I'm just not entirely sure that it's altogether realistic when it comes to implementation. I'm not just talking about the politics, even though that would be impossible too, but just the theoretical implementation of what you're talking about.
Yes, we have critical thought. But who would be the arbiter on deciding what passes as critical thought? Some things come down to opinion, even though the opinion might be completely founded in ignorance there'd be no way to prove the opinion false either. And isn't it someone's right to decide when they do or don't want to engage in critical thinking?
For instance, I believe science should be a primary, secondary, and high school education requirement. But if a religious fundy doesn't wish to have their children learn science and opts to have them undergo strictly religious training through school hardcore libertarians are dead set against any government regulation that requires it of them because it interferes with their freedom to raise their children as they want. I think that's absurd, but it does bring up an interesting point. If you're going to start requiring critical thought, how do you resolve the issue of the freedom an individual has of when to engage in critical thinking and when not to? What about religious organizations? Are you saying they should all be banned because they don't require critical thinking in the faiths they practice? Outside of a fact that would never happen since religious freedom is a bedrock of the US constitution, once you engaging in such practices the line starts to blur with totalitarianism.
-
Marijuana isn't legal because the majority that consume the sweet grass are either too lazy or too stoned. Drugs will remain such until you take responsibility and undertake the endeavor of error-checking society. It's an engineering problem. It falls under the same categories of thermodynamics as everything else.
It seems pretty legal to me. I can go down to the store and just buy it. ;D I understand that's not the way it is yet for most of the US, but the error checking on weed began a long time ago.
Bump. I'm out of date.
-
Not to stray too much from the topic but I find this an interesting concept because it's great in theory. I'm just not entirely sure that it's altogether realistic when it comes to implementation. I'm not just talking about the politics, even though that would be impossible too, but just the theoretical implementation of what you're talking about.
Yes, we have critical thought. But who would be the arbiter on deciding what passes as critical thought? Some things come down to opinion, even though the opinion might be completely founded in ignorance there'd be no way to prove the opinion false either. And isn't it someone's right to decide when they do or don't want to engage in critical thinking?
For instance, I believe science should be a primary, secondary, and high school education requirement. But if a religious fundy doesn't wish to have their children learn science and opts to have them undergo strictly religious training through school hardcore libertarians are dead set against any government regulation that requires it of them because it interferes with their freedom to raise their children as they want. I think that's absurd, but it does bring up an interesting point. If you're going to start requiring critical thought, how do you resolve the issue of the freedom an individual has of when to engage in critical thinking and when not to? What about religious organizations? Are you saying they should all be banned because they don't require critical thinking in the faiths they practice? Outside of a fact that would never happen since religious freedom is a bedrock of the US constitution, once you engaging in such practices the line starts to blur with totalitarianism.
I would define critical thought as the ability to evaluate sources for credibility and draw conclusions for yourself - basically, question authority, question information, seek knowledge - don't accept what you're told at face value, especially by those who would grow angry if you questioned it.
The fundamental question becomes, is ignorance a right? That becomes a prickly matter of freedom of thought; outlaw belief in god because science says its preposterous?
Indeed, freedom of religion would be called into question as a result. I think treating religion as sacred, though, is the mistake here: We should treat a church the same as any secular organization; by its merits for its members and impact on society. One which suppressed member learning and perpetuated scientific untruths, should be shut down as one would a company that scams people out of their money with fake antivirus programs (Clean you PC now! Quickscan detected 703 errors on your hard drive!).
To loosely quote Niel Degrasse Tyson, How do you define god? That which is not explained by science? In that case, god becomes an ever shrinking area of scientific ignorance (that which we don't have full explanations for yet), which we are actively trying to explore.
Faith, ultimately, should be superseded by some sort of scientific humanism; I believe we can answer "why are we here," and "what is my purpose in life" without apologizing to an invisible man in the sky all the time for it.
-
An interesting theory you put forward, I too have some reservations about it's applicability in society.
I would define critical thought as the ability to evaluate sources for credibility and draw conclusions for yourself - basically, question authority, question information, seek knowledge - don't accept what you're told at face value, especially by those who would grow angry if you questioned it.
Seems like a good attempt at defining critical thinking -How would you test for it? (i.e. if it's banned that people shouldn't be ignorant then how do you know if they are intelligent? Do contemporary intelligence tests suffice e.g. Raven't Matrices? Or would you construct a new intelligence test?)
The fundamental question becomes, is ignorance a right?
Even before we get into the religious consequences, I do think being ignorant is a right. We have the whole pursuit of happiness, well then would we surpass this with the pursuit of intelligence? I have plenty of friends who are not academics and I can't talk philosophy with them. But they are also some of the most successful and happy individuals that I know. Is ignorance bliss? Once you pursue your happiness is that all that's required of you? Even still, these friends aren't book smart but they are social wizards. What do even you qualify as intelligence?
One which suppressed member learning and perpetuated scientific untruths, should be shut down as one would a company that scams people out of their money with fake antivirus programs (Clean you PC now! Quickscan detected 703 errors on your hard drive!).
I would equate this to cults, which are banned.
Getting into the whole religion thing is a bit murky. You can't define God in scientific terms because faith isn't observable. To quote Thomas Szasz loosely, holy water isn't considered holy because of science. You can't simply test the water for a special compound. It becomes religious when it's blessed by a priest and the belief is adopted by the church go-ers.
In general I'm against secularist societies. I think the question of God can't be proven true or false. So a policy to ban certain religions does delve into totalitarianism, for me. [/quote]
-
If you could think of a concept/ company with unlimited time and resources, what would it be?
We already have that. They're called the FBI.
Piece, Love, and Fuck DEA
-
I would define critical thought as the ability to evaluate sources for credibility and draw conclusions for yourself - basically, question authority, question information, seek knowledge - don't accept what you're told at face value, especially by those who would grow angry if you questioned it.
As an addendum to what sharonneedles said, I think this is still grossly unrealistic but I'm open to hearing how you'd implement this in practice. All that would happen is that individuals and organizations that don't deploy critical thought in their assessments now would just come up with rationalizations to justify their ignorant beliefs. So where do you draw the line? Empiricism?
I'll just point out that the scientific consensus is not always right. It's sometimes based on limited or incomplete information and the consensus changes based on scientific advances. I'll just take the crude example of the secular argument against homosexuality a few hundred years ago and utilized until fairly recently. Obviously individuals engaging in homosexual practices (or I guess known simply as sodomy and sodomites back then) couldn't be outlawed based on religious principles in secular societies. But the secular argument against homosexuality using scientific rationalizations from Darwinism that the purpose of all life was to reproduce was that homosexuality was unnatural because it served no procreative value. This was the scientific argument used in secular society not just by secularists but also adopted by religious conservatives to push their agenda. Science has since discovered that homosexual behavior has been observed in all species across the animal kingdom, with some species having significantly higher rates than others. These discoveries are what was cited by the US Supreme Court in finally striking down many state sodomy laws and only happened as recently as 2003.
Empiricism doesn't always resolve the issue at hand and relying on empiricism can lead down slippery slopes. Look at the whole discredited eugenics movement.
So do you outlaw "faith"? That becomes a pretty difficult thing to define in practice. Where do you draw the line to where there's enough empirical support for something that it crosses over from faith to empiricism? And how do you outlaw something when some of the greatest ideas begin as kernels of faith? Atoms weren't directly observable until the atomic force microscope was developed in the early eighties, yet the entire fields of modern physics and chemistry assumed their existence. In fact the creation of the atomic bomb functioned on the presupposition of atomic properties. But lets travel back to when the existence of atoms was no more than an unsupportable idea of Democritus that was ridiculed and dismissed by Aristotle. Or how about when the idea of the DNA double helix came to scientist John Watson in a dream which at that point was unsupportable. Can you really advocate a society where unsupportable ideas are outlawed?
I would hope not.
So how can you fairly and legitimately distinguish between scientific and religious thought when it comes to articles of faith?
-
My responses were in the concept of "unlimited time and resources" meaning "able to implement theoretical ideas perfectly"
I have no idea how we could fairly draw the boundaries of what constitutes what, according to everyone, (which is ultimately impossible to do.)
I'm just saying, it was an answer to the thought problem "what needs to be fixed, to fix society?"
-
My responses were in the concept of "unlimited time and resources" meaning "able to implement theoretical ideas perfectly"
I have no idea how we could fairly draw the boundaries of what constitutes what, according to everyone, (which is ultimately impossible to do.)
I'm just saying, it was an answer to the thought problem "what needs to be fixed, to fix society?"
I think the best answer to combating ignorance is really to improve the overall quality of primary, secondary, and HS education in this country where math and science standards and requirements are raised and kids are introduced to thinking about science and scientific issues and problem solving from a young age. The US really lags in this regard. Its always better to have individuals choose to engage in critical thought on their own than trying to coerce it. Just reveal the choice to engage in critical thinking so obvious and the alternative so repellant that it would be a total conscious decision to embrace stupidity. The magical thinking that comes with religious zealotry will go the way of the Luddites and they'll reduce themselves to obsolete inbred communities like the Amish or fundamentalist Mormons whose days are numbered by their lack of genetic diversity.
It really just starts with education.
Now, with unlimited time and resources you could turn the "theory" of evolution into the "law of evolution". Creationists love to point out that evolution on a macro timescale of millions of years is not observable or conclusive as there are too many gaps yet to be filled in. With unlimited time you could decimate that bullshit once and for all. :)