/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2193370]

I propose we architect a society founded on scientific method and the process of elimination.

The Society would be secular and the freedom of and from religion would be secured
The Society would reject ideology which entails rejection of most historical systems of governance
Rejection of democratic vote as the default decision making process does not entail fascism
The Society has reciprocal responsibilities to the responsibilities of the person
The Society must be scalable and should not fail under high population
The Society would supplement at least one pre-existing society through a transition process
The Society would necessarily be open and inclusive to participation by present and future generations
Contribution by the participants of the society would be a necessity only where machines can not be implemented given current technological limitations
An economy is not a system of money. It’s a system of information, space, and time. Action and energy are derivatives.
Technological unemployment is an expected and desirable outcome to iterate towards as it frees up people to work on other projects
The objective of the society is to systematically eliminate the largest pools of human-dependent labor which require the least effort to automate first.
People who have been unemployed need to be not only retained but empowered and enabled to further contribute to Technological unemployment efforts.
People give us the baseline needs of the society in a per unit basis. The material needs are the easiest to meet and the easiest to estimate, so it is with material needs that we should start.
We can reduce the physical problem of the society to how to build a structure which most efficiently distributes and links people and resources among the most socioeconomically beneficial tasks.

The only concern of the society would be the advancement of the participants of the society socially, psychologically, and physiologically.

[Anonymous No.2193371]

this fucking sucks man

you`re taking orthodoxism to a whole new level.

Seems you have already made conclusions about all different things and build upon this temple of "truths".

Please don`t pretend as if you know what people`s needs and desires are.
Leave more room forsuspicion. There might be things you didn`t even know you don`t know.

[Anonymous No.2193375]

>>2189058
Citation needed for Orthodoxism.
Also do you mean "Suspicion (emotion) is a feeling of distrust or perceived guilt for someone or something." or "skepticism is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude, or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted. Usually meaning those who follow the evidence, versus those who are skeptical of the evidence (see:Denier) Skepticism is most controversial when it questions beliefs that are taken for granted by most of the population. For example, in the U.S. skeptics distrust claims by chiropractic, while most U.S. citizens accept them."?

[Anonymous No.2193379]

> The Society must be scalable and should not fail under high population
How high is high? Cause that might just be impossible.
>High population here refers to as compared to available and sustainable living space. If the society advances to space-faring and extra-terrestrial colonization, high can be comeasurably higher than if the scope is limited to the Earth.

>Given current technology, high would be Earth-bound 12 billion.

[Anonymous No.2193386]

1st Ask a question or make an observation.
2nd Write a Hypothesis
3rd Make Predictions
4th Perform Tests or Experiments
5th State Your Conclusions

OP seems to be at the 1st or 2nd stage of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.2193388]

deja vu

[Anonymous No.2193390]

The idea is to move towards a scientific technocratic cyberocracy. Not technocratic as in the technocracy movement of the early 50s in the US, but technocratic in the sense that when something was proposed the most technically qualified among us would be responsible for expert testimony and evaluation of the proposal. Not cyberocracy in the sense of a society ran by AIs, but a cyberocracy in the sense of rule by systematic feedback and regulation.

[Anonymous No.2193395]

Anyway. This place still might not work after a single generation. Mankind has an incredible appetite for distractions and our children would likely be lazy and reliant.

Humans are machines which eat, sleep, and work. And we need to do all three to remain somewhat happy and useful.

It shouldn't be incentive that drives work but fear of punishment. There should be a merit system based on contribution to knowledge. Art should be considered a viable field for those not scientifically inclined.

[Anonymous No.2193400]

>There's a name for a society like that, OP.
The Borg.
While I realize this is probably supposed to be a jest, as a criticism it's problematic. The Borg preclude individuality, diversity, and creativity.

The society would be weaker for suppressing rather than appreciating such characteristics.

[Anonymous No.2193407]

>>2193395
>Humans are machines which eat, sleep, and work. And we need to do all three to remain somewhat happy and useful.
Human bodies are machines which require nutrition and sleep to perform work. However, I would not necessarily categorize people as machines. Any system or theory which fails to acknowledge the aesthetic, functional, and usable needs, desires, and choices of people fails to account for the totality of the human person.

>It shouldn't be incentive that drives work but fear of punishment. There should be a merit system based on contribution to knowledge. Art should be considered a viable field for those not scientifically inclined.
I totally disagree with this. People are better motivated extrinsically by positive incentives rather than negative incentives. The best motivation comes from intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation arises from permissive novel challenges which are just inside a person's capability and just outside the person's confidence.

The current argument that people are lazy and reliant is a self-fulfilling prophesy. People work and express themselves creatively, intelligently, and productively when given the time and tools.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

[Anonymous No.2193414]

So basically something similar to my project?
I like.

>>2193390
That sounds pretty much like my idea to be honest. Though automation of jobs would be far more prominent.

Think an almost exact copy of Manna (http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm)) but with a central libertarian government that allocates some extra resources to scientists and engineers for projects agreed by the government and the people to which it pertains to. The voting system would be something similar. The government picks a list of 25 candidates or so with amazing backgrounds (So the Minister for Health would be some guy that's been a neurosurgeon that's got a Ph.D and have saved like fifty times more lives than everyone else) or something along those lines. Then, doctors, molecular biologists and college graduates for biology and health and so forth comprise of 60% of the vote, the government 10% of the vote, and 30% from the general population.
This is just the rough outline so far; I will be refining it far more closer to the deadline (think 2030.)

[Anonymous No.2193415]

Ok.

[Anonymous No.2193464]

>How free is this society you are talking about??
Free as in free speech and iterating towards free as in free beer as well.

>I guess you should mention more about their economy, its obviously planned right?
Before we can talk of whether the economy is free or planned or otherwise, we first have to nail down what an empirical evidence-base economy looks like. If we recognize that the reason the monetary systems work is because they represent a transfer of information from one system to another which in turn can be seen as transferring differences to perform useful work.

Money is man made; time, space, and information/material is not.

Profit would violate conservation globally in any physical system.

>How are they going to obtain the resources to make pretty much all jobs automated.
How do we obtain resources now? By labor and exploration. The only difference is that we would make a concerted effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of resource acquisition while working towards phasing out human labor.

[Anonymous No.2193479]

>When you need a fraction of energy when you use human labor.
>I wonder whats more energy efficient, a college kid or high school graduate to do that job or a very complex robot that requires maintenance and a lot of resources to work in a menial task
That presupposes that robots take tremendous resources to operate. Resources above and beyond what would be necessary to ensure the college kid an acceptable quality and standard of living. Kid needs to eat 2000 Calories per day, needs ten hours of sleep, needs a place to live, needs to operate a car, needs healthcare, needs entertainment, needs vacation time, etc.

The robot will run as close to Carnot efficiency as we can get it using current technological methods for as long as you want. All it needs is a fairly constant supply of power and occasional maintenance.

In my mind, the college kid has better things to be doing than flipping burgers. The kid should be assembling robots, learning to design them, learning to testing them under the direction of engineers, scientists, and artists.

Education can be acquired by participation. Almost everyone is capable of learning anything. Almost everyone is willing to learn anything if you help them.
Almost everyone contributes what they have to contribute.

[Anonymous No.2193484]

>The education infrastructure would be gigantic too.
The education infrastructure would form the heart of the society. It would not be the education system you and I grew up with. 19th century education simply will not do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

>Doing science is only in reach for very rich societies that have a surplus of energy after spending it in more basic needs.
This is patently false. The Greek, Indian, and Arabic cultures have provided many of the foundational concepts before the modern era. Science can and does happen anywhere people are. In this case, we would setup the academies to provide the infrastructure for people to practice science in a continuous open research program. Anyone with a computer and a connection to the Internet could contribute.

>So unless we discover fusion or make some important technological breakthroughs, your fake society is going to fail.
A system only dissipated energy in the form of heat when an irreversible process has been performed that is when a bit has been deleted or copied. The loss of energy as heat is the inefficiency of the system. With time and effort, we can iterate the system towards Carnot efficiency and we can produce greater amounts of power via renewable sources. Solar power alone would satisfy global requirements.

[Anonymous No.2193488]

>>2193414
The centralization sounds like it has potential for abuse. You need to make sure all the processes are entirely open to the public, no secrets.

[Anonymous No.2193508]

>>2193414
There is one of the major differences between our models. Rather than building a government which privileged the STEAM occupations, I propose building a participatory government comprised of the pool of talent of the people charged with the responsibility to maximize the realization of people's potential.
>This is sooorta what I want to do, just I fear that a voluntary/participatory government would be prone to many fluctuations in quality, plans and amount of people that are 'in.'
If that's what you fear, it's what we have already; therefore, you must be afraid.

The problem is that if we compare the modern day government to a game, it's a game which says it's fun to participate in and that it will teach you how shit gets done, but it's a lie. It's not setup for participation. It's setup to exclude people to make the special interest's votes that much more powerful.

[Anonymous No.2193520]

>>2193488
Exactly my contention, a participatory society is inclusive, open, and accountable.

[Anonymous No.2193541]

>>2193488
Distribution of powers across the population should lead to better outcomes on average. Anytime you concentrate power into a minority body, you introduce a the possibility that the system will tend towards serving that minority instead of serving the citizens of the society.

This leads rather directly to decentralization as the means to check and balance this tendency.

[Anonymous No.2193563]

>Isn't millions and millions spent in figuring out how to make electrical and mechanical systems more efficient?
Hypothetically? Yes. Practically, no. Most of the electrical and mechanical power systems we have today were developed as part of basic research before privatization of research. We can expect that over the past century many of the revolutionary power technologies were sold to and bought by the power companies.

Here's the thing to ask yourself, is it in the best interest of the decision makers for the power companies to increase efficiency, decrease power loss, and reduce the price of power to you? That's to say would they make a greater or lesser profit?

Second thing to ask yourself is "Are you familiar with planned obsolescence?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

[Anonymous No.2193598]

You want to focus human effort into a list of well defined goals instead of looping around and spending resources in mindless bullshit like cosmetics? I agree with you on that, but how is the individual going to be rewarded for their efforts?
When a person plays a game, the reward of the game is intrinsic to the person. If it challenges them without frustrating them, if it challenges them without boring them, it is enjoyable.

Similarly, when people are doing something they love, they enjoy it on average. People would rather be doing something than nothing; hence, the hustle and bustle of the big cities at all hours of the day.

Let's divide satisfaction from happiness. For the purposes of this conversation, happiness refers to the emotional state of joy or optimism. Satisfaction arises from the quelling, elimination, negation of cognitive dissonance.

I don't know about you, but I do what I do because I love to do it. My reward comes from the fact that I can discuss almost any topic I particularly care to, from the fact that I can write programs that solve problems in elegant and efficient ways that others appreciate, from the fact that I am respected by my friends and family for my capabilities, and valued by my teachers for my contributions.

Satisfaction comes from within and is facilitated by adaptable environmental factors. Give an artist a paint brush and an easel upon which to work, they will produce art. Give an engineer a lever and a fulcrum upon which to rest it, they shall move the world. Give a scientist a 15 mile cyclotron and a system with which to analyze it's operation, they shall reveal the workings of the world.

[Anonymous No.2193600]

>You want to focus human effort into a list of well defined goals instead of looping around and spending resources in mindless bullshit like cosmetics? I agree with you on that, but how is the individual going to be rewarded for their efforts?
When a person plays a game, the reward of the game is intrinsic to the person. If it challenges them without frustrating them, if it challenges them without boring them, it is enjoyable.

Similarly, when people are doing something they love, they enjoy it on average. People would rather be doing something than nothing; hence, the hustle and bustle of the big cities at all hours of the day.

Let's divide satisfaction from happiness. For the purposes of this conversation, happiness refers to the emotional state of joy or optimism. Satisfaction arises from the quelling, elimination, negation of cognitive dissonance.

I don't know about you, but I do what I do because I love to do it. My reward comes from the fact that I can discuss almost any topic I particularly care to, from the fact that I can write programs that solve problems in elegant and efficient ways that others appreciate, from the fact that I am respected by my friends and family for my capabilities, and valued by my teachers for my contributions.

Satisfaction comes from within and is facilitated by adaptable environmental factors. Give an artist a paint brush and an easel upon which to work, they will produce art. Give an engineer a lever and a fulcrum upon which to rest it, they shall move the world. Give a scientist a 15 mile cyclotron and a system with which to analyze it's operation, they shall reveal the workings of the world.

[Anonymous No.2193613]

>and yet there are waiters, janitors and truck drivers that live in those countries, wishing to be recognized and famous.. how would that be any different..
The society's mandate would be to enable them to realize those prospects by giving them the tools and resources with which to succeed. People are effected by various conditioning which impede their ability and desire to seek the degree of personal satisfaction, ambition and accomplishment. Notable amongst them is learned helplessness. The society would be charged with alleviating dissatisfaction wherever it arises.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” -Aristotle

“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” -Buddha Gautama

“If I tell you that I would be disobeying the [golden rule] and on that account it is impossible for me to keep quiet, you won't be persuaded by me, taking it that I am [lionizing]. And if I tell you that it is the greatest good for a human being to have discussions every day about virtue and the other things you hear me talking about, examining myself and others, and that the unexamined life is not livable for a human being, you will be even less persuaded.” -Socrates

[Anonymous No.2194341]

"Seeing is only half of it"

Adagio for Strings in D Minor (Surface of the Sun)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

Let's stop fucking around with this pointless drivel and spread out amongst the stars where we can develop new societies away from the fear of ignorant people.

[Anonymous No.2194352]

"Seeing is only half of it"

Adagio for Strings in D Minor (Surface of the Sun)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

Let's stop fucking around with this pointless drivel and spread out amongst the stars where we can develop new societies away from the fear of ignorant people.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

Time to the Andromeda Galaxy for Crew of a ship with 1g acceleration: 28 years.

[Anonymous No.2194415]

You cannot create law without taking into account everything people do. Otherwise it is one sided and seeks to extend the influance of one group over another.

What do people do naturally?

[Anonymous No.2194421]

>>2194415
Resist their dissolution.

[Anonymous No.2194483]

>>2194415
Any law which is instituted amongst people which is destructive to that nature is an unjust law. Any enforcer of such a law is an oppressor and compliant with the evils that beset all people.

[Anonymous No.2194568]

How you enforce these laws?

[Anonymous No.2194652]

>>2194568
Given a change of principles to the effective legislator and constitution of the society, what would need to change about the current system of rule of law and due process?

Our police state would need revision. Our social state would need to be brought up to specifications for attending to the social welfare. Prevention of aggravating factors for crime would take precedent over treating crime when it occurs.

Assuming the legal system remained largely the same, the change of principle will make the single greatest concern of the police and social the alleviation of violence. Non-violent crime will be deprioritized. Alleviation of economic, social, and psychological factors incentively criminal behavior would take highest priority.

Much like implementing universal fire suppression. Service people will seek out and place people into personal care programs.

Social services modeled more like what the Scandinavians and the Nippon-jin have.

[Anonymous No.2194658]

>>2194568
Given a change of principles to the effective legislator and constitution of the society, what would need to change about the current system of rule of law and due process?

Our police state would need revision. Our social state would need to be brought up to specifications for attending to the social welfare. Prevention of aggravating factors for crime would take precedent over treating crime when it occurs.

Assuming the legal system remained largely the same, the change of principle will make the single greatest concern of the police and social the alleviation of violence. Non-violent crime will be deprioritized. Alleviation of economic, social, and psychological factors incentivizing criminal behavior would take highest priority.

Much like implementing universal fire suppression. Service people will seek out and place people into personal care programs.

Social services modeled more like what the Scandinavians and the Nippon-jin have.

[Anonymous No.2194693]

When we become interplanetary something like this definitely needs to come about.

[Anonymous No.2194707]

Yeah but we need someone to work Mcdonalds.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2194717]

IT BEGINS

[Anonymous No.2194740]

>>2194707
You just need a giant vending machine with a robotized kitchen in the back

[Anonymous No.2194779]

>>2194693
I contend that we need this to become interplanetary. How else are we going to develop the technology for self-contained colonies? The problems of the universal city are the same problems as the universal colony.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21691
http://acceleratingfuture.com/wikipediasandbox/Space_colonization

Anyone have the link to the criticism against Hawking's proposal where they discuss the feasibility of off loading our population into space. The conclusion I believe was that we grow to fast currently to make the exodus effective.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2194791]

>>2194779

[Anonymous No.2194798]

>>2194707
The Land of the Rising Sun has already answered that question. In case you haven't noticed, they have begun automating and cybernating their culture.
http://www.weirdasianews.com/2009/08/17/robots-flip-pancakes-serve-sushi/

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2194802]

>>2194791

Heinlein? Orion's Arm? Where is it from?

[Anonymous No.2194812]

The target audience for this project are: Humanist, Transhumanist, Singularitarians, Futurist, Zeitgeist Activists, Progressives, Hackers, DIY Developers, STEAM professionals, Free Open Source advocates, Free Open Culture activist, Pirates, Astronauts, Aquanauts, Cosmonauts, and Anonymous

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2194815]

>>2194812

I'm saving this.

[Anonymous No.2194833]

I also say that the society's media should promote logic, innovation, and an objective perception on reality rather than values centered around the pursuit of happiness like they are currently. We need the pursuit of growth or self improvement.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2194847]

>>2194812
I am also saving this.
>>2194802
3001

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.2194869]

>>2194847
Thought it looked like Clarke, but I was tempted to guess Rama.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2194873]

>>2194847

Ah, makes sense, thanks.

[Anonymous No.2194881]

>>2194833
Journalistic objectivity can be defined in a similar way that scientific objectivity is defined.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22003

[[e-mail] No.2194893]

Please take note of the abuses perpetuated through standing armies by their masters and the zealotry with which reason and liberty are attacked by enemies within and without. With this in mind, the Society shall not have a discrete military body; the entire Society shall be a military unto itself. Let there be no restrictions whatsoever to the armaments and protective equipment members of the Society choose to keep and bear.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2194904]

>>2194893
>everyone has whatever guns they want
I do not like where this is going.

[Anonymous No.2194967]

A Vision of Students Today - Micheal Wesch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o
Changing Educational Paradigms - Sir Ken Robinson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
We're All Predictably Irrational - Dan Ariely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhjUJTw2i1M
The Science of Motivation - Dan Pink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Empathic Society - Jeremy Rifkin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
The Story of Stuff - Annie Leonard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM
Did You Know 4.0 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ILQrUrEWe8
Gaming can make a better world - Jane McGonigal: http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html
Zeitgeist Movement Acitivist Orientation - Peter Joseph: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnK5mBCFTMg
Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky: http://www.hulu.com/watch/118171/manufacturing-consent
Venus Project Aims and Proposals: http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/aims-proposals
Open Standards: http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html
Open Source Hardware: http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/license/
Open Source Software: http://www.opensource.org/
Cape Town Open Education Declaration: http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration
Open Access Initative: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
Open Research: http://openresearch.org/wiki/Main_Page
Humanist Declaration: http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm
Transhumanist Declaration: http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/
Extropian Declaration: http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm
Declaration of Independence: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Federalist Papers: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
The Open Society and It’s Enemies - Karl Popper: http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2006/08/07/the-open-society-condensed-chapter-11/

[Anonymous No.2194974]

>>2194812
>Transhumanist, Singularitarians, Futurist, Zeitgeist Activists

Haha so instead of getting people who are interested in reform AND are capable of using scientific method, you want to recruit conspiracy nuts and other assorted wackos who believe whatever their leaders say.

[Anonymous No.2194978]

very cool article on journalistic objectivity, couldn't agree more. Idealy I believe that is how the media should be portrayed.

[Anonymous No.2194992]

>>2194893
Would not that be perpetuating violence? Would it not be in direct contraindication of the principle that people resist their dissolution? Would it not facilitate the dissolution of people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h34mSp8yN8w

I agree a defensive force should be trained and maintained, but I do not believe every person should have the right to enter that defensive force or to maintain arms as that defensive force does.

[James Turpin No.2195003]

How does this differ from the industrial revolution?

[Anonymous No.2195004]

>>2194974
We want to recruit anyone and everyone who is capable of criticizing this project regardless of affiliation or preconceived notions including people like you.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2195035]

>>2194974
You're against having futurists?
What the fuck man.

[Anonymous No.2195049]

>>2195004
Except those people aren't actually capable of useful criticism. Futurists treat Kurzweill like their pope and are completely unable to think on their own. RBE types are stuck with stupid ideas from decades ago like designing cities along concentric circles (which has been thoroughly rejected in scientific terms) and generally believing whatever paranoid fantasy springs into their minds.

It's great that you claim to still be looking for constructive criticism and the use of scientific method, but you're not going to get that from these kinds of lunatics.

If I could contribute my own criticism, I would like to suggest that you rely less on vague metaphysical statements and more on concrete ideas that can actually be discussed. Figure out how your society allocates resources and directs production. Using the process of elimination might be a good idea, but to do so you need to actually state what the problems are with other systems.

[Anonymous No.2195073]

>>2195003
During the Industrial revolution, we did not engineer entire cities as functional, aesthetic, universally accessible engines.

We did not have the modern scientific method; we did not have the logical results from the likes of Godel, Turing, and Tarski; we did not have the computer; we did not have the internet; we did not have functional models of people; we did not have miniaturization; we did not have the means to automation of most tasks.

Effectively, the industrial revolution did not have human concern at it's heart.


When a man's an empty kettle he should be on his mettle,
And yet I'm torn apart.
Just because I'm presumin' that I could be kind-a-human,
If I only had heart.
I'd be tender - I'd be gentle and awful sentimental
Regarding Love and Art.
I'd be friends with the sparrows ... and the boys who shoots the arrows
If I only had a heart.
Picture me - a balcony. Above a voice sings low.
Wherefore art thou, Romeo?
I hear a beat....How sweet.
Just to register emotion, jealousy - devotion,
And really feel the part.

[Anonymous No.2195087]

>>2195049
>which has been thoroughly rejected in scientific terms
[Citation needed]

>Except those people aren't actually capable of useful criticism.
You are? What qualifies you and disqualifies them?

I'm always weary of unqualified exclusive elitism. I'm extra weary of it when it enters into discussions about an open society.

[[e-mail] No.2195093]

>>2194904
>>2194893
>everyone has whatever guns they want
>I do not like where this is going.
I'd rather go where this is going than go where you're going with the whole disarmament thing:
>Nobody here has guns, only foreign invaders have guns.
Remember, this will be a Society of REASON; we're not going to have any nutjobs because they won't qualify for membership, and because everyone is reasonably reasonable, everyone knows that would-be killing sprees would be stopped in their tracks (unlike here where they kill dozens of people before somebody with guns -- the police -- eventually respond).

Military and police forces are illogically inefficient; the only reasonable way to that ensure everyone everywhere is protected is to arm and train everyone; no matter where you go, there is at least one cop/soldier there: YOU. EVERYONE is a police officer, everyone is a soldier, everyone is a poltician; it is the best way.

Pic related: this is what happens to unarmed political dissidents in a country where only agents of the government may be legally armed.

Everyone must have the right to the ability to effectively neutralize physical threats to themselves and others; otherwise, everyone is merely expendable property of the government.

*Othello aspreve

[Anonymous No.2195094]

>>2195049
>which has been thoroughly rejected in scientific terms
[Citation needed]

>Except those people aren't actually capable of useful criticism.
You are? What qualifies you and disqualifies them?

I'm always wary of unqualified exclusive elitism. I'm extra wary of it when it enters into discussions about an open society.

[[e-mail] No.2195106]

>>2195093
lol, I meant THIS picture.....is what happens to unarmed political dissidents in a country where only government agents may legally be armed.

[Anonymous No.2195122]

>>2195094
On concentric circles, any civil engineer can explain to you exactly why it's a terrible idea. Heck, even Walt Disney rejected it for something as unpragmatic as a theme park. I'm not a civil engineer, so I'll let you do the research.

On Zeitgeist and Venus Project people, they have never ever challenged any of the ideas of their leaders. Someone on top comes up with an idea (or part of an idea, like the OP), and everybody treats it like absolute truth. They have never practiced critical thinking or scientific method. I suggest that they CAN'T because they also believe that 9/11 was an inside job, which, based on all available evidence, indicates a mindset that runs counter to rational, scientific thinking.

The anti-credentialism is really cute, by the way. People who are interested in real solutions understand that the problems are extremely complex, so they actively seek out information that can help them improve their ideas. But that's not easy, is it? Wouldn't it just be more fun to claim that a simple solution you just came up with is the absolute truth, and that everyone who criticizes you is a small-minded elitist?

[Anonymous No.2195129]

>>2195106
You've missed the point in the interest of pushing your own point. It is clearly understood that the motivation for allowing anyone and everyone access to arms is fear of external aggressors.

What I said is that I do not hold this to be universally necessary. You earn the privilege to bear arms. You show that you're capable of resolving disputes first by non-violence. Violence is the failure of imagination.

"Violent resistance against the power of the state is the last resort of the minority in its effort to break loose from the oppression of the majority. ... The citizen must not be so narrowly circumscribed in his activities that, if he thinks differently from those in power, his only choice is either to perish or to destroy the machinery of state." -Ludwig von Mises

[Anonymous No.2195135]

>The Society would necessarily be open and inclusive to participation by present and future generations

>Remember, this will be a Society of REASON; we're not going to have any nutjobs because they won't qualify for membership,

Wow I can't wait to get sent to a re-education center for disagreeing with what the Central Committee on Reason says. (or as a non-member, am I even qualified for using society's resources in that way?)

[Anonymous No.2195183]

>>2195122
First, I find your general tone extremely condescending. I doubt you wish to change that. Second, my brother is a civil engineer, building inspector, and general contractor. He's taken no issue with the idea of a circular city only adding that it should be built upwards towards the middle.
Third, you assert with absolute qualification that people affiliated with the Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project do not engage in criticism of the aims and proposals of the respective organizations. With absolute qualification like that it is simple to disprove your assertion. I am affiliated with the Zeitgeist movement and Venus project. I realize in advance that the most likely tactic for you to take at this point is to then use my admission to attempt to prove your point.

However, I am not in absolute agreement with the Venus project. I am the black swan which disproves your hypothesis, friend.

Fourth, people who waive credentials around while clearly showing ignorance of method put me on guard. People of authority and credentials who demonstrate an elitist and exclusionary attitude tend to be hiding incompetence in the very thing they critique.

I appreciate that this method of experimental design does not please your sensibilities and reason, but it does not automatically qualify it as misguided or wrong.

Finally, your truth table assumes that the propositions are connected by logical AND. It is not the case. Also, it presumes absolutes not all of the propositions have to be absolutely true for the overall project to progress. We lose nothing by holistically designing cities from a scientific perspective.

[[e-mail] No.2195203]

>>2195129
>>2195135

Armaments are a right; life is a privilege to be earned.

[Anonymous No.2195220]

>>2195135
>The Society would necessarily be open and inclusive to participation by present and future generations

>Remember, this will be a Society of REASON; we're not going to have any nutjobs because they won't qualify for membership,
This is an obvious contradiction. Psychiatric problems are a reality of any current society. To presume that no one will ever suffer mental breakdown or issue is extremely naive to the point of unreasonableness.

>Wow I can't wait to get sent to a re-education center for disagreeing with what the Central Committee on Reason says. (or as a non-member, am I even qualified for using society's resources in that way?)
The society will be built on the process of conjecture and refutation. Disagreements will not entail re-education or anything so Orwellian as that.

However, ignorance would keep you out of participating in the more active areas of the society not because you would be excluded but because you could not do more than present yourself as nuisance without diminishing your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.2195239]

>>2195183
So you basically admit that this thread is a bait and switch, and instead of wanting /sci/ to participate in helping to design your ideal society you just want to get more recruits for Peter Joseph's cult.

On the merits, robots don't eliminate opportunity costs (and insisting that they'd be more efficient than humans relies on very clumsy thinking). Having universal access to firearms is not the same as an organized military. Holding on to the circular city design quite obviously represents an inability to use scientific thinking, since the only reason to suppose that it is a good idea is that Jacque Fresco said it was half a century ago (and never gave any sort of explanation other than metaphysics and claiming that his opponents were fools). There is no experimentation here whatsoever.

Also, the world trade center was hit by airplanes, not holograms.

[Anonymous No.2195240]

>>2195203
That is absurd. I hope you are a troll because if you are not, you are an ignorant paranoid liability to society. I suspect you are already armed and dangerous.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all [humans] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[[e-mail] No.2195251]

>>2194992
>I agree a defensive force should be trained and maintained, but I do not believe every person should have the right to enter that defensive force or to maintain arms as that defensive force does.

Then you believe that there should be a slave class which has no power to protect itself from you or the state. That does not sound reasonable.

[Anonymous No.2195264]

>>2195251
Your point against him has nothing to do with your idiot teabagger image.

[Anonymous No.2195276]

>>2195264
It sort of does, actually, since a cornerstone of teabagger belief is that the state is completely independent from society and is malevolent towards it (as long as a black person is in charge, anyway).

I'm not trying to defend any part of that position, mind you.

[Anonymous No.2195287]

>>2195239
You're perspective is very skewed, friend. It's implicit that this is not an ideal. It would not be an ideal city. Scientific method and history inform us that in all likeliness there exist better designs yet to be realized. This is only a step in the direction of a society more desirable than what is currently available.

It has not been claimed by the OP that availability of arms is desirable or a universal right to be secured to every citizen regardless of their ability to reason or perceive reality with clarity.

This is not a bait and switch. It is an independent effort to formally qualify and quantify the specifications for a space-capable colony. It is inspired in part by work done elsewhere by other people in eras now come and past.

You're stalling, my friend. You still have yet to cite why a circular or hexagonal city would be less preferential to some other city design. You have yet to offer an article, evidence, or a formal argument. You assert, without qualification or evidence, that it's false with the implication that it's self-obvious and those who don't know why simply haven't thought about it. I'd ascribe that to autistic tendencies before I'd ascribe it to ignorance or maleficence.

It seems to me that you have developed a distorted view of the Zeitgeist movement ascribing a conspiracy theory leaning to the whole of the current movement. This tells me you either are prejudiced from some personal experience, or ignorant of current developments and are ascribing position of "The Zeitgeist movie" to the "Zeitgeist movement" which would be fallacious.

[[e-mail] No.2195294]

>>2195203
>Armaments are a right; life is a privilege to be earned.
>>2195240
>That is absurd. I hope you are a troll because if you are not, you are an ignorant paranoid liability to society

On the contrary, I am not a troll; I am a sage; I am not paranoid: I am a realist; I am not ignorant: I am wise; I am not a liability to the Society: I am a paragon of its defense.

Consider what I have said:
>Armaments are a right.
I have the right to protect myself and my interests with whatever force I deem necessary; if you believe my actions threaten you, then you are free to do the same.

>Life is a privilege to be earned.
You do not have an automatic right to life in this world; daily you must earn and re-earn the continuation of your life by whatever means you chose. Shelter and food must be sought and maintained, which requires an investment of labor (even if they are the "free" boons of a welfare state, you must invest your time filling out forms in the bread line).

Listen, I am really quite reasonable, but I must be honest in my "devil's advocacy"; if the Society has neither claws nor fangs, it shall fall to the lions and wolves of a far less reasonable foreign coalition.

[Anonymous No.2195305]

Central rule is anti-scientific. Governance on the scale of city-states, on the other hand, would be ideal. Systems could be proposed, implemented, and if successful, repeated elsewhere. In governments covering large populations, experimentation (the heart of the scientific method) cannot be tried, for reasons both real and imagined.

[Anonymous No.2195308]

>>2195276
I detect discrimination.

[Anonymous No.2195315]

>>2195287
Why a circular city, instead of say, a linear city design? Why do you love this idea so much? Sure, I'm not interested in finding a citation somewhere showing the reasons why a circular city design is bad, but you - and your entire group! - have never found a citation supporting it! Where is the scientific method in adopting an idea wholeheartedly with no support whatsoever?

Meanwhile, you keep dropping off hints that you're crazy, but the space-capable idea takes the cake. Again, nobody in your movement has ever looked at the specifics. It has simply never occurred to any of you, given thousands of people and a great deal of time, that many of the things we do on Earth, like growing food and many industrial processes, are easy to do here compared to how difficult they are in space. Assuming equivalent technologies can even be developed (while many already have), it simply takes more hours per day to do things that are simple on Earth (take the production of polymers, for example). That means more work hours for a less prosperous life, in an environment that will not benefit from economies of scale.

But of course, you believe that things like economies of scale and opportunity cost don't exist at all, because you believe that our financial system and our entire economy are engineered by evil Jew aliens!

[Anonymous No.2195319]

>>2195251
>Then you believe that there should be a slave class which has no power to protect itself from you or the state. That does not sound reasonable.
At current, as society stands, with or without government, there exists a slave class which has no power with which to protect itself. They are called children. They are young people and for good reason, we do not issue armaments to most of them.

You fail to understand what a defensive force is because you've never seen one. You likely ascribe to my statements the position that their is a military and their are civilians. This is not the case.

Simply that like driving a car, owning and operating arms should be extensively screened and regulated by the society. In my opinion, preferentially, people should be required to serve in a civil service which would be something of an amalgam of the national guard, the peace corps, and civil services such as Social workers, EMT, police, and firefighters. The emphasis would be on the systematic reduction, prevention, and elimination of social-ills domestically first and abroad second.

A humanitarian armada if you will.

[[e-mail] No.2195325]

>>2193370
>The Society would be secular and the freedom of and from religion would be secured
If you have more than one religion, they are going to fight.

If you have both religion and no religion, they're both going to stand up for themselves, and even if you have ten people who don't believe in religion, they're not going to agree either.

And this is why we need weapons.

[Anonymous No.2195326]

>>2195305
It's really going to suck to live downstream from another city state. Especially when everybody is so lazy that they insist on having robots doing everything for them, so they have more factories and other pollution-making processes than they would otherwise need.

[[e-mail] No.2195335]

>>2195319
>You fail to understand what a defensive force is because you've never seen one.

That is an outrageous assumption; I am, in fact, a combat arms veteran, thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.2195339]

>>2195319
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on any of that, but the biggest problem with this thread is there is idea that "should" can be used in a sentence without any justification whatsoever. If something truly SHOULD be done, there must be some kind of reason for it.

[[e-mail] No.2195354]

>>2195339
Good point. How many atrocities have been committed after somebody said the following?
>"Everyone should do something about this!"

[Anonymous No.2195359]

>>2195315
Where did I profess any kind of love for a circular city design? I did not.

You make a mistake in assigning to me an organization as if I were representative of the movement and it's views. Taking me as representing the whole would be a logical fallacy. Ascribing to me the views of the movement would also be a logical fallacy.

As for requiring you to cite some source to support your claim? It's called scientific method, friend. Without evidence, your claim can not be held as true. I can hold no confidence in your claim, and I have no obligation to provide evidence for you. The burden of proof does not lie with me.

You are attempting to strawman both me and the Zeitgeist movement at the same time by mis-attributing your prejudice projectively on to me and this argument. It's a familiar tactic of those who blame others, and who attempt to "win" discussions through manipulation as if refuting the strawman or the particular part of the strawman you find important would refute the entire argument. It does not, but it does reveal your ignorance; much like arguing with the religious.

You desperate attempts to ascribe conspiracy theory leanings to the Zeitgeist movement is both insulting and blatantly obvious to anyone who's spent even the smallest amount of time and effort reviewing the community. You watched the Zeitgeist Movie, and you think you know what's up. You do not.

[Anonymous No.2195384]

>>2195359
You have given no actual reason to support anything that you want to do. Having an idea for no reason and then going "PROVE ME WRONG" is not part of the scientific method. So yeah, the burden of proof really is on you.

Saying you're in the Zeitgeist movement but you don't believe in their conspiracy theories is kinda kind saying you're part of the Aryan Nations but you don't do meth. Sure, you're technically better, but abstaining from one of the common elements of an organization doesn't change the fact that you're hanging with a bunch of kooks.

Additionally, you have the same exact victim complex, the same pathetic idea of anti-credentialism, the same unwillingness to engage in critical examination of your ideas, and the same extremely unscientific insistence on treating a utopian idea like an article of faith that the very worst members of your group embrace.

[Anonymous No.2195392]

>>2195339
Interesting that is what you choose to single out. I've used should two times in the OP. Here are my other uses of it:
>>2195319
>>2195183
>>2195073
>>2194992
>>2193541
>>2193479
Most of these are permissive uses.

[Anonymous No.2195415]

>>2195392
So do you agree that arguments should be supported by something, or are you going to stick with the idea that if you insist that you're using scientific method that everything you say is true?

[Anonymous No.2195424]

tldnr

[Anonymous No.2195441]

>>2195384
It's as simple as ad hominem, friend. I'm done responding to you. You are beyond reason.

For everyone else, what we are constructing is a hypothesis in the form of a detailed model. This is an unfinished conjecture. It can not be refuted at this point. The argument has not yet been made, the theory has not yet been developed, predictions have not yet been explained. Etc.

We finish the detailing the conditions and specifications of the conjecture then we set about developing from it a formal theory. We take that theory we derive experimental predictions from it, and we put them to the test. Conclusions follow from that. If our conjecture is likely to be correct, we provide reason for why. If it is refuted, we examine why and reformulate based on the new data.

>>2195335
I appreciate your service in combat. I appreciate you are also likely psychologically traumatized and conditioned. As I said before, you have not seen a defensive force in all likeliness. You've seen a combat force, certainly. You probably served in a standing army, an aggressive invasion force. That has a different character.

Your concern was likely with killing the other guy before he killed you. You were likely trained to kill, to resort to violence when in doubt, and from this you likely have developed a distrust of people and paranoia about the society which allowed such trauma to be inflicted upon you. You have my sympathy.

[Anonymous No.2195470]

>>2195415
At no point have I claimed anything presented is true. You can verify that fact by searching for "true" or "truth" with ctrl+f. You can also check "case" as I have a tendency to talk of things being the case or not being the case with a preference for stating things in the negative.

As I have stated, this is not the place or time for justifying hunches. If you do not understand why this is so, you have my sympathy. I do not know how to impart the difference between a hypothesis of this scope and a theory. At no point have I presented proofs of what is present here. I've presented observations and perspectives which suggest the character of the society so conjectured. It is at this time incomplete. The point isn't to claim it as true or false. It's not to prove or disprove it. Anyone who engages it as such has missed the point just as assuredly as a pigeon knocking over the chess pieces and shitting on a board has missed the point.

First: positively state the conjecture, estimate, informed guess, hypothesis.
Second: derive statements from the formal definition of the above. Provide justification for those statements by appealing to the rules of the deductive apparatus.
Third: test those statements experimentally. Does the evidence agree with the hypothesis?
Fourth: Conclusions. Return to first.

[Anonymous No.2195493]

>>2193370

OP is a hypocrite. You reject ideology... within your ideology.

You say religion is free: as long as it doesn't exist.


Basically you're calling for Par-Econ Fascism... That's not going to work.

[Anonymous No.2195514]

>I have the right to protect myself and my interests with whatever force I deem necessary
If that's your opinion, I can not refute it. I simply can not admit it as foundational principle to a universal scientific society.

If you're claiming that as an objective fact, you're going to need to elaborate.

If you're stating that as a fact, It's inarguable, but it's problematic. To me, who sees violence as the absolute last resort, it suggests somebody who does not appreciate proportionality or non-violent methods of resistance to oppression. See Russian, Finnish, India, and US history. For the US, particularly look into the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

[Anonymous No.2195533]

Fuck, someone took my "We take ourselves VERY seriously here" pic.

[Anonymous No.2195547]

>>2195493
I admit the ideology might be contradictory. I have a different interpretation from what is listed in Wikipedia. My interpretation is closer to political ideology.

As for religion? "Freedom from" refers to the kind of freedom which means the thing can not be forced upon a person. If a person has the real freedom from religion, it implies they have due process and social protections ensuring they have recourse against religious aggressors. "Freedom of" refers to the kind of freedom wherein the thing is permitted. If that person has the real freedom of religion, it implies they have due process and societal protections ensuring them recourse against secular aggressors. Simply stated it's a "no-touching" rule wherein the society is the most effected entity. It would mean the society can go no further than enforcing that rule when it comes to religion.

If you want a society which caters to and champions religious beliefs, go to Iran or the Vatican.

[Anonymous No.2195554]

FINALLY SOME WIN IN THIS BOARD- BUT OP won't the natural differences between people's aggregate abilities and specialized abilities create a subclass that whose inherent resentment will create inherent conflict- even if those with more ability were treated equally?

[Anonymous No.2195584]

>>2195493
Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy...
Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.

Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles among individuals.

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a leader or leaders, typically unelected by the people, who possess exclusive, unaccountable, and arbitrary power.

Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. Often, it is the belief that an ethnic group has a right to statehood, or that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.
It can also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, or the belief that one state is naturally superior to all other states. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures.

[Anonymous No.2195602]

>>2195554
It would create a subclass just as assuredly as people breeding creates just such a subclass cyclically. What we would aim to do is to make sure that subclass has economic mobility and the real freedom to realize their potential.

It will be in the interest of every citizen to educate and raise their fellow citizens to meet the high standards that are required for the operation of a space-faring society and it's technology.

[Anonymous No.2195620]

>>2195584
>>2195493
Nationalism is antithetical to global or universal scope. Fascism is intolerant of the individual and of criticism. Authoritarianism requires supplication to authority whereas science requires that all authority is questioned, demonstrated experimentally, and criticized.

Corporatism and corporatocracy taken to their logical extremes privilege ruthless special interests as we can plainly see with the historical development of the OPEC nations.

[Anonymous No.2195632]

>>2195584
>>2195493
Nationalism is antithetical to global or universal scope. Fascism is intolerant of the individual and of criticism. Authoritarianism requires supplication to authority whereas science requires that all authority is questioned, demonstrated experimentally, and criticized.

Corporatism and corporatocracy taken to their logical extremes privilege ruthless special interests as we can plainly see with the historical development of the WTO and OPEC nations.

[Anonymous No.2195641]

>>2195584
>>2195493
Nationalism is antithetical to global or universal scope. Fascism is violently intolerant of the individual and of criticism. Authoritarianism requires supplication to authority whereas science requires that all authority is questioned, demonstrated experimentally, and criticized.

Corporatism and corporatocracy taken to their logical extremes privilege ruthless special interests as we can plainly see with the historical development of the WTO and OPEC nations.

[Anonymous No.2195675]

You just described this OP
http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[Anonymous No.2195678]

>The Society would reject ideology which entails rejection of most historical systems of governance
So.. this society would embrace historical systems of government? I'm confused

[Anonymous No.2195714]

>>2195675
Moar liek this, amirite?

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets

[[e-mail] No.2195837]

>>2195441
>>2195335
>I appreciate your service in combat. I appreciate you are also likely psychologically traumatized and conditioned. As I said before, you have not seen a defensive force in all likeliness. You've seen a combat force, certainly. You probably served in a standing army, an aggressive invasion force. That has a different character.

>Your concern was likely with killing the other guy before he killed you. You were likely trained to kill, to resort to violence when in doubt, and from this you likely have developed a distrust of people and paranoia about the society which allowed such trauma to be inflicted upon you. You have my sympathy.

Thank you for your consideration; it appears from your words that you have some firsthand knowledge of peacekeeping forces. Would you care to elaborate?

Let me assure you, first and foremost, that I only resort to violence when there is no doubt whatsoever. I have suffered no trauma, and trust people to be people as I have for years and years before ever enlisting.

I've been more conditioned by the same public education (almost) all of us have suffered through than the military. Let me assure you that I have not been exposed to the horrors of war, merely that I served in a combat arms capacity during a period of war. Let me also say that most of my time was spent in training for a job that I thankfully never had the opportunity to perform.

Have you ever seen a combat force, offensive or defensive? From your words, I assume you speak from detailed experience, and yet you have somehow also escaped the very conditioning and trauma that you claim I have. Very strange; you must be some sort of superior being, if one is to infer what your words would have one consider.

[[e-mail] No.2195849]

>>2195441(continued)
I believe that it was Henry Kissinger who referred to soldiers as "dumb brutes to be used as pawns." From your words, it appears that you feel the same way: that anyone whose fragile ego has been touched by violence is forever rendered unable to attain the higher levels of abstract thought required to contribute to the formulation and management of your "Society". Such an arrogant attitude; adversity is a crucible which ultimately strengthens those it does not break, and the vast majority of soldiers who suffer from PTSD would have had similar breakdowns sooner or later living the easy life; look around you for examples of such people (and be not surprised if they are closer than you think). I acknowledge your thanks for my service, and offer you a bit of advice: suffer and strive, for then you will learn and grow outside the comfortable box of pretty fictions you've fashioned around your Marxist head.

Back to trusting people, it appears that you do not trust people, ergo your ban on personal ownership and carriage of firearms and desire to rule over them. One might imagine that you consider humans to be little more than dangerous, cuddly monkeys; one would not be terribly far off in that assessment regardless.

So be it. The monkeys neither need nor desire zoo-keepers -- at least not this monkey -- especially if the zoo-keepers are simply other monkeys. That smacks of slavery. If they are worthy, anyone is free to make their fortune by their own hand in a truly liberated society; the intelligencia has sufficient advantages already without the need to dupe the masses into wearing the yoke of servitude and prostrating themselves before their ivory tower.

[[e-mail] No.2195856]

>>2195441(continued)
While I agree that a society based on reason, liberty and understanding beats the hell out of Shariah law and Fascism, I will not play party to something just as bad as the latter masquerading as the former in a bid to enslave the world. You say you only want this special new type of society in the enclave you set aside, just like the founders of this nation, but in time you or future generations will try to push an ever-more-twisted version of this upon the rest of the world for "the greater good."

The greater good is best served by allowing everyone the freedom to do as they please and the ability to protect themselves and their interests. Any coalition must be voluntary, there must be no penalty for opting out, and the minority must be able to at least hobble the tyranny of the majority, because the average human is just bright enough to figure out how to keep getting food out of the machine (and such a mindset is not conducive to such matters as foreign policy and affairs of state -- which brings us back to your assumed disdain for Joe Six Pack and the imperative that he surrender unto you his guns and his destiny). Joe Six Pack is fine; let him be. Let me be. Let everyone be. We'll let you be. And, when, not if, but when some special interest group suborns the law to take away your rights, we'll all be fighting against them with you. In summation, why so puddi?

[Anonymous No.2195909]

[Anonymous No.2196060]

>>2195856
>>2195849
>>2195837
Your form and voice are elegant and articulate. I'm sorry you feel you must defend yourself and the image of those you identify with. If you are asking me to acknowledge whether there exists dangerous people which we need to defend ourselves from, I will acknowledge it contingent on the fact that it would imply you could not be trusted to wield a weapon in society because you were conditioned to be willing and able to use it.

It comes down to the notion of justified violence and the slippery slope. If it's okay for you to kill one man, but not another, what truly stops you from killing that other, but some condition upon which you would take on such bad karma?

Any person around you is subject to that model of the world. Whether you are dangerous or not with a weapon is merely a matter of condition. Those conditions depend on the degree of empathy you can manage to extend to other living beings.

Compare this to my own predications. I do what I love for the people I love. I know they are dangerous to me from time to time and under certain conditions, but I also know that generally I can trust them to extend empathy and solidarity to all living beings regardless of their conditions. The only difference between us are the conditions in which we were raised. If you were hoping I was going to challenge you and beat my chest, I'm sorry I disappoint by not doing what you hoped. I'm not a tough guy, and I don't expect most people are.

[Anonymous No.2196066]

>>2196060
>It comes down to the notion of justified violence and the slippery slope. If it's okay for you to kill one man, but not another, what truly stops you from killing that other, but some condition upon which you would take on such bad karma?

Do you believe that killing a man is special compared to other forms of violence? What about taking his hand off for theft? What about taking years of his life away through imprisonment?

Do you believe that violence is ever allowed? I sure do.

Do you believe that there's such a massive difference between killing a man and locking him up for life that one is allowed and one is never allowed? I don't. I think that life is prison is sometimes allowed, and I think that killing a man is sometimes allowed.

I suggest you grow up and pull your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.2196080]

>>2195856
>Any coalition must be voluntary, there must be no penalty for opting out,
That's a nice pipe dream. What about actual practical policies and/or governments?

[Anonymous No.2196096]

>>2196066
You would agree with the death of a man. You would allow some people to hang on the bases of something you feel or believe and based on the norms of the society.

You would be willing to serve as the executioner to administer the death penalty if it was justified?

I would agree to life in prison. I would agree to padded rooms if necessary. Mainly remove the threat they pose to themselves and others. Reduce the harm wherever and however it arises by eliminating it's cause. Rehabilitate if possible.

Killing is merely an extreme form of violence, and one of the least common forms committed in modern societies. We must not fight people. We must fight the causes of crisis and trauma among people. Don't treat the symptoms treat the causes. Cut out the cause, cut out the effect.

Ultimately, violence is a cause of threat, crisis, and trauma amongst people. It's proliferation is not necessary, not desirable, and ineffective on a whole.

I appreciate your willingness to perform civil duty; I do not admire your capacity for violence; it saddens me. You have my sympathy.

http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/Ways%20to%20respond.htm

[Anonymous No.2196104]

>>2196096
No. I merely don't have this .. insurmountable disdain for violence. If someone attacks me with lethal force, and I decide in my judgment that lethal force is required to ensure my safety, or it's the best method to ensure my safety, I will kill that man. Anything else is borderline suicidal.

[Anonymous No.2196111]

>>2195856
We have two facts of importance:
Most people live within societies.
Most people gain the greatest benefit by tolerating a minimal number of dependencies on the society they live in.
The reality is that certain societies across the Earth are unnecessarily dysfunctional. Their problems are systematic. The negation of the cause of the problems entails the negation of the problem.

The freedom to leave the society is a freedom that is not secured in any society I know of at current.
Similarly, the freedom to die is a freedom that is not secured in any society I know of at current.

Both freedoms are effectively equivalent to the society on a whole. Both entail the loss of a participant. Both are necessary to secure for this kind of society given the distinct possibility of future self-sufficiency and practical immortality.

You don't like what the society's doing, the society would work the allow you and anyone else who wished to, to depart it. The society would have an interest in setting you and people like you with equipment to go off and establish colonies elsewhere which would be ran however you people want.

[Anonymous No.2196115]

>>2196096
To continue:

Hell. Taxes are a form of violence. You can't have government without taxes, and you better believe that you'll have a lot of violence with government.

In the real world, we need to acknowledge the limitations at hand, and work with what we have. This includes embracing violence as /sometimes/ a morally acceptable method.

If it was free to lock up people forever with zero chance of escape, then I wouldn't care about the death penalty, and I would be fine for life in prison. (As is, I'm against the death penalty in nearly all cases, but I'm not against it a prior.)

[Anonymous No.2196127]

>>2196111
Again: pipedream. There will always be a finite number of governments, and thus a finite number of choices.

Do you have anything practicable?

[Anonymous No.2196152]

>>2196115
I have close personal experience with the effects of violence upon the society committed by those who believed their actions just and wise. I've been oppressor and I've been oppressed. Both have left their mark and neither of them are in the long run desirable.

Embracing violence numbs one to the suffering of others. We are all poorer for it.

Part of the issue we're having here is that you believe in morality and justification of destructive behavior. I've lived morally, I've lived amorally, and I find in the measure of morality that it is lacking. A variety of wishful and magical thinking. It's a prescriptive social fiction devised to attempt to control a population through conditioning into suppressing and ignoring poor behavior and impulse. My father was a moral man, a pious man, a religious man, a righteous man. The morals never stopped him from exercising violence, committing objective wrong, on his fallible judgement.

No. Violence is not necessary, not desirable, and not constructive. It is to be mitigated and reduced wherever and however it occurs. Video games are an appropriate outlets for aggression and territorial disputes.

[Anonymous No.2196168]

>>2196127
A very wise man once wrote volumes about the practice of nonviolent resistance and the force of truth. This man submerged himself in the science of just action and performed many great experiments including freeing his country from invader's rule by noncompliance.

http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap33.htm

Take up civic and humanitarian compassion. You can help save people's lives rather than end them.

[Anonymous No.2196180]

>>2196115
I have close personal experience with the effects of violence upon the society committed by those who believed their actions just and wise. I've been oppressor and I've been oppressed. Both have left their mark and neither of them are in the long run desirable.

Embracing violence numbs one to the suffering of others. We are all poorer for it.

Part of the issue we're having here is that you believe in morality and justification of destructive behavior. I've lived morally, I've lived amorally, and I find in the measure of morality that it is lacking. A variety of wishful and magical thinking. It's a prescriptive social fiction devised to attempt to control a population through conditioning into suppressing and ignoring poor behavior and impulse. My father was a moral man, a pious man, a religious man, a righteous man. The morals never stopped him from exercising violence, committing objective wrong, on his fallible judgement.

No. Violence is not necessary, not desirable, and not constructive. It is to be mitigated and reduced wherever and however it occurs. Video games are an appropriate outlet for aggression and territorial disputes.

[Anonymous No.2196187]

>>2196127
Finite is very big number of governments and places. If you're only imagining this society as something that is Earthbound, you are not being bold enough.

Our scope is to iterate life and society out among the stars. We're looking to open up new frontiers here for everyone.

[Anonymous No.2196189]

>>2196168
I'm not advocating violence as the default position. Preferably it should be the last back-up position. Violence is required for government. In fact, inflicting violence is required to minimize the total amount of violence.

Protip: Gandhi was in favor of the right of self defense, and the right to keep and bear (fire)arms. At least quote an actual pacifist (in the sense that you're using the term).

Yes, sometimes non-violence is better than violence. However, there are definitely cases where violence is better than non-violence.

The difference between us is that I accept it. I do not hide from the truth. "Embrace violence" was a bad choice of words. More accurately, I embrace myself and this world and my morality, and I wonder in its beauty, but I do not delude myself that pacifism is the only moral way. I do not lie to myself, nor to others (as best that I can). Can you say the same? Can you say that you would stand there and let someone kill you without defending yourself?

[Anonymous No.2196193]

>>2196187
Again, do you have any practicable ideas? I'm generally more concerned with practicable governments than no-places, which in Greek is Utopia.

[Anonymous No.2196194]

>>2193370
and we shall call it........RAPTURE

[Anonymous No.2196198]

>freedom from

sounds like a recipe for atheist cry babies to control everything

[Anonymous No.2196208]

>>2196194
Objectivism stands as refuted. Perpetuates the "Us vs Them" mentality which divides the society into those who have and those who have not.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/

[Anonymous No.2196227]

>>2196189
You once again miss the principle lesson, and mis-attribute properties to me that do not belong. I never said that self-defense was out of the picture. There is no such thing as justified murder. You end a person's existence without their sane consent. You commit objective wrong against another human being in a way that is damaging to you.

If I felt my well being was threatened or well being of others was threatened, I would take measures to restrain the threat by any force necessary; but, lethal force is rarely necessary and never just. I'd rather die without having killed another than live having deprived another of their life on faulty judgment or failure of imagination. I'd break a leg or paralyze them before I ever would kill them. Least harm route to ensure mutual safety.

I'd rather a perpetrator of violence sit and think about what they've done in solitude and meditation for the rest of their life rather than escape the consequences of their choices prematurely. If they are beyond that remorse, I'd be fine with them being restrained and medicated 24/7 for the rest of their life until they invoke their right to death.

[Anonymous No.2196237]

>>2196227
>I would take measures to restrain the threat by any force necessary; but, lethal force is rarely necessary and never just.
I would like to introduce you to this "wonderful" new invention of the modern era. It's called the personal firearm. It propels small bits of metal at incredibly high speeds, enough to puncture the human body through and through.

If someone is trying to kill you, and you have a gun, and they have a gun, then you shoot at them, at center of mass. If you try to go for a "non-lethal" wound like in a movie, you are greatly increasing your chances of death because you are not such a ridiculous crack marksman, and nor is anyone else. Given our lack of "phasers on stun", the safest approach for you is to kill him as soon as possible by shooting at center of mass.

>I'd rather die without having killed another than live having deprived another of their life on faulty judgment or failure of imagination.
And that is where I disagree. I make the best choices that I can in the situations which present themselves. I try not to obsess with past mistakes, and I try not to worry "too much" about being wrong when I make a decision. Yes, I might be wrong which is a good reason not to make an irreversible decision, like killing someone, if plausible alternatives exist. However, in my very real example of self defense with a firearm, such a plausible alternative does not exist.

[Anonymous No.2196242]

To continue:

>>2196227
>I'd rather a perpetrator of violence sit and think about what they've done in solitude and meditation for the rest of their life rather than escape the consequences of their choices prematurely. If they are beyond that remorse, I'd be fine with them being restrained and medicated 24/7 for the rest of their life until they invoke their right to death.

Yes. That would be nice. However, the real world doesn't always give you that as an option. Again, I am concerned with practicable morality and practicable government, not pipedreams.

[Anonymous No.2196270]

>>2196237
That man then lives with his choice and the consequences of it for as long as he lives and the culture is tending towards practical immortality meaning he could live a very long time.

I do not have to worry about whether or not what I did was right or wrong. In the final tally, the society and the perpetrator would know.

Once again, you preclude better alternatives like less-than-lethal methods and devices choosing to idolize lethal weaponry and lethal methods. We've long since invented effective control arms which do not kill in the majority of the cases.

Why should I prefer lethal weaponry and lethal methods when those are available?

You speak of practical but refuse to see the argument you've developed of kill or be killed as a black and white view of something which is not so clear cut. Your argument suffers from a failure of imagination.

[Anonymous No.2196272]

>>2196270
>Once again, you preclude better alternatives like less-than-lethal methods and devices choosing to idolize lethal weaponry and lethal methods. We've long since invented effective control arms which do not kill in the majority of the cases.
No. I do not idolize lethal weaponry. If you give me a phaser set to stun, and it actually works, I'd be all over that. As I have tried to emphasize numerous times, I am all about practicality, and there is no such device, nor is it plausible one could be made in the near future.

[Anonymous No.2196275]

>>2196270
>Your argument suffers from a failure of imagination.
Your argument is to be suicidal, to lie about our actual morality, or to make believe in a fantasy world. I reject that.

[Anonymous No.2196277]

Incidentally, did you know more military people have died of suicide than have been killed in the Afghanistan war?

What kind of system drives it's people to do that?

[Anonymous No.2196278]

>to lie about our actual morality
Do you mean as in morals or as in mortality?

[Anonymous No.2196280]

>>2196277
Depending on your interpretation, the best kind. You bring up a negative consequence, but you don't bring up a practicable alternative, so I am unable to do a value judgment.

Moreover, I think you're an idealistic idiot who doesn't understand the limitations of the real world. As such, I don't think we'll get very far in this conversion.

Also, in context, it's spelled "its". No apostrophe.

[Anonymous No.2196283]

>>2196278
Morals - Morality.
Mortals - Mortality.

I was speaking of morals. I think we can safely assume that non-mortals are not relevant to this conversation.

[Anonymous No.2196295]

>>2196293
So, you're an anarchist?

[Anonymous No.2196293]

>>2196278
If you mean mortality, I know I will die one day. It might be by cancer, it might be by heart failure, it might be at the hand of somebody who hated me so, it might be when I am old and frail, it might be when young and asleep. I have exactly until then to do my best to leave the world in better condition than when I entered it.

If I was religious, I would still hold this stance. It is the just stance. Provided I never fail in my duty to sustain life and well being, I will never fail completely as a compassionate being.

You know the difference between a firefighter and police officer is to me? When a firefighter has done their job, my respect for them grows.

[Anonymous No.2196297]

>>2196278
If you mean mortality, I know I will die one day. It might be by cancer, it might be by heart failure, it might be at the hand of somebody who hated me so, it might be when I am old and frail, it might be when young and asleep. I have exactly until then to do my best to leave the world in better condition than when I entered it.

If I was religious, I would still hold this stance. It is the just stance. Provided I never fail in my duty to sustain life and well being, I will never fail completely as a compassionate being.

You know what the difference between a firefighter and a police officer is to me? When a firefighter has done their job, my respect for them grows.

[Anonymous No.2196302]

>>2196297
To repeat, so, you're an anarchist?

[Anonymous No.2196304]

>>2196295
I am not an anarchist. I am no more an anarchist than you are a monarch.

[Anonymous No.2196308]

>>2196304
Then why do you not respect a police officer for performing his duty?

[Anonymous No.2196311]

>>2196304

Why the hate on anarchists?

[Anonymous No.2196318]

>>2196308
They are put into such a situation wherein they must often be perpetrators of wrong by the mandate of society and conditions they're forced to police.

It is better to have police than not, but a police state is not desirable either. Especially a corrupt corporate sponsored police state tied into a military industrial complex with an invested interest to sell arms to the world at the cost of people's liberties and well being.

Once again, looking to the Scandinavian countries and the neutral countries who haven't been involved in war for hundreds of years gives us practical models from which to build.

[Anonymous No.2196321]

>>2196318
Yes. I know that you don't like modern western society. That's nice. But even those Scandinavian countries have police forces. Yes they commit violence, and it's unfortunate that in our world the most moral path involves violence.

What I disagree with you is that this is somehow.. bad, or worthy of disdain. I respect and honor the police officers for doing their job to protect themselves, me, and all of my fellow citizens.

Again, it comes back to how I do not lie to myself about how the world is, and I accept how the world is. You operate as though there is some better thing out there, a pipedream. In the meantime, you show great disrespect towards our police force, who, when they perform their job correctly, deserve our utmost respect.

[Anonymous No.2196323]

>>2196311
Because anarchism is immoral? That seems like a sufficient reason.

[Anonymous No.2196324]

>>2196311
Anarchists unfortunately are poorly understood and often misunderstood by the culture. While I'm sympathetic with the aims and goals of the anarchist movements, I can not condone many of their methods nor do I believe the general ideology can be productive towards the development and maintenance of a well-connected society.

By the foundations of anarchy, anarchist must be in perpetual opposition to the state as if it were always their enemy. You mileage may vary.

[Anonymous No.2196364]

If there are any anarchists here, might I ask a question?

What stops another government rising? People will want power over others, and if they can get it by joining some kind of authoritarian organization they will.

[Anonymous No.2196370]

>>2196364
bullets

[Anonymous No.2196371]

>>2196370
But does that not make you a government? Sure, your only law is that you keep others from making laws, but is that not still a law?

[Anonymous No.2196374]

>>2196370
So, do you have roads in your "area of civilization-less" land? Do you have farms? What happens when someone steals? Mob justice? Seems like a shitty way to live.

Why am I even giving any credence to anarchy? Nevermind...

[Anonymous No.2196383]

>>2196374
>>2196371
sarcasm is lost on you then? Unless anyone would actually believe that that would work, then they can try to defend it

[Anonymous No.2196394]

>>2196383
You've clearly never argued with an anarchist. There are a lot of different ideas, but defending their lack of government with governmental force is pretty common.

[Anonymous No.2197007]

>>2196311
Anarchists unfortunately are poorly understood and often misunderstood by the culture. While I'm sympathetic with the aims and goals of the anarchist movements, I can not condone many of their methods nor do I believe the general ideology can be productive towards the development and maintenance of a well-connected society.

By the foundations of anarchy, anarchist must be in perpetual opposition to the state as if it were always their enemy. Your mileage may vary.

[Anonymous No.2198191]

To wit, we have so far outlined general perspectives from which the assumptions of the society maybe concisely stated. At current none strike me as more foundational than the answer to the question of "what do people do naturally?": resist their dissolution.

We can surmise the whole of the consensual purpose of society in that one observation. A society is developed by such methods so as to effect the best resistance to the dissolution of it's people and thereby resist it's own dissolution. This suggests the precise character of the society and its objectives.

Of major concerns to the society, we can name epistemology and it's transmission to later generations as one of the key focuses of a STEAM community.

We still however require a criterion for excellence. What provides for motivating and engendering excellence in a society? Three things come to my mind: love, empathy, and integrity.

"The regression-progression process stems from the innate biological desire of both parts of a previous dual-unity to relate to each other, and thus is the only historical theory to posit love as its central mechanism for change." -Lloyd deMause http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/p132x146.htm

[Anonymous No.2199402]

>>2194967
Bump for great justice. Anyone have more sources on the architecture of societies and communities?