The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Zanthius on November 06, 2017, 11:11:39 am



Title: Political Miscellany
Post by: Zanthius on November 06, 2017, 11:11:39 am
Instead of a country deciding how many immigrants should come, why can't we have a system where the municipalities decide how many immigrants they are willing to accept, and then the total amount of immigrants to a country is decided by the sum of immigrants to all the different municipalities. Also, since the immigrants have gotten a permission to come to a certain municipality, they need to stay there for a certain time before they are allowed to move to other municipalities. For example 5 years.

I think this will be a much more harmonious system, since municipalities know much better how many immigrants they can handle (or are willing to accept).


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Krulle on November 06, 2017, 01:35:45 pm
Won't work for the same reason as top-down doesn't work:
some municipality administration offer spaces, but their inhabitants don't like it.
And vice versa (sometimes simply because there is no space).

Some municipality offered space and housing, but the state said no (not meeting standards,...).

Or some municipalities even offered grade 1a spaces, but the immigrants did not want to go there, because it is not Berlin (or similar reason).
Some immigrants simply do not wish to go to "backwater" towns int he far rural areas.

And the state-wide political will may be different than the sum of local wills.

Feedback is necessary before promising out-of-reach numbers, but the state sets the general guidelines, and political fairness requires that all support the same goal accordingly.
The system will not work if some cities are pulling far-above average wight and costs, while some municipalites simply close their books and say "No". So you would also need to adapt a cost-transfer system.

Some states in Europe implemented mixed systems in that regard.
The towns got a target range. If below range, they had to pay, if within the corridor, all was fine, if above, they received money from the pot from those who did not meet their lower target.

Also, your proposed system would take too long to be implemented.
There are now 5k immigrants standing at your border. Then you go and ask all municipalities "how much can and will you take?" This process takes one to two months. Then adding it all up, forming it into a national expressed will, and those 5k immigrants have either gone away, became illegal in your country, or even multiplied to being 50k immigrants at your border. The last one requires you to redo the exercise.


NOTE: my answer is a gross simplification of the issue, and formulations.
Of course I do not think that the 5k immigrants at the border themselves multiply to become 50k immigrants, I meant that the group of immigrants at your border increased from 5k to 50k (through new immigrants arriving) while you were running through the political process and the forming of a political will.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Death 999 on November 06, 2017, 02:11:26 pm
I think for the USA, the bigger problem is that we're really not set up to restrict freedom of movement within our borders.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Scalare on November 06, 2017, 04:38:06 pm
Instead of a country deciding how many immigrants should come, why can't we have a system where the municipalities decide how many immigrants they are willing to accept, and then the total amount of immigrants to a country is decided by the sum of immigrants to all the different municipalities. Also, since the immigrants have gotten a permission to come to a certain municipality, they need to stay there for a certain time before they are allowed to move to other municipalities. For example 5 years.

I think this will be a much more harmonious system, since municipalities know much better how many immigrants they can handle (or are willing to accept).

I think this will only lead to municipalities defining their own rules for immigration :).


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Zanthius on November 06, 2017, 08:37:36 pm
Won't work for the same reason as top-down doesn't work:
some municipality administration offer spaces, but their inhabitants don't like it.
And vice versa (sometimes simply because there is no space).

But won't it be more democratic if the mayor of the municipality has been elected by the people living in the municipality?

Or some municipalities even offered grade 1a spaces, but the immigrants did not want to go there, because it is not Berlin (or similar reason).
Some immigrants simply do not wish to go to "backwater" towns int he far rural areas.

I know, but it is not like they are the ones who can make demands here. If they don't want to go to where they are accepted, can't they just go back to where they came from?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Sargon on November 06, 2017, 08:38:36 pm
I agree with Death999, it infringe on freedom of movement.
You would have to split it up to countries and not call it municipality.
I am in the opinion that there should be as many countries as possible for as many groups of people who get along together.
I think a country with too many groups or Demographics who don't get along together is not really healthy.
Sometimes it's better to just separate people who get along fine together(with the separation being a country not segregation) into their own country.

Are we going to make everyone get along together under one big country? Or is it better to separate groups of interest into separate countries who are both strong and independent and both respect each other?

Do you really think everyone on the planet can get along under the exact same terms? Or maybe different people need different conditions or terms to live by?


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Krulle on November 06, 2017, 09:16:53 pm

Or some municipalities even offered grade 1a spaces, but the immigrants did not want to go there, because it is not Berlin (or similar reason).
Some immigrants simply do not wish to go to "backwater" towns int he far rural areas.

I know, but it is not like they are the ones who can make demands here. If they don't want to go to where they are accepted, can't they just go back to where they came from?
Sure, beggars cannot be choosers.
But that's not how Humans work.
They come here to carve out a living they want. If you send them off to far rural areas, they feel cheated and will move where they want without telling the authorities. This does happen in Germany.

It will not work. Even if those rural areas have more work and more perspectives for them than the anonymous capital city.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Zanthius on November 06, 2017, 10:06:43 pm
They come here to carve out a living they want. If you send them off to far rural areas, they feel cheated and will move where they want without telling the authorities. This does happen in Germany.

Can't we just have it so that they need to report once a week to a person in the rural area where they should be living? And if they get caught moving away, they risk getting thrown back to where they came from? Or at least get a fine.

Of course, I don't think this sounds entirely fair for the immigrants. But it might work better than the alternatives... This is a very complicated matter, since humans are so damn xenophobic.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Krulle on November 07, 2017, 09:00:14 am
Several things have been tried by German authorities.
It does not work.
And threatening with sending them back will also not work.
Those people risked their lives to come here.
They will prefer to live "in the shadows" illegally than risk being deported.
So they will cut all ties to authorities.

Modern communication and mobility makes this approach impractical.
It was very practical and working int he eighteenth century and before.
But today, no. You'd have to build fenced camps.
And even that will only limit those who are okay with being limited.
(And in Germany building these kind of concentration camps like Australia did on Nauru and Papua-Guinea is a political no-go.)


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Scalare on November 08, 2017, 02:19:16 pm
Zanthius, is this about people coming to a country for work or people coming to a country seeking asylum because they live in a warring zone? These are 2 different things and many people confuse these :).


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Zanthius on November 08, 2017, 06:02:27 pm
Zanthius, is this about people coming to a country for work or people coming to a country seeking asylum because they live in a warring zone? These are 2 different things and many people confuse these :).

I think we already have quite good systems for work immigrants, especially if they are working with something that requires some education. It is the refugees we have problems with.

Anyhow, it might also be somewhat different between Mexican immigrants in the US, and Arabic/African immigrants in Europe. I think we have much bigger problems with immigration in Europe.


Title: Re: Immigration
Post by: Scalare on November 08, 2017, 06:23:53 pm
Thanks for the clarification.
I think the municipality deciding makes it so that you have different laws everywhere that accept them or reject them. It is simply an impossible idea.

The current refugee situation is such that to get to europe, refugees have to pay smugglers fees to get on boats. So the people arriving in europe are the richest portion of the people in Syria.
They tend to be male and educated. Children. women and older people are left behind.
The european cost of housing is really expensive compared to the cost in the middle east, so with the same amount of money you can help way more people and help them in a more fair way.



Title: Political Miscellany
Post by: Zanthius on January 19, 2018, 06:42:57 pm
(http://www.archania.org/mushrooms/hierarchy_of_needs.png)

I am thinking that maybe "a desire to help mankind" should be above self-actualization, or maybe replace the self-actualization category with "a desire to help mankind". What do you guys think?

I just ordered this book to learn more about this kind of humans:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51qYdcds4gL._AC_SY400_.jpg)

Quote
During times of injustice, some individuals or groups courageously resist maltreatment of all people, regardless of backgrounds. Using various case studies, this book introduces readers to the broad spectrum of courageous resistance and provides a framework for analyzing the factors that motivate and sustain opposition to human rights violations.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1403984980/ (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1403984980/)



Title: Re: Regarding Maslows hierarchy of needs.
Post by: Death 999 on January 21, 2018, 12:47:49 am
I think it would fit within that, not above it.


Title: Re: Regarding Maslows hierarchy of needs.
Post by: Krulle on January 21, 2018, 10:54:28 am
Aim't desire to help mankind part of "social needs"?
The desire to see fairness is a social desire.


Title: Re: Regarding Maslows hierarchy of needs.
Post by: Zanthius on January 21, 2018, 07:32:30 pm
Aim't desire to help mankind part of "social needs"?
The desire to see fairness is a social desire.

Social needs are much more rudimental. We all have social needs, while very few og us feel the desire to help mankind.  Most of us have enough with work, some entertainment in the evenings, and maybe some sport activities. Bill and Melinda Gates probably feel the desire to help mankind, since they made the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation) which seems to be about helping mankind. People don't need to be as rich as them to feel this desire. For example, Maria Montessori probably felt such a desire when she invented Montessori education. Some of the people that work for free with helping the poor and discriminated might altso feel this desire.



Title: Re: Regarding Maslows hierarchy of needs.
Post by: Krulle on January 22, 2018, 08:36:38 am
Helping those in need is a pretty basic feeling for many.
If I see need, I try to help the ones concerned.

IMHO, that already is part of my social needs, and part of helping mankind.


Title: Re: Regarding Maslows hierarchy of needs.
Post by: Zanthius on January 22, 2018, 10:57:44 am
Helping those in need is a pretty basic feeling for many.

I don't know. I think many people do such things more because they feel it is an obligation. For example. An individual started arguing to me that he already had done his share of activities to help mankind, and started giving me examples of what he had done. But he thought that since he had done so much already, he no longer needed to do such activities. This clearly shows me that he thought helping mankind was an obligation, rather than that it was something he desired.

This tendency to think we have an obligation to help mankind is especially common among religious people.


Title: Re: Regarding Maslows hierarchy of needs.
Post by: Zanthius on January 30, 2018, 01:58:58 pm
I just got this book in the mail:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511HY5Z1V5L._SX382_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) (https://www.amazon.com/Human-Rights-Politics-Michael-Goodhart/dp/0198708769/)

If I like it, I am going to include it with the educational books for children  from 18 to 21 years old (http://www.archania.org/education/resources/18-21/).

I also see that they have a course about human rights at coursera, which I am definately  going to add: https://www.coursera.org/learn/humanrights (https://www.coursera.org/learn/humanrights)

Also, one specificially about children's rights: https://www.coursera.org/learn/childrens-rights (https://www.coursera.org/learn/childrens-rights), and one specificially about women's rights: https://www.coursera.org/learn/womens-health-human-rights (https://www.coursera.org/learn/womens-health-human-rights)


Title: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Zanthius on February 08, 2018, 05:31:57 pm
Social cohesion is needed to keep a society together. Religious morality has traditionally been involved in creating a common framework for righteousness and misbehavior, while Aristotelian logic and physics have been involved in creating a common framework for truth and falsehood. Even though modern science to a large degree has evolved from Aristotelian physics, it is not necessarily a good idea to teach Aristotelian physics today, since modern science gives a much more accurate description of reality. Similarly, our modern understanding of human rights has to a large degree evolved from religious morality, but seems to give a much more elaborate foundation for morality; especially in regard to equal rights for women, homosexuals, and all ethnicities.

(http://www.archania.org/governance/social-cohesion.png)

http://www.archania.org/governance/ (http://www.archania.org/governance/)


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Scalare on February 09, 2018, 01:27:53 pm
you live in a rich country with education and no hunger and no sufficient housing and no poverty and no opression. as such you don't  need religion.
many people live in countries where these things are not available. they turn to religion to get them through their daily lives.


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Zanthius on February 09, 2018, 02:55:53 pm
you live in a rich country with education and no hunger and no sufficient housing and no poverty and no opression. as such you don't  need religion.
many people live in countries where these things are not available. they turn to religion to get them through their daily lives.

Okay, but many of those countries are heavily involved in discrimination against women, homosexuals, and other ethnicities. Often because of religious beliefs.


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Krulle on February 09, 2018, 09:17:08 pm
often because of perceived religious believes....

Imagine our saviour praying peace, and "turning the other cheek", and forgiveness;
and then everyone using swords to spread the religious message.....

(I know that the meaninf behind "turning the other cheek" is originally not to avoid fights, wars, confrontation, but equality.)


Title: Right-wing intellectual
Post by: Zanthius on February 15, 2018, 01:10:53 pm
I thought maybe this guy would be nice to watch for intelligent left-wing intellectuals that want to decrease their confirmation bias. I disagree with lots of what this guy is saying, but he has some valid points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE)


Title: Re: Right-wing intellectual
Post by: Zanthius on February 17, 2018, 03:11:36 pm
Lots of the valid arguments from this guy are related to the importance of free speech and strength of character, and that we have too much political correctness. Free speech and political correctness are relatively modern concepts, and I didn't find much about this from the ancient sages. I did however manage to put together this, which is related to strength of character:

Quote
Excessive liberty and excessive governance are equally dangerous. The more prohibitions there are, the less virtuous people will be. The more subsidies there are, the less self reliant people will be. Governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking. All things in moderation, including moderation. Good people strengthen themselves ceaselessly. Strength of character is the backbone of our human culture. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you, since it strengthens your character. When no one outside ourselves can rule us inwardly, we become free.

http://www.archania.org/sages/ (http://www.archania.org/sages/)


Title: Re: Right-wing intellectual
Post by: Zanthius on February 18, 2018, 02:13:35 am
Since I think Jordan Peterson's new religion is dangerous (he might even be the antichrist), I have written this article to destroy it.

(https://i.imgur.com/mid0LO7.png)


Title: Re: Right-wing intellectual
Post by: Death 999 on February 18, 2018, 04:50:10 am
That took a bit of a turn to the left in the middle, and it's not clear how the rest supports the main thesis.


Title: Re: Right-wing intellectual
Post by: Zanthius on February 18, 2018, 12:08:09 pm
That took a bit of a turn to the left in the middle, and it's not clear how the rest supports the main thesis.

He arguest that we shouldn't dismiss the past so quickly, which I guess is a somewhat valid claim. I do however think that if we are going to do a scientific investigation of important people and documents from the past, we need to look upon people and documents from all over the world. He makes it sound like the only document we need to pay attention to from the past is the bible, while the only really significant person from the past is Jesus. This doesn't strike me as a very scientific investigation of the past.


Title: Re: Right-wing intellectual
Post by: Zanthius on February 27, 2018, 09:25:17 pm
I have listened to most of Jordan Peterson's bible lectures now, and I don't think he is a scammer anymore. He actually seems like an honest person. In the lectures he speaks a lot about the necessity for children to have stories. In his childhood, that story came from the bible, so he has connected everything in his philosophy back to the bible. He believes that there is something intrinsically superhuman about the bible. As if since his brain finds so many connections to the bible, there must be something supernatural about the bible. Personally, I think he is suffering from apophenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia). The human brain is hard-wired to find patterns/connections, even if there aren't necessarily any patterns/connections.

Anyhow. I just came to realize that I have a similar bias, like many of you guys here. I didn't get inspired from biblical stories as a child, I got inspired from Star Control 2. So naturally my brain has been overly active at connecting everything to Star Control 2. This has made me speculate that maybe we need a central childhood story. I don't necesserily know how my brain would be operating if I hadn't played Star Control 2 as a child. Anyhow, I certainly don't think we need to learn the biblical stories. Star Control 2 seems like a much better choice.

I am putting these heavy story driven games into the age group from 9-12 years old now, since I think it is important to get such stories implemented as early as possible, if they are going to function as a basis for how the neural network develops later in life.

(https://i.imgur.com/LVH8Lx0.png)

http://www.archania.org/education/resources/09-12/ (http://www.archania.org/education/resources/09-12/)

Maybe I should look more into what kind of deep insightful stories are available today. There was another story rich game I played as a child, called Quest for Glory (http://store.steampowered.com/app/502750/Quest_for_Glory_15/). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any community making a HD remake of that game.

I am also considering these TV shows as a good source of childhood stories. I am however a bit uncertain about if it is wise to expose children to such dark stories so early in life.

(https://i.imgur.com/D2PwgTz.png)

On the other hand, maybe that is exactly what they need. The old testament is certainly quite dark. The catholic church often scares kids with the idea of "going to hell" if they don't behave properly. Maybe Grimm isn't so bad, since there are actually monsters in the world. This is also parts of what they are trying to tell in the game "Life is Strange".

I am fully aware that this might give kids nightmares, but you shouldn't necessarily think of nightmares as something uniquely bad. Having nightmares every night is bad, just like chronic inflammation is bad. But since the brains of children are highly malleable, they might easily develop new neural pathways to deal with "the fear".

If people aren't exposed to "the darkness" before late in life, they might very well not be able to develop neural pathways to deal with "the fear", since their brains are much less malleable. Chickenpox for example, is much more dangerous for adults than for children. Since we know that the brains of children are much better at forming new neural pathyways, maybe we also should expect their brains to be better at dealing with fear.

Anyhow, I am putting them in the age group from 12 to 15 for now....

http://www.archania.org/education/resources/12-15/ (http://www.archania.org/education/resources/12-15/)


Title: Youtube videos about world governance
Post by: Zanthius on March 17, 2018, 01:02:02 pm
I just found a few youtube videos related to world governance. One of them even had more than 1.4 million views. I hope this discussion will enter mainstream soon.

What If The Earth Was Only One Country?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz2bZDOTt0k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz2bZDOTt0k)

What If The World Was One Country?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp_kUMx5fnM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp_kUMx5fnM)

Should Planet Earth Become One Country?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB_LCQqMEtU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB_LCQqMEtU)

One Global Democracy: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqksu0k-Z_A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqksu0k-Z_A)

Global Governance ..into the Future | David Held | TEDxLUISS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEBPV1oRmqs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEBPV1oRmqs)


Title: Moral hierarchy for societies
Post by: Zanthius on April 04, 2018, 12:20:29 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/5DGkhcf.png)

I have now added it to my webpage: https://www.archania.org/governance/#A_standardized_system_for_educating_third_world_countries (https://www.archania.org/governance/#A_standardized_system_for_educating_third_world_countries)

So. what color does your society have?


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Zanthius on April 27, 2018, 10:33:04 am
This book might be of interest to people that think we need religion to behave morally:


The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule

Quote
We remember the admonition of our mothers: “Treat others as you want them to treat you.” But what if being nice was something we were inclined by nature to do anyway?  Renowned neuroscientist Donald Pfaff upends our entire understanding of ethics and social contracts with an intriguing proposition: the Golden Rule is hardwired into the human brain.

Pfaff, the researcher who first discovered the connections between specific brain circuits and certain behaviors, contends that the basic ethics governing our everyday lives can be traced directly to brain circuitry. Writing with popular science journalist Sandra J. Ackerman, he explains in this clear and concise account how specific brain signals induce us to consider our actions as if they were directed at ourselves—and subsequently lead us to treat others as we wish to be treated. Brain hormones are a part of this complicated process, and The Neuroscience of Fair Play discusses how brain hormones can catalyze behaviors with moral implications in such areas as self-sacrifice, parental love, friendship, and violent aggression.  

Drawing on his own research and other recent studies in brain science, Pfaff offers a thought-provoking hypothesis for why certain ethical codes and ideas have remained constant across human societies and cultures throughout the world and over the centuries of history. An unprecedented and provocative investigation, The Neuroscience of Fair Play offers a new perspective on the increasingly important intersection of neuroscience and ethics.

https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Fair-Play-Usually-Follow/dp/1932594272 (https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Fair-Play-Usually-Follow/dp/1932594272)


Title: Popularity
Post by: Zanthius on April 30, 2018, 06:38:23 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/w4Lq2yM.png)


Title: Social grounding and ideological identities
Post by: Zanthius on May 05, 2018, 01:56:05 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/4PxcU79.png)

https://www.archania.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19 (https://www.archania.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19)


Title: Re: Social grounding and ideological identities
Post by: Zanthius on May 06, 2018, 10:11:33 am
So... if Democrats in the US want to change the mindset of Republicans, it might actually be much smarter to become friends with them, rather than to argue with them.

Similarly, if Europeans want to change the mindset of Muslims, it might actually be much smarter to become friends with them, rather than to argue with them.


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Zanthius on May 07, 2018, 05:08:03 pm
I am thinking:

When a child grows up in a scientifically literate and culturally intelligent society, it might be difficult to fool the people around you. So, there is a cultural incentive to be honest. If however a child grows up in a superstitious and oblivious society, it might be easier to fool the people around you. So there might be a bigger incentive for dishonesty.

So... instead of indoctrinating religious morality, maybe it is better to make a culture more observant?


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Deus Siddis on May 08, 2018, 04:59:19 pm
When a child grows up in a scientifically literate and culturally intelligent society,

This seems to assume that culture causes intelligence. But what if innate intelligence or some other factor more so causes cultural sophistication rather than vice versa?

As far as I can tell, IQ scores appear (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IQ_by_Country.png)  to be highly regionalized, with the more polar regions scoring higher and more equatorial regions scoring lower in general. Can religious dogma and superstitions not stand the cold for some reason? Or is there some other factor at work here to explain this pattern?


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Death 999 on May 08, 2018, 07:12:10 pm
Environmental exposure to toxins e.g. lead? Disease transmission from various sources (think Zika but less dramatic)?


Title: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 08, 2018, 08:52:06 pm
I have been listening to lots of videos from the intellectual dark web (https://everipedia.org/wiki/intellectual-dark-web/) lately, and after listening to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmXq97do-tQ), with Bret and Eric Weinstein, I am now almost completely sure that the American Narrative is broken.

(https://i.imgur.com/9kJtiN9.png)

Sure, we have lots of these problems also in western Europe, but the American Narrative seems to be much more broken.


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Deus Siddis on May 09, 2018, 02:44:19 am
I am not sure how latitude would affect exposure to toxins.

But tropical infectious diseases could be the culprit. Still, if that turns out to be the case, would it not make more sense to treat the underlying physical illnesses, rather than argue philosophy with people suffering some degree of brain damage from said illnesses?


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Deus Siddis on May 09, 2018, 02:57:44 am
Your message seems a bit unclear to me, are you saying those perceptions about various aspects of American society are false or that they are true and so American society itself is broken in all these ways?

Sure, we have lots of these problems also in western Europe, but the American Narrative seems to be much more broken.

But why compare specifically western Europe to the entirety of America? Would it not be more fair to compare western Europe with only the west coast of America? Or include eastern Europe in the comparison with America (and Canada too)?


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 09, 2018, 09:40:23 am
Your message seems a bit unclear to me, are you saying those perceptions about various aspects of American society are false or that they are true and so American society itself is broken in all these ways?

In order for a society to be functional, most of the people living in the society need to believe in more or less the same narrative. However, societies might believe in dysfunctional ideologies for quite a while, before people start to lose faith in the narrative. Marxism–Leninism as an ideology might for example have been dysfunctional since the very beginning of the Soviet Union in 1922, but people didn't start to lose faith in the communistic narrative before the 60s and 70s, and then the Soviet Union collapsed.

I think it is easy to understand how dysfunctional ideologies can work for a while, if you think about it as acquiring more and more debt. Sure, if I take a gigantic loan, I can live quite comfortably for a while, but there comes a day when I need to pay back. Most unstable trajectories are like that. You make it work right now, by pushing the problem into the future. The problem is that it often becomes even more difficult to solve the problem in the future.


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Death 999 on May 09, 2018, 04:03:29 pm
If the toxin is absorbed through the pores, or mainly through bare skin, places people wear less or spend more time sweating could have more of it.

And that wasn't trying to address that other point at that time.


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Deus Siddis on May 09, 2018, 06:03:11 pm
That is an interesting explanation.

I would expect China to be more adversely affected by it though, they are actually a fairly warm country by and large, especially considering the regions where the majority of its population resides. It is a heavily industrialized developing country as well, so plenty of access to and application of hazardous materials and probably not the stiffest environmental laws.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Deus Siddis on May 09, 2018, 07:07:30 pm
Your message seems a bit unclear to me, are you saying those perceptions about various aspects of American society are false or that they are true and so American society itself is broken in all these ways?

In order for a society to be functional, most of the people living in the society need to believe in more or less the same narrative. However, societies might believe in dysfunctional ideologies for quite a while, before people start to lose faith in the narrative. Marxism–Leninism as an ideology might for example have been dysfunctional since the very beginning of the Soviet Union in 1922, but people didn't start to lose faith in the communistic narrative before the 60s and 70s, and then the Soviet Union collapsed.

I think it is easy to understand how dysfunctional ideologies can work for a while, if you think about it as acquiring more and more debt. Sure, if I take a gigantic loan, I can live quite comfortably for a while, but there comes a day when I need to pay back. Most unstable trajectories are like that. You make it work right now, by pushing the problem into the future. The problem is that it often becomes even more difficult to solve the problem in the future.

I mostly agree.

What I meant though is I do not understand what your graphic is saying. On one hand it could be interpreted to mean that the American system is broken in the ways it lists (which I would tend to agree with, personally).

But on the other it could be interpreted to mean that those statements are being considered falsehoods. In other words, those statements about what is wrong with that country are part of a "broken narrative" and its true problems are disguised by this narrative.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 09, 2018, 09:42:16 pm
What I meant though is I do not understand what your graphic is saying. On one hand it could be interpreted to mean that the American system is broken in the ways it lists (which I would tend to agree with, personally).

Yes. This is what I meant. Maybe I should have written "Some reasons why the American Narrative is broken".


Title: Re: Regarding Maslows hierarchy of needs.
Post by: Zanthius on May 09, 2018, 11:41:49 pm
I have replaced self-actualization with the desire to help now:

(https://www.archania.org/mysteries/hierarchy_of_needs.png)


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 17, 2018, 02:08:42 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/wvMCR21.png)

Since the Mmrnmhrm is 100% oriented towards finding scientific truths, I think it is safe to say that the narrative will become much more truth-oriented after the emergence of the Chmmr.

I think I understand the role of the sun device better now.

We need to focus a lot of mental energy on completing the Chmmr before the world turns into a complete chaos: https://intelligence.org/stanford-talk/ (https://intelligence.org/stanford-talk/)

Magic mushrooms might somehow help us to focus mental energy on this cause: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxn2LlBJDl0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxn2LlBJDl0)

I think we should start working on the Chmmr as an educational AI, which focuses on educating humans into the most prosperous states. I have written about this here: https://www.archania.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=22 (https://www.archania.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=22)


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: astkr5 on May 17, 2018, 09:17:35 pm
The takeaway your original graphic seems to be proposing is that we ought to stop listening to what polarized left or right wing political speakers have to say. This seems wholly wrong to me -- if polarization is happening (and I don't disagree that it is) then we should be examining what is dividing them and why each side feels strongly about the issues which separate them. Of course we should think critically about what each side says, but to think critically you can't ignore them. How does each side justify its strong beliefs? What are the outcomes of following each set of beliefs to their logical (most extreme) conclusion?

The divisiveness of certain issues is not noise. It's a signal. It usually indicates injustice or harm being done to which there is resistance on one side and a desire to perpetuate it on the other. Our job as socially conscious observers and agents should be to tease apart which is which where possible and find which ideologies and policies are fair and beneficial and which demand or cause the exploitation or suffering of people.



Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 18, 2018, 12:03:27 am
if polarization is happening (and I don't disagree that it is) then we should be examining what is dividing them

The current polarization seems to be caused by more personal advertisements and recommendations. Youtube will recommend me videos that are similar to the videos I already have watched, since I am more likely to click on those videos. After a while, the machine learning algorithm which makes recommendations to me in youtube, will only feed me with videos that fit my confirmation bias.

It would be somewhat counterproductive for youtube to recommend me videos that I wouldn't click on. However, in the past personal advertisements/recommendations didn't exist, so we weren't exposed to so much information that fitted our confirmation biases.

This is why we need the Chmmr. We need a machine learning algortihm that focuses on educating us into mentally healthy prosperous states. Not machine learning algorithms that feed our confirmation biases.

You shouldn't fear superhuman artificial intelligence. You should fear subhuman artificial intelligences that feed confirmation biases.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Death 999 on May 18, 2018, 04:08:38 am
You should totally fear superhuman intelligence that wants what you do not want.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 18, 2018, 09:48:16 am
You should totally fear superhuman intelligence that wants what you do not want.

Think more about it as what you would want for your children. You don't necessarily want a superhuman intelligence that gives your children what they want. Rather you want a superhuman intelligence that gives your children what they should have in order to develop into a mentally healthy prosperous state.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Death 999 on May 18, 2018, 04:26:49 pm
I am sorry, I thought you would understand my shorthand since I thought you'd read enough LW.

You should be very afraid of almost all superintelligences, because designing goals that are compatible with the fulfillment of human values is very very hard.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 18, 2018, 06:59:46 pm
You should be very afraid of almost all superintelligences, because designing goals that are compatible with the fulfillment of human values is very very hard.

Well, it doesn’t start as a superhuman intelligence. It starts as a machine learning algorithm that only has one goal, which is to educate children. We have tons of research on how to educate children today, so you start with implementing what we already know into the algorithm.

For example, the first challenge for the algorithm might be to teach a child the alphabet and the numbers. When the algorithm notices that the child has accomplished those tasks, it might start to teach children about more complex things, such as words and mathematics.

The algorithm doesn’t need to invent all the “teaching segments” itself. Rather, it might use “teaching segments” that are made by humans, for example videos and puzzle games. We might also create a another algorithm which only focuses on making "teaching segments". But the main algorithm will continuously evaluate the educational progress of the students, and “teaching segments” that are found to be highly effective in facilitating educational progress will be recommended more after a while, while “teaching segments” that are found to be less effective will be used less after a while.

(https://i.imgur.com/SuMhJtw.png)

The algorithm should not force kids to be educated in any specific path. Rather, it should be highly open, so that kids can choose which educational paths they want to take. If a kid wants to focus on mathematics rather than on linguistics, well, then the kid should have a lot of freedom to go down that path. Having a lot of freedom is a crucial part of fulfilling human values.

Now, sometime far into the future, this educational algorithm might become “superhuman” in the sense that it might be able to educate anyone better than any human being, into the smallest detail of any science. There might be a danger then, in that it educates us in ways we are incapable of understanding the consequences of.

If however all the education is firmly rooted in science and Bayesian statistics, then I don’t think we should worry. It will probably be much better than any educational program we have today anyhow. And people educated by this superhuman intelligence, will be smarter and more informed than us anyhow.



Now, contrast this with the machine learning algorithms that are dominating Internet today. Those algorithms only want to feed your confirmation biases in order to make more money for their companies. I argue that these algorithms are much more dangerous, since they are making people more ignorant and intellectually segregated.

You think it is difficult to find goals that are compatible with the fulfillment of human values. Well, I certainly don't think the algorithms that are feeding your confirmation biases are doing that.

I am sorry, I thought you would understand my shorthand since I thought you'd read enough LW.

Although I agree with "Less Wrong" about lots of things, I don't necessarily agree with anyone about everything. I certainly do think superhuman machine learning algorithms can be dangerous. Just not the one I have envisioned.

Quote
Only through education does one come to be dissatisfied with his own knowledge, and only through teaching others does one come to realize the uncomfortable inadequacy of his knowledge. Being dissatisfied with his own knowledge, one then realizes that the trouble lies with himself, and realizing the uncomfortable inadequacy of his knowledge one then feels stimulated to improve himself. Therefore, the processes of teaching and learning stimulate one another. The ideal teacher guides his students but does not pull them along; he urges them to go forward and does not suppress them; he opens the way but does not take them to the place. No one can teach, if by teaching we mean the transmission of knowledge, in any mechanical fashion, from one person to another. The most that can be done is that one person who is more knowledgeable than another can, by asking a series of questions, stimulate the other to think, and so cause him to learn for himself. If you want happiness for a year, get yourself a fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime, help someone else. Give a bowl of rice to a man and you will feed him for a day. Teach him how to grow his own rice and you will save his life. Education breeds confidence. Confidence breeds hope. Hope breeds peace.

Mostly by Confucius and Socrates.

https://www.archania.org/wisdom (https://www.archania.org/wisdom)
 


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Deus Siddis on May 19, 2018, 05:19:51 pm
The divisiveness of certain issues is not noise. It's a signal. It usually indicates injustice or harm being done to which there is resistance on one side and a desire to perpetuate it on the other.

The current polarization seems to be caused by more personal advertisements and recommendations.

These explanations could very well be what is happening with any number of controversial issues. But I would not automatically assume so for every instance.

It could just as well be that peoples living in different environments, with different lifestyles suited to said environments, want and/or need to be different from each other in many ways. But when they are forced to live under one rule set, these culturally and/or environmentally distinct peoples are then incentivized to take control of that rule set and customize it to their own tastes or needs which will necessarily harm the other.

Education breeds confidence. Confidence breeds hope. Hope breeds peace.

Hmm, is the word you want to use here "confidence" or rather competence?

You should totally fear superhuman intelligence that wants what you do not want.

Are you talking about Weak or Strong AI?


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 19, 2018, 11:33:09 pm
Hmm, is the word you want to use here "confidence" or rather competence?

This is the quote I found by Confucius:

(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-education-breeds-confidence-confidence-breeds-hope-hope-breeds-peace-confucius-40-47-07.jpg)

But I agree with you that there is a stronger causual link from education to competence. So I have changed it now. There seems to be a stronger causual link between these terms:

Quote
Education breeds competence. Competence breeds prosperity.

https://www.archania.org/wisdom/ (https://www.archania.org/wisdom/)

It could just as well be that peoples living in different environments, with different lifestyles suited to said environments, want and/or need to be different from each other in many ways. But when they are forced to live under one rule set, these culturally and/or environmentally distinct peoples are then incentivized to take control of that rule set and customize it to their own tastes or needs which will necessarily harm the other.

You can apply Bayesian statistics also to political beliefs, and then political beliefs should converge, even if we live in different evironments. That our beliefs are becoming increasingly segregated must imply that we are more governed by confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) than by honest Bayesian inference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference).


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Death 999 on May 20, 2018, 12:09:26 am
You should totally fear superhuman intelligence that wants what you do not want.

Are you talking about Weak or Strong AI?

Any superhuman general intelligence. Or even approximately human, if it's cheap enough to copy itself all over the place.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 20, 2018, 12:17:35 am
Any superhuman general intelligence. Or even approximately human, if it's cheap enough to copy itself all over the place.

Science itself might actually be considered a superhuman intelligence, since there aren't any human beings that know all of Science. Science also seems to evolve faster than what any single human being can keep track of. Even if you read all the biggest journals, from all the biggest sciences, you are only going to see a small fraction of everything that is going on.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on May 20, 2018, 06:10:46 pm
I have been watching Jordan Peterson's course called "Maps of meaning".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xc2_FtpHI&t=810s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xc2_FtpHI&t=810s)

I find it very interesting. Here is some of what I have extracted so far:

(https://i.imgur.com/ki0FJrU.png)


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Deus Siddis on May 21, 2018, 03:51:05 pm
You can apply Bayesian statistics also to political beliefs, and then political beliefs should converge, even if we live in different evironments. That our beliefs are becoming increasingly segregated must imply that we are more governed by confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) than by honest Bayesian inference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference).

I agree that social media technologies have augmented confirmation bias. And thereby made compromise more difficult.

But I would argue that if you need to compromise in the first place, there is already a more fundamental problem at work.

Any superhuman general intelligence. Or even approximately human, if it's cheap enough to copy itself all over the place.

Science itself might actually be considered a superhuman intelligence, since there aren't any human beings that know all of Science. Science also seems to evolve faster than what any single human being can keep track of. Even if you read all the biggest journals, from all the biggest sciences, you are only going to see a small fraction of everything that is going on.

I have to agree with Zanthius insofar as defining any weak AI (including any purely software AI that requires no revolutionary new hardware paradigm) as a superhuman intelligence would necessarily also define many cultures and codified thought and behavior patterns like science as the same.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on June 13, 2018, 09:52:26 pm
Here is another video by Bret Weinstein. This guy seems to be really wise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpb-COhbMIM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpb-COhbMIM)


Title: Re: Do we still need religions?
Post by: Zanthius on August 02, 2018, 06:08:11 pm
Quote
If we are honest — and scientists have to be — we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards — in heaven if not on earth — all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.

quote by the famous physicist Paul Dirac


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on September 09, 2018, 01:21:53 am
Have you guys seen this documantary?

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOTMzNDI5N2YtMzM5Ni00ZmQ5LTgyNmQtYzU4ZTZlMjkyZjkyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzg1OTM4MQ@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,658,1000_AL_.jpg)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8135494/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8135494/)


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on September 09, 2018, 11:49:28 am
You should be very afraid of almost all superintelligences, because designing goals that are compatible with the fulfillment of human values is very very hard.

What you should be afraid of Death 999, are machine learning algorithms developed by malevolent dictatorships:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e77022UWFu4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e77022UWFu4)

We might have a chance to develop a benevolent educational AI. If we don't do this, it seems more likely that malevolent dictators will win the battle for your future.

Also, if we don't develop an open source system where everybody has their own secure online account with their personal data, that information is rather going to be stored by dictatorships:

(https://www.archania.org/research/collecting_data_digitally.png)

In Russia and China, there is not going to be a: "Your secure online account". There, Putin and Xi Jinping are going to have access to all your personal data, and they are going to use that data to determine your usefulness. They can also use that data to manipulate you in numerous ways.

You know, if Russia and China are developing some kind of new superweapon, you might be interested in doing the same, even if you think it is a bad idea, just to prevent them from gaining complete control. I don't think you would like it much if only Russia and China had nukes, would you?


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Death 999 on September 09, 2018, 01:54:46 pm
That's also a concern, but why not worry about both?


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on September 09, 2018, 06:27:32 pm
That's also a concern, but why not worry about both?

To worry is irrational. To do something to prevent a problem is rational. More advanced AI will come. Nobody can stop the future, but if we work hard we might be able to prevent ourselves from ending up in a global Chinese or Russian digital dictatorship, where they own all our personal data.

The US already seems to be on its way to become a Russian satellite state. If that happens, Putin will get complete control of all your personal data, and use it to determine your usefulness.

Have you listened to Sam Harris's podcast with Masha Gessen? https://samharris.org/podcasts/131-dictators-immigration-metoo-imponderables/ (https://samharris.org/podcasts/131-dictators-immigration-metoo-imponderables/)


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Deus Siddis on September 10, 2018, 06:07:36 pm
Here is another video by Bret Weinstein. This guy seems to be really wise.

He goes into some more detail about his concepts in this video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIWlsSOubts)  What I found most interesting is his idea that friendly inter-group interaction depends on humans being inside an environment of overabundance.  Under those circumstances we as organisms engage in trying to expand our numbers or control over resources as quickly as possible, without conflict, conceivably because conflict would slow down the expansionism or harvesting operations with its high costs and risks.  But once surplus resources are spent or taken over, and further resource acquisition or expansion becomes a zero sum game, you have inter-group conflict.  It is the same wisdom taught to us by 4X games, odd as it might sound.

Have you guys seen this documantary?
[...]
Nobody can stop the future, but if we work hard we might be able to prevent ourselves from ending up in a global Chinese or Russian digital dictatorship, where they own all our personal data.

Regarding the documentary's premise, I think it is important to keep in mind that superpowers are... powerful.  It is only when one is fundamentally weak that it can be all that interfered with by another.  The Chinese were seriously beaten by the Japanese when the Soviets liberated them and then helped install Mao.  The Soviet system was geriatric and broken when the USA moved in and supported Yeltsin to promote its messy break up.  Just the same, the USA would have to be already in a state of near total collapse for another superpower to mess with its internal mechanisms in a serious and successful way.  The USA is in a state of decline, but you are way early to the party (that is, by years or decades) with these particular concerns.

I do not think your general fear is irrational though, just slightly misplaced.  If your own country is a small Western European state with a weak military, then the power politics of "the big three" is a real concern for you,  And I cannot say you should hope to rely on undemocratic and tenuous systems like NATO and the EU for any longer.  The only thing you can really do is harden your own national military into something actually reasonable by modern standards and cooperate with local states on a state-to-state basis.  Maybe the Eurofighter project is a good example of strength through this kind of flat hierarchy cooperation.

Learn from the legacy of the Gauls, Britons, Iberians! They relied too long on Pax Romana to safeguard their lands and peoples. But when Roman power collapsed, they were all immediately overrun by invaders. Their languages, cultures and societies erased from the world.


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on September 10, 2018, 09:18:43 pm
The only thing you can really do is harden your own national military into something reasonable by modern standards and cooperate with local states on a state-to-state basis.  Maybe the Eurofighter project is a good example of strength through this kind of flat hierarchy cooperation.

I don't necessarily think a conventional military will be capable of protecting democracies:

(https://i.imgur.com/yCW4KE4.png)





Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Deus Siddis on September 11, 2018, 01:42:02 am
I don't necessarily think a conventional military will be capable of protecting democracies:

Well if you believe that the USA has become a battle thrall of the Russian Federation or has been cognitively disabled by it, that means there is a total breakdown in the balance of hard power.  In that case your first priority had better be to establish a truly fearsome deterrent to military invasion (or worse) by either or both superpowers.

We know that Russia already has had a lot of success with such algorithms in Europe and in the U.S.

We do?


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Zanthius on September 11, 2018, 08:50:22 am
In that case your first priority had better be to establish a truly fearsome deterrent to military invasion (or worse) by either or both superpowers.

But is it necessarily such a good idea to have a truly fearsome deterrent if you cannot necessarily trust your commander-in-chief? If Russia had spent as much resources on corrupting small western European democracies as they have been spending on corrupting the U.S. I think western Europe would be in a much worse condition than the U.S. The  main reason why many western European democracies haven't necessarily become as corrupted yet, is probably because Russia has been busy with corrupting the U.S., and to a lesser extent the U.K. Their archenemies from the the cold war. Once Russia is finished with the U.S. and the U.K., they will turn their algorithms to corrupt smaller western European democracies.  


Title: Re: Broken American Narrative
Post by: Deus Siddis on September 11, 2018, 03:47:53 pm
But is it necessarily such a good idea to have a truly fearsome deterrent if you cannot necessarily trust your commander-in-chief?

If this situation is as you describe then you already have no choice in the matter.  Putting together a physical deterrent effective enough to hold back the two military-technological super powers of the USA and RF combined will take time you mostly do not have.  And without it there is absolutely zero reason to believe you will not become the next Iraq or 1930's France.  You should look up the estimated scale of nuclear arsenals possessed by the various nations of the world and specifically compare what is owned by the USA and RF to what is under the control of the rest of the world.  And then look up estimates of conventional military power and compare them in a similar manner, too.

Their archenemies from the the cold war. Once Russia is finished with the U.S. and the U.K., they will turn their algorithms to corrupt smaller western European democracies. 

When you lose the UK then that leaves France as your only nuclear deterrent in the region.

If Russia had spent as much resources on corrupting small western European democracies as they have been spending on corrupting the U.S. I think western Europe would be in a much worse condition than the U.S. The  main reason why many western European democracies haven't necessarily become as corrupted yet, is probably because Russia has been busy with corrupting the U.S.

You have one critical advantage as a small nation in this context.  You do not have the same regional distance between people or between urban and rural environments (environments which tend to generate radically different world views in their inhabitants).  And that is at least partially what this method of very grassroots corruption of democracies you describe relies on.  The more you go out into meatspace and interact face to face with people of your own nation that are from as different a political viewpoint as can be found, the less their Russian dominated social media / smartphone will be able vilify you and others politically like you.

But even then, if your nation resists corruption but does not develop and assemble (at least) fission warheads in the dozens with hard-to-counter delivery mechanisms able to reach at least as far as Moskow, then ultimately your best and only option is to surrender anyway, no?


Title: Re: Youtube videos about world governance
Post by: Zanthius on September 11, 2018, 06:29:14 pm
Here is Professor Harari talking about the problems with nationalism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x3zaIYrHTs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x3zaIYrHTs)

Based upon what Professor Harari has said about the emergence of killer robots, I have changed in the abstract to my article about a progressive world democracy:

Quote
We also have sufficiently advanced technology today to manufacture fully automatized killer robots. If fully automatized killer robots are banned just in western democracies, dictatorships might get a significant military advantage. With a new world government, we can order all the superpowers to get rid of their nuclear weapons and ban the production of fully automatized killer robots everywhere.


Title: Re: Youtube videos about world governance
Post by: Zanthius on September 20, 2018, 12:39:23 am
I think Yuval Noah Harari as the alpha male and Bret Weinstein as the sage would be a great pair as leaders for a world government. Bret Weinstein is super wise and has a very good understanding of righteous governance. Yuval Noah Harari has a very large perspective of history and of what might happen in the future. I am not sure who should be the caregiver.

(https://i.imgur.com/rJd5JPS.png)



Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Zanthius on December 14, 2018, 11:32:23 pm
I decided to add Deeyah Khan as the caregiver.

(https://i.imgur.com/41YWJ00.png)

When a Muslim woman cares even about neo-nazis that seem to hate Muslims, she seems to be a well-suited caregiver for the world.

http://fuuse.net/white-right-meeting-the-enemy-fuuse-film-deeyah-khan/ (http://fuuse.net/white-right-meeting-the-enemy-fuuse-film-deeyah-khan/)


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Death 999 on December 21, 2018, 06:56:13 pm
Did you ever read Too Like the Lightning? That last comment reminded me of Bryar Kosala.


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Zanthius on December 28, 2018, 03:11:14 pm
Did you ever read Too Like the Lightning? That last comment reminded me of Bryar Kosala.

I have started listening to the audiobook now when I am walking tours with my dog. Seems to be interesting.

BTW. What do you guys think about sentientism?

(https://www.archania.org/governance/sentientism.png)


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Zanthius on January 06, 2019, 01:58:32 am
(https://www.archania.org/education/scope_of_moral_concern.png)


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Death 999 on January 06, 2019, 09:30:42 pm
This reminds me of a Heinlein article where he said how nationalism was a good thing - an incomplete thing, but a step up from being solely concerned with the individual.


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Krulle on March 20, 2019, 03:26:34 pm
This reminds me of a Heinlein article where he said how nationalism was a good thing - an incomplete thing, but a step up from being solely concerned with the individual.
Yep, he did write so, and thereby also concluded that nationalism is a dead end, and causing problems.
It's like racism.
We are concerned with something more than just ourselves, our family, our clan. But we're still not concerned with the greater good of all humanity.

My continued conclusion:
This might change once we meet aliens and the racism will be projected not across colour differences between us Humans, but between Alien life forms and Humans.

Which may also not be a good thing, as likely the Aliens will possess the ability to end our existence when we start with racism against "them".


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 20, 2019, 06:35:56 pm
My continued conclusion:
This might change once we meet aliens and the racism will be projected not across colour differences between us Humans, but between Alien life forms and Humans.

Which may also not be a good thing, as likely the Aliens will possess the ability to end our existence when we start with racism against "them".

So then why not fake such an encounter?

Unite humanity against the perceived threat of extraterrestrial civilization(s) that do not really exist. No threat of extinction if it is fake. And good practice for our species in case we meet the real thing someday.


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Krulle on March 20, 2019, 09:37:08 pm
That would be much easier to fake than the alleged moonlanding...
Just make one of the voyagers send fake signals back to us.....
(or throw a minisatellite with the next launch into a very high orbit).
Boom!
A reason to spend bilions on space programs and space military!


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Zanthius on March 21, 2019, 10:42:53 am
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nGP00193Ig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nGP00193Ig)

https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf (https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf)


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 21, 2019, 06:17:38 pm
A reason to spend bilions on space programs and space military!

Let me just appropriately re-arrange my stock portfolio first...

https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf (https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf)

If you want to install a global police state you are going to have to do a lot better than remarketing global terrorism and global warming.  Been there, feared that.

We want aliens this time!  And none of that anthropomorphic grey bobblehead-people shit. No, it must be starfish aliens, with full production values.


Title: Re: Political Miscellany
Post by: Zanthius on March 21, 2019, 10:45:14 pm
We want aliens this time!  And none of that anthropomorphic grey bobblehead-people shit. No, it must be starfish aliens, with full production values.

Hmm.. maybe one of you guys could 3D model starfish aliens? I can find plenty of Arilou-looking aliens, but not much Orz-looking aliens.

(https://www.archania.org/alien.gif)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zO0ExRwl3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zO0ExRwl3o&t=87s)