Communism, Democracy, and Anarchy

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wuliheron
Kurt Vonnegut came up with a good one. He
suggested feeding the names of all the
qualified candidates for president into a
computer and having it randomly select one.
Of course, one of the major qualifications was
that none of the candidates wanted the position,
but would knuckle down and do the job if chosen.

That is interesting.
Has there been some serious consideration of this ?
Also, how do you know the person actually doesn't
want to be a president ?
In addition, almost any politician will want to be
one and so will all other "leaders" in the world.
So, if we select folks like scientists and so
on - who don't want it, them being smart won't
help much - it's not like they have to "create"
discisions in the modern world - they have
to decide upon provided options - the job of
leaders.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sometime within the next fifty years computers
should attain something near the level of
complexity of the human brain and, if not
exactly possessed of conscious thought, be
indistinguishable from conscious beings.
As this occurs I suspect people will increasingly
surrender more of their autonomy to the machines
and just let them manage everything.

Yep. Star Trek hit the nail on the head -
"We are Borg. Resistence is futile."
Thinking of the future as objectivly as
possible I can't help but reach this very likely
pessimistic conclusion - we and the machines
will all become one.

We can see an example of that right here and
now. If we could enhance this forum to neural
pathways comminication - wouldn't we ? And would
we not do that "through" and "together with"
machines ? And once we saw how useful and fun
it is - would we want to "log off" ? And once
we are all "loged in" - wouldn't individulaty
dissapear ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

Whether or not you see humans today as individuals or collectives is a question of perspective, context. Human beings are not raised in a vacuum, but instead, share distinctive languages, cultures, etc. The rare child found not raised in this manner has died before reaching puberty. In some sense then, we already are a collective mind.

However, I would point out that the insect like hive mind so many science fiction authors have speculated on has never succeeded in nature beyond the most rudamentary level. This alone suggests it is not competitive for more intelligent animals with longer lifespans than insects. Instead of the borg we'd likely have Data and a whole host of hybrids.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
However, I would point out that the insect like hive mind so many science fiction authors have speculated on has never succeeded in nature beyond the most rudamentary level. This alone suggests it is not competitive for more intelligent animals with longer lifespans than insects.

Purhaps, however, you could regard such a step
being taken by "intellegent" life as just a
part of evolution.

I for one see no problem for this to happen -
once the people and the computers are all
in the same network, and keep at it because
of all the "advantages", it seems natural
that a certain new order "formation" will
take place. And as "immoral" and strange that
might sound today - can any of us really predict
the future ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

as "immoral" and strange that
might sound today - can any of us really predict
the future ?

Well, if you want to get technical, yes we can predict the future to a significant extent. That's what science is all about.

Of course, we could become borg-like hive creatures, we could blow the planet up, destroy the environment so that only insects and rats will survive, or any number of possibilities. Until such things begin to look really likely I'll settle for more realistic speculations that extrapolate from our current understanding of nature. :~0

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by RageSk8
The majority of liberals today live in a fantasy world. Just think back to Clinton, NATO and Yugoslavia. The liberal press praised NATO and Clinton for helping Yugoslavia become more humanitarian. Speeches at NATO condemned all human rights violations. Liberals wrote essays proclaiming change was happening. A few intellectuals became sick to their stomachs - people like Noam Chomsky knew and wrote about what was going on in Yugoslavia. Just weeks before the NATO conference heralded by the liberal press, NATO helped Yugoslavia bomb the Kurds. US supplied F-16s destroyed hundreds of villages. Tens of thousands Kurds were killed and 2-3 million refugees were created. This to a people who were not actively violent. Sure are great times we live in! Dissident voices are censored non-violently – they simply are denied any way to reach the mainstream.

Rage,
You're usually pretty careful about what you post, so I'll assume you got some very strange information.

Yugoslavia never bombed the Kurds. Do you mean Kosovars? Do you mean Bosnians? Even so, Yugoslavia never had any f-16's. They used MiG's.

Njorl

 

[RageSk8]

Sorry, it was Turkey.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Raavin
Getting back to the subject, is anyone actually interested in having a play at coming up with a solution. I'm willing to compromise on some of my values for the greater good. I'm even willing to entertain some 'Capitalistic' elements. Principally though, I'm not willing to give up the basic socialistic premise.

Raavin [?]

Ravin, therein lies the problem. Many people, myself included think we already have the solution. You can find it http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Any way you slice it, that is the most successful government document in the history of the world.

That could come through higher taxing of the 'rich' though but I don't think that works. Anyone interested?

Raavin, IMO, that is the crux of the issue with socialists: Eat the rich. If you can't make your own living and don't want to steal it, get the government to steal it for you. That idea is wholly incompatible with a free society.

Woohoo! I'm an arrogant jerk! Actually, I don't know if this is about me or not...

No, securitysix, that's probably meant for me. I am higly intolerant of people who cling to failed theories and I don't apologize for it.

Whether or not you see humans today as individuals or collectives is a question of perspective, context. Human beings are not raised in a vacuum, but instead, share distinctive languages, cultures, etc. The rare child found not raised in this manner has died before reaching puberty. In some sense then, we already are a collective mind.

Thats certainly true, wuliheron, but it doesn't necessarily mean a system based on collectives will work. Humans aren't that simple - we are social creatures but also fiercely independent.

 

[wuliheron]

Thats certainly true, wuliheron, but it doesn't necessarily mean a system based on collectives will work. Humans aren't that simple - we are social creatures but also fiercely independent.

Insect collectives are largely organized by chemistry and its been shown they can think to a limited extent collectively. We, on the other hand, are decendent from pack hunters. On the hunt we have to able to think independently yet act as a pack. With the advent of technology we can now organize ourselves by the millions and, increasingly, the speed of communications is the key. Still, we remain pack hunters most capable of interacting effectively in small groups.

Raavin, IMO, that is the crux of the issue with socialists: Eat the rich. If you can't make your own living and don't want to steal it, get the government to steal it for you. That idea is wholly incompatible with a free society.

It is also often the issue of the rich as well, they want to eat the poor. Unlike insects who use chemistry to choose their queen and regulate their roles in life, the alpha male in human packs fights his way to the top. If too aggressive the pack itself may tear the alpha apart, if too wimpy they don't make it to the top.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ravin, therein lies the problem. Many people, myself included think we already have the solution. You can find it http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

wuliheron and russ, I think you guys have somewhat
limmited imaginations (Who could imagine computers
a century ago ?), then again - it could be my wild
one...

"Reality is more surprising than fiction."
me

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

Oh no, I've got quite a bit of wild ideas on this subject I just haven't gone into here for the sake of clarity and to not stray from the subject too much. The most intreguing for me is the possibilities of Quantum Neural networks. No one's built one yet, but theoretically at least they should be capable of things our more prosaic brain cells just can't do and fit inside something the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

As Arthur C. Clark said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Frank Herbert once wrote a science fiction book about an AI that became God when it achieved consciousness. I'm not yet willing to start going that far out on a limb in speculating, but it does seem reasonable to assume meritocracies in which people increasingly surrender their autonomy to machines are inevitable.

In a sense, most people already surrender most of their autonomy to machines... corporate and governmental ones that is. :0)