SOCIOLOGY THREAD

[Anonymous No.3326283]

SOCIOLOGY THREAD:

If you had to control some state, would you give up freedom of the population to get more efficiency, or give up the efficiency to get more freedom to the population in question?

[Anonymous No.3326285]

Wait, can we mathematically model tha....oh wait, sociology, never mind.

[Anonymous No.3326284]

>implying freedom isn't the most efficient form of control

[Anonymous No.3326288]

A chicken in every pot

Share the wealth

Make everyone comfortable and they will allow you to do whatever the hell you want

or something along those lines

Huey P. Long

[Anonymous No.3326292]

>einstein.jpg
>sociology thread
>mfw

[Anonymous No.3326303]

>>3326288
that has nothing to do with the question. neither does einstein and sociology has nothing to do with /sci/ so everyone fuck off right the fuck now

[Anonymous No.3326318]

>>3326303
Sociology is one of the most noble of the sciences.

[Anonymous No.3326331]

>>3326318

It's not even a proper science.

[Anonymous No.3326345]

>>3326331
because it deals with abstract concepts and complex ideas that the 2 + 2 = ? autists of /sci/ cannot wrap their dysfunctional brains around

[Anonymous No.3326357]

>>3326345
>howtotrollsci.ini

[Anonymous No.3326375]

Sociology is the most complex science man has ever known. Math , physics, astronomy ..those are easy...sociology is the subject of the future .

We hardly know anything about ourselves, I can't wait for the "human enlightenment" to happen, this when we realize that we are all the same "human" ,.. and stop the pointless squabbling in the middle east , Africa and south America...

[Anonymous No.3326384]

.

[Anonymous No.3326387]

>>3326375

[Anonymous No.3326411]

>>3326292
Einstein cared just as much about the humanities as he did down and dirty science..he did science because he wanted to make the world a better place for everyone.

[Anonymous No.3326416]

As long as people control what "efficiency" and "freedom" means you're going to have flawed systems exploited by the rich to get more power when in reality the most efficient system is an egalitarian one controlled by machines.

[Anonymous No.3326423]

I'd make a communist technocraty and base all governing principles on rationality and give justice to those who deserve it. The goal always justifies the means; we can't let people do things that go against the greater good of the community. The freedom lovers should learn that freedom is an illusion and makes us unhappy; living without real purpose, people seek meaning and identity in material possessions and eventually destroy what makes them humans.
This: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
Also read Tocqueville's democracy in America. And Das Kapital from Marx.

[Anonymous No.3326427]

>>3326411

.5/10

Just stop, faggot.

[Anonymous No.3326439]

>>3326423
Email me quick. My email is [e-mail]

[Anonymous No.3326459]

Freedom first. Plus, it's plainly evident that free societies have more efficient markets than totalitarian societies.

[Anonymous No.3326481]

>>3326423

Contact me.
Skype: specificimpulse

AIM: [e-mail]

MSN: [e-mail]

[Anonymous No.3326491]

>>3326423
My face when the happiest countries are free, capitalist economies with varying degrees of public social programs.

[Anonymous No.3326504]

>>3326491
Happy but destroying themselves. Consumerism is not viable in the long run.

[Anonymous No.3326510]

>>3326504
Are you insinuating a Malthusian crisis? Technology has always solved every predicted shortage scenario from the Malthusians. Plus, free capitalist societies are the most innovative at developing new technologies.

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326524]

Firstly, I'd let anyone who didn't want to be part of the country move to a designated Sovereign-less nation. The only conditions of doing so would be 1) you need a valid reason to return, and can't do so freely unless given express permission and 2) any attempts at establishing a government or nation will be countered with force.
Secondly, I'd allow anyone to enter the nation, on the conditions that they either held a degree or equivalent level of education, or were both willing/capable of obtaining one if given the education free of charge.

There would be no monetary tax on anyone with less than an arbitrarily high level of wealth (let's say a million dollars). Instead, everyone would provide labour for the government for an allocated amount of time. Paying to not do this would be possible, but prohibitively expensive. The work would be 1) For maintaining the well-being of citizens, 2) For maintaining the ability of the government, and 3) For advancing science, specifically in areas which private corporations are not interested (malaria vaccines, for example).

Capitalism would be allowed, and encouraged, but government options for not engaging in it would also exist (IE it would be possible to get food and board from the government if you did triple the work for them). Wages would be paid for any work over what was expected for the individual's resource usage, but they wouldn't necessarily be high enough to be financially lucrative, only high enough to allow people to find better employment (in other words, social security in exchange for labour).
SCIENCE would be promoted. Religion would neither be condemned or condoned by the government, but would not be allowed into education systems.

[Anonymous No.3326533]

>>3326491
>mfw japan
what is wrong with those people?

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326580]

>>3326524
more on that capitalism:
Private companies would have pretty much free trade, and the only people being taxed would be those over the arbitrarily high personal wealth limit (regardless of how old they are, whether they're in work, etc.). This should hopefully encourage foreign companies. However, Lobbying would be illegal, and any transference of a for-profit organisation's money to any member of the government would be met with strict legal repercussions, if not embargoes.

When people die, everything they own becomes state property. The goods are evaluated by a state accountant, and up to another arbitrary number of dollars worth of stuff can be inherited by those designated in the will of the deceased (let's say $5000). every person named can take their $5000 worth, but have to pay the value of everything over that. They have a minimum of 6 weeks to make their decisions, at the end of which all money becomes state funds and all other goods are auctioned or put to use by the state.

[Anonymous No.3326591]

>>3326481
>>3326439

I emailed you both and added one of you on skype..

[Anonymous No.3326596]

>>3326510
Yes, i am insinuating such a thing. Technology can solve almost any problem as long as it has the raw ressources needed to solve it at its disposition. Briefly said, as long as you are in a phase of resource expansion you can count on technology to postpone your problem, but our earth is finite. You should read about how the previous civilisations collapsed on themselves (Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed from Jared Diamonds, the writer of Guns Germs and Steel). Unlike you might think, humans have not yet freed themselves from the constraints of nature and we have no reason to think our social model is not faillible. The difference is that when we'll fall, it'll be from higher.

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326602]

>>3326596
more importantly, we should be going into space anyway, I cannot fathom how ignorant someone would have to be to not think this should be one of- if not the main- goal of humanity.

[Anonymous No.3326607]

>hurr this would be my opportunity to create that utopia I was thinking about!
Do you guys really think it's that simple? If you stray too far from the political system that fits the power structue you'll just be overthrown.

[Anonymous No.3326613]

>>3326607
bitches don't know about my vitamin A /high levels of fluorine in the water, and testosterone inhibitors in alcohol.

[Anonymous No.3326619]

>>3326602
True. A civilisation without goals and ambitions falls into decadence and self-loathing of its past glory. This reason is even more important than the survival argument.

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326624]

>>3326619
I was going for it being important because it's <span class="math"> fucking[/spoiler] <span class="math"> awesome[/spoiler], but your reason is good too.

[Anonymous No.3326627]

>>3326619
not supposed to be loathing, but something like admiration or glorifying. it doesn't make sense. I am not native english speaker

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.3326630]

>>3326283
Efficiency would not matter so long as everyone was happy. I would not sacrifice anyone's freedoms.

[Anonymous No.3326633]

>>3326375
>Sociology is the most complex science man has ever known. Math , physics, astronomy ..those are easy...sociology is the subject of the future .

-3/10

Back in winter, trolling meant something.

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326635]

>>3326627
oh, I get you. that seems to be what normally happens.

[Anonymous No.3326652]

>>3326596
Technology increases the efficiency of resource utilization as well as creating substitutes to scarce goods. For example, we used to have all telecommunications wire made of copper. Now we use fiber optic cables made out of sand, which is vastly more abundant.

What specifically are we running out of that will bring about a total collapse of civilization? Petroleum can be replaced with algal biofuels and nuclear energy. Food shortages can be mitigated with genetic engineering of crops. Rare earth minerals can be recycled from obsolete consumer goods. Scarce resources also incentivize previously more expensive extraction areas as well as substituting alternatives. Materials science also has the potential to develop amazing new resources out of common elements. Carbon nanotubes are highly effective conductors and are amazingly strong. Yet they are made out of the 4th most abundant chemical element in the universe.

Besides, what's the alternative? Erect a totalitarian government to ration everyone's consumption? Fuck that. I'd rather have an unlikely shortage than a certain tyranny.

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326673]

>>3326652
And we use He-4 in a crap-ton of things, despite it being about to rocket in price.
We also have no way of easily pulling rare earth minerals out of redundant technology.

We are absolutely not in a position to consider ourselves capable of surviving the next century on this planet without running out of these materials, and it is delusional to think that we can remain on earth without stagnating.

[Anonymous No.3326681]

Just carrying my banner.

[Anonymous No.3326694]

EVERYONE who thinks that the survival of our species is more important than idiotic "freedom" which is in reality wasteful consumerism (which wastes labor which could be put on far better things such as universal education, free healthcare, space colonization, transhumanism), email me.

My email: [e-mail]

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326695]

>>3326681
RA?
wat

[Anonymous No.3326697]

>>3326681
wutz dat

resource acquisition?

revolution anarchy?

rheumatoid arthritis?

[Anonymous No.3326698]

>>3326681
Rational Affiliation. Soon thousands will march under our banner.

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326702]

>>3326698
I doubt that. Rational people and marching people are not the same people/

[Anonymous No.3326709]

[e-mail] - We believe that imagined and idiotic freedom to pointlessly consume is worthless compared to the goals which would actually make our species advance.

[Anonymous No.3326716]

>>3326702
We can't fulfill our goals without power.

[Anonymous No.3326718]

Everyone who thinks a government that takes your freedom will protect your survival or spend your tax dollars on trannyhumans email me.

[e-mail]

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326724]

>>3326709
If you force people into a position of technological superiority, are you not doing harm rather than good? assuming life exists on other planets (and it does) would it not be better to let other life forms evolve to a stage at which they are capable of what we hope to be able to do?

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326733]

>>3326716
and marching isn't possible without the suspension of rational thought. Militaries march and chant because the sensation allows the soldiers to suspend rational thought and to agree with their goals without needing to think about them.

[Anonymous No.3326748]

>>3326673
Interesting. What are the applications of Helium 4? I find it hard to believe that it will bring about the end of human civilization in the next 100 years. But feel free to enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.3326756]

>>3326733
Of course marching is possible with rational thought.

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326775]

>>3326748
I didn't say the end, I said we would stagnate.
He-4 is useful in airships, lasers, and telescopes, as well as in superconductors. It's almost a necessity for deep sea divers, too.
It's about to get really difficult to buy in quantity due to the US stockpile going to be all sold in 2015 and the amount of helium on the market is going to plummet. Pretty good example of how a government meaning well can seriously mess up a market. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/science-policy-gone-bad-may-mean-the-end-of-earths-heliu
m.ars
>>3326756
that was hyperbole, sorry. 'it's far easier to suspend rational thought' Would be more appropriate

[Anonymous No.3326800]

>>3326775
Indeed. New technologies will be necessary to prevent stagnation. Some of which would include cheap ways of getting into space to extract resources from the solar system. Pretty sure that concept was the main point of my post.

Can helium be produced through nuclear fusion? It's well known that current technology cannot generate a net energy gain from fusion, but can it replicate the conditions inside the sun to make helium from hydrogen?

[None !/oddSpacew No.3326819]

>>3326800
It didn't seem to be about space, it looked more like it was about making do on Earth.
He-4 is a by-product of Deuterium-Tritium fusion, but there's not enough of either of those to provide the helium we'd need (and also, it would be a massive waste of energy). It's possible to recover helium from the atmosphere, but the costs are huge- I think it works out as being several thousand dollars per tonne.

[Anonymous No.3327521]

It's funny how there are lots of productive scientific discussions in a sociology thread, which happen to be about physics and space colonization instead of sociology.