Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply A theoretical future scenario... Good or bad?
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/11/12 , edited 10/11/12
So after reading the news and once again being brought down by the insane amount of horrible and stupid shit (if you'll pardon the expression) that goes on in the world, I started thinking about how we could make the world a better place...

After a bit of thinking I was struck with the thought of the following scenario:

At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).
Obviously, this is something that could potentially benefit the human species immensely.
However, it goes without saying that it is something that cannot just be handed out for free with no changes in laws and society...

So what if it was decided that to be granted this gift of eternal youth, one would have to qualify to a certain set standard of intelligence, kindness and whatever other virtue that may be deemed important?
This would basicly mean that the ones deemed "desireable" for society would live on, while the "undesireables", meaning the ones with low intelligence and lack of kindness and compassion would be left to die out.

This way, only humans that are intelligent and kind would be living on the planet, and all the undesired scum of the earth would be gone. And the world would enter an age of prosperity unlike what has been seen before.


As a potential addition to this, society could make a collective effort to rid the world of religion, meaning it would not only be an era of only kind and intelligent people, but also without religion and all the bad things it brings with it, ushering in an age of a world united under science, logic and reason.

Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated than what I write here. This is just the basic jist of the idea.


So what do you people think of this idea? Is it a good idea, or a bad idea, and why?
72422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/11/12
I doubt that the people who don't qualify would just stand by and let it happen. You'd need to kill them as soon as they fail the test.
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/11/12

haikinka wrote:

I doubt that the people who don't qualify would just stand by and let it happen. You'd need to kill them as soon as they fail the test.


Well it is possible to raise one's own IQ... So there's nothing preventing them from trying again later and then succeed.
They would just have to make the effort to gain it.
72422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/11/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


haikinka wrote:

I doubt that the people who don't qualify would just stand by and let it happen. You'd need to kill them as soon as they fail the test.


Well it is possible to raise one's own IQ... So there's nothing preventing them from trying again later and then succeed.
They would just have to make the effort to gain it.


Yeah... but I reckon you'd still have the same problem. Not everyone is going to want to go through the effort, or are just hopeless.
121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 10/13/12
Sounds like a new religion to me. Isn't that what most of them preach anyway, it's like "be good, follow our rules and live according to our standards and we will guarantee you get eternal life, eternal youth, and eternal happiness". It sounds good in the beginning but it never ends well. I would suggest that maybe those intelligent and kind people that are granted eternal life, find a new and unspoilt planet where they can live happily and leave us mere humans to continue with our imperfect and short lives.

Let's say someone discovers the secret to eternal life. Why should we trust them with that kind of power and control and how do we know they will use it for the betterment of mankind? Who decides who the 'desirable' people are and how do we assess this? In the end all this would do is give people power which they'll go on to use to create a system that works in their favour at the expense of everyone else.
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/13/12

nameherenow wrote:

Sounds like a new religion to me. Isn't that what most of them preach anyway, it's like "be good, follow our rules and live according to our standards and we will guarantee you get eternal life, eternal youth, and eternal happiness". It sounds good in the beginning but it never ends well. I would suggest that maybe those intelligent and kind people that are granted eternal life, find a new and unspoilt planet where they can live happily and leave us mere humans to continue with our imperfect and short lives.

Let's say someone discovers the secret to eternal life. Why should we trust them with that kind of power and control and how do we know they will use it for the betterment of mankind? Who decides who the 'desirable' people are and how do we assess this? In the end all this would do is give people power which they'll go on to use to create a system that works in their favour at the expense of everyone else.


Sure, except in this case, it's based on science and humanism and not some crazy, bigoted fairytale book.

As for who will be deemed "desireable", I think it's fairly obvious. The kind and the intelligent.
As for how we would assess this... well there are IQ tests, background tests, personality tests, interviews and several other ways to determine a person's personality and intelligence.

Corruption with this is a possibility, yes, but I believe those in charge will be smart enough to know better.
They could for instance do the exact opposite and only give it to the stupid people. But they should know that stupid people are way more dangerous than intelligent people. So I don't think the chance of it is very high.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/13/12 , edited 10/13/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

So after reading the news and once again being brought down by the insane amount of horrible and stupid shit (if you'll pardon the expression) that goes on in the world, I started thinking about how we could make the world a better place...

After a bit of thinking I was struck with the thought of the following scenario:

At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).
Obviously, this is something that could potentially benefit the human species immensely.
However, it goes without saying that it is something that cannot just be handed out for free with no changes in laws and society...

So what if it was decided that to be granted this gift of eternal youth, one would have to qualify to a certain set standard of intelligence, kindness and whatever other virtue that may be deemed important?
This would basicly mean that the ones deemed "desireable" for society would live on, while the "undesireables", meaning the ones with low intelligence and lack of kindness and compassion would be left to die out.

This way, only humans that are intelligent and kind would be living on the planet, and all the undesired scum of the earth would be gone. And the world would enter an age of prosperity unlike what has been seen before.


As a potential addition to this, society could make a collective effort to rid the world of religion, meaning it would not only be an era of only kind and intelligent people, but also without religion and all the bad things it brings with it, ushering in an age of a world united under science, logic and reason.

Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated than what I write here. This is just the basic jist of the idea.


So what do you people think of this idea? Is it a good idea, or a bad idea, and why?


To summarise, Fascism drest to look like rationality, or Eugenics reborn.

First, you create a criteria of eliminating 'undesirables' based upon the two criteria of 'Compassion and Intellect', that is, the discriminatory withholding the gift of eternal youth to those deemed 'unworthy' of it, which is, itself, an incompassionate act, and so, would disqualify all who are part of this programme from even having this gift unless they, in their kindness, made this gift gratuitous to all, regardless of compassion or intellect, and thereby upsetting the whole plan. Second, the criteria of 'intelligence' is vague and not very clearly defined, even by those who study it. What does it mean to be intelligent? On what basis are these things judged? Book learning? That would only benefit those who are better educated, or who have the money and the means to continue their education further than those less fortunate.

Next, say that the 'undesired scums' are gone, who will then run the factories, till the fields, do all the manual work? I hardly think that those who view themselves as the superior sort will lower themselves to the level of doing the grunt work.

Additionally, who is to say that this will result in a Saturnian age of Atheism, where rules the holy trinity of Reason, Science, and Logic, for who is to say that 'intelligent, kind, and virtuous' would automatically exclude 'religious'? It is your prejudice that excludes Religion from Intelligence, Kindness, and Virtue, not inherent.
121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 10/13/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


nameherenow wrote:

Sounds like a new religion to me. Isn't that what most of them preach anyway, it's like "be good, follow our rules and live according to our standards and we will guarantee you get eternal life, eternal youth, and eternal happiness". It sounds good in the beginning but it never ends well. I would suggest that maybe those intelligent and kind people that are granted eternal life, find a new and unspoilt planet where they can live happily and leave us mere humans to continue with our imperfect and short lives.

Let's say someone discovers the secret to eternal life. Why should we trust them with that kind of power and control and how do we know they will use it for the betterment of mankind? Who decides who the 'desirable' people are and how do we assess this? In the end all this would do is give people power which they'll go on to use to create a system that works in their favour at the expense of everyone else.


Sure, except in this case, it's based on science and humanism and not some crazy, bigoted fairytale book.

As for who will be deemed "desireable", I think it's fairly obvious. The kind and the intelligent.
As for how we would assess this... well there are IQ tests, background tests, personality tests, interviews and several other ways to determine a person's personality and intelligence.

Corruption with this is a possibility, yes, but I believe those in charge will be smart enough to know better.
They could for instance do the exact opposite and only give it to the stupid people. But they should know that stupid people are way more dangerous than intelligent people. So I don't think the chance of it is very high.



Most religion say they are the best and belittle all others anyway so I don't see how this would be any better. It still involves a bunch of high and mighty people claiming to know what is best for humanity and using that to try and control everyone else. No, kindness and intelligence are really not that obvious and they can be very subjective and subject to change. Intelligent people can be just as dangerous as dumb people but powerful people are the most dangerous of all.

Putting all that aside, maybe we should have some intelligent and kind people to make sure the world is in order but then why should we give them an eternity to do it? That sounds pretty lazy and horrible. It's better they came up with faster ways to do things and better ways to pass on knowledge instead of trying to buy more time during which generations of 'undesirables' will work to serve them whilst being looked down on and judged for not meeting their standards. What's wrong with being a flawed mortal human being anyway? At least there is always room for improvement, more to learn, more to discover and life is more important, things are more urgent so we can driven to create and develop faster.
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/14/12

longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

So after reading the news and once again being brought down by the insane amount of horrible and stupid shit (if you'll pardon the expression) that goes on in the world, I started thinking about how we could make the world a better place...

After a bit of thinking I was struck with the thought of the following scenario:

At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).
Obviously, this is something that could potentially benefit the human species immensely.
However, it goes without saying that it is something that cannot just be handed out for free with no changes in laws and society...

So what if it was decided that to be granted this gift of eternal youth, one would have to qualify to a certain set standard of intelligence, kindness and whatever other virtue that may be deemed important?
This would basicly mean that the ones deemed "desireable" for society would live on, while the "undesireables", meaning the ones with low intelligence and lack of kindness and compassion would be left to die out.

This way, only humans that are intelligent and kind would be living on the planet, and all the undesired scum of the earth would be gone. And the world would enter an age of prosperity unlike what has been seen before.


As a potential addition to this, society could make a collective effort to rid the world of religion, meaning it would not only be an era of only kind and intelligent people, but also without religion and all the bad things it brings with it, ushering in an age of a world united under science, logic and reason.

Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated than what I write here. This is just the basic jist of the idea.


So what do you people think of this idea? Is it a good idea, or a bad idea, and why?


To summarise, Fascism drest to look like rationality, or Eugenics reborn.

First, you create a criteria of eliminating 'undesirables' based upon the two criteria of 'Compassion and Intellect', that is, the discriminatory withholding the gift of eternal youth to those deemed 'unworthy' of it, which is, itself, an incompassionate act, and so, would disqualify all who are part of this programme from even having this gift unless they, in their kindness, made this gift gratuitous to all, regardless of compassion or intellect, and thereby upsetting the whole plan. Second, the criteria of 'intelligence' is vague and not very clearly defined, even by those who study it. What does it mean to be intelligent? On what basis are these things judged? Book learning? That would only benefit those who are better educated, or who have the money and the means to continue their education further than those less fortunate.

Next, say that the 'undesired scums' are gone, who will then run the factories, till the fields, do all the manual work? I hardly think that those who view themselves as the superior sort will lower themselves to the level of doing the grunt work.

Additionally, who is to say that this will result in a Saturnian age of Atheism, where rules the holy trinity of Reason, Science, and Logic, for who is to say that 'intelligent, kind, and virtuous' would automatically exclude 'religious'? It is your prejudice that excludes Religion from Intelligence, Kindness, and Virtue, not inherent.


It might be. I will not deny that I do indeed not have a very positive view on religion, due to its tendencies towards bigotry, discrimination, illogical thinking and otherwise slowing down the progress of mankind.

I see where you're coming from when you say that denying eternal life to the "unworthy" is incompassionate and I do agree that it is.
But then again, sacrifices often has to be made for the greater good. Were there not many soldiers that died in WWII, fighting against Hitler's army?
Yes there were. Many good men lost their lives.
But in the end, was it a necessary loss?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/14/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

So after reading the news and once again being brought down by the insane amount of horrible and stupid shit (if you'll pardon the expression) that goes on in the world, I started thinking about how we could make the world a better place...

After a bit of thinking I was struck with the thought of the following scenario:

At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).
Obviously, this is something that could potentially benefit the human species immensely.
However, it goes without saying that it is something that cannot just be handed out for free with no changes in laws and society...

So what if it was decided that to be granted this gift of eternal youth, one would have to qualify to a certain set standard of intelligence, kindness and whatever other virtue that may be deemed important?
This would basicly mean that the ones deemed "desireable" for society would live on, while the "undesireables", meaning the ones with low intelligence and lack of kindness and compassion would be left to die out.

This way, only humans that are intelligent and kind would be living on the planet, and all the undesired scum of the earth would be gone. And the world would enter an age of prosperity unlike what has been seen before.


As a potential addition to this, society could make a collective effort to rid the world of religion, meaning it would not only be an era of only kind and intelligent people, but also without religion and all the bad things it brings with it, ushering in an age of a world united under science, logic and reason.

Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated than what I write here. This is just the basic jist of the idea.


So what do you people think of this idea? Is it a good idea, or a bad idea, and why?


To summarise, Fascism drest to look like rationality, or Eugenics reborn.

First, you create a criteria of eliminating 'undesirables' based upon the two criteria of 'Compassion and Intellect', that is, the discriminatory withholding the gift of eternal youth to those deemed 'unworthy' of it, which is, itself, an incompassionate act, and so, would disqualify all who are part of this programme from even having this gift unless they, in their kindness, made this gift gratuitous to all, regardless of compassion or intellect, and thereby upsetting the whole plan. Second, the criteria of 'intelligence' is vague and not very clearly defined, even by those who study it. What does it mean to be intelligent? On what basis are these things judged? Book learning? That would only benefit those who are better educated, or who have the money and the means to continue their education further than those less fortunate.

Next, say that the 'undesired scums' are gone, who will then run the factories, till the fields, do all the manual work? I hardly think that those who view themselves as the superior sort will lower themselves to the level of doing the grunt work.

Additionally, who is to say that this will result in a Saturnian age of Atheism, where rules the holy trinity of Reason, Science, and Logic, for who is to say that 'intelligent, kind, and virtuous' would automatically exclude 'religious'? It is your prejudice that excludes Religion from Intelligence, Kindness, and Virtue, not inherent.


It might be. I will not deny that I do indeed not have a very positive view on religion, due to its tendencies towards bigotry, discrimination, illogical thinking and otherwise slowing down the progress of mankind.

I see where you're coming from when you say that denying eternal life to the "unworthy" is incompassionate and I do agree that it is.
But then again, sacrifices often has to be made for the greater good. Were there not many soldiers that died in WWII, fighting against Hitler's army?
Yes there were. Many good men lost their lives.
But in the end, was it a necessary loss?



The whole bigotry, discrimination, illogicality, and slowing down the progress of mankind is debatable and is not suited for a discussion here, just to note that I do not think that religion is the wholly negative thing you make it out to be, and I despise the fanatic Atheists just as much as I despise the fanatic religionist.

Now, more to the point, first you argue for this 'greater good', we need to sacrifice the 'scums of the earth'. I have just as much contempt, if not greater contempt, for the Hoi Polloi, but, how is it to the 'greater good' that they be excluded from obtaining the gift of eternal youth? Certainly the most of them are vulgar, violent, crass, unintelligent, and despicable, but, how is it that it is to the happiness of the greatest that they should all be excluded and left to die out, while a selected few survive? Either you must allow that this 'greater good' is fictitious, as it only benefits a few 'kind and intelligent' people, and, even then, probably not to their happiness, or you must admit that your vision of the perfect world is simply an Atheistic version of the Nazi's wholly Aryan Europe.

I usually despise making comparison to Nazi Germany and Nazi Ideology because it usually shows a lack of empathy to the suffering of the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Gays, et cetera under that regime, however, I do think that the comparison here is apt, in that there is a distinct lack of empathy to those that, under this programme, who would be classified as 'inferior', and that this programme is designed specifically towards their elimination. It seeks to 'purify' the human race of elements it considers 'undesirable', reminiscent of the Eugenics movement, which sought to sterilise unintelligent people, which they included coons, chinks, spics, red necks, etc., a pseudo-science, today, rightly condemned.

But, I might be wrong, please clarify this 'Greater Good' that justify policies that most people would find abhorrent, including such snobs as myself.

You argue that some evils are necessary, such as WWII, where we fought against two undoubtedly evil Empires, the Japanese Empire and the Nazi Empire, which loss many lives, but was needed to curb their evilness- the roots of these Empires, however, can be traced to other evils that could have been eliminated or mollified through more peaceful means- the unequal treaties, imperialism, Great Depression, all that. It was only necessary because of previous, unnecessary evils.

The evils you state may be mollified, too, by improvement to education, both intellectual and moral- via wiser investments by the government.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/15/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:



At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).


I hope the world comes to an explosive end before that happens. Eternal life is a lot like socialism, it looks good on paper and it's only in a real life application involving the human factor that you realize it's a superbly bad idea.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/15/12

crazyfirefly wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).


I hope the world comes to an explosive end before that happens. Eternal life is a lot like socialism, it looks good on paper and it's only in a real life application involving the human factor that you realize it's a superbly bad idea.


Of course, not content to display your ignorance of science, you try to expand your area of incompetence by speaking of thing of which you know little of, Political Economy and Philosophy for example. The first claim, that Eternal Life is a superbly bad idea when you consider the human factor, is completely unfounded, and I would assume you know it, given that you give no reason for its being a bad idea. But, that is not the my main objection, my main objection is that you declare that 'Socialism is a superbly bad idea given the human factor', also unfounded, and directly contrary to the realities of the world. Let us first determine what Socialism is- Socialism is the idea that those that work should own the means of production, the logical extension of this is to allow workers make decisions all concerning their labour, and receive the full profit for their labour, rather have their labour controlled and exploited by others. In effect, it is the extension of the idea of Democracy to Economics- rather than a hierarchical model of small totalitarian and despotic regimes of Capitalism, we should, instead, embrace a more democratic approach to the management of business and to the workers under Socialism. This, of course, can be easily derided as 'Utopian', until you realise that this has actually been done, in several places, the Kibbutzim of Israel, the experiments in Nordic Europe, in Spain under the CNT during the Civil War and the Mondragon Corp. Having said all this, how does it feel to be intellectually flayed continually?
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/16/12 , edited 10/16/12

longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).


I hope the world comes to an explosive end before that happens. Eternal life is a lot like socialism, it looks good on paper and it's only in a real life application involving the human factor that you realize it's a superbly bad idea.


Of course, not content to display your ignorance of science, you try to expand your area of incompetence by speaking of thing of which you know little of, Political Economy and Philosophy for example. The first claim, that Eternal Life is a superbly bad idea when you consider the human factor, is completely unfounded, and I would assume you know it, given that you give no reason for its being a bad idea. But, that is not the my main objection, my main objection is that you declare that 'Socialism is a superbly bad idea given the human factor', also unfounded, and directly contrary to the realities of the world. Let us first determine what Socialism is- Socialism is the idea that those that work should own the means of production, the logical extension of this is to allow workers make decisions all concerning their labour, and receive the full profit for their labour, rather have their labour controlled and exploited by others. In effect, it is the extension of the idea of Democracy to Economics- rather than a hierarchical model of small totalitarian and despotic regimes of Capitalism, we should, instead, embrace a more democratic approach to the management of business and to the workers under Socialism. This, of course, can be easily derided as 'Utopian', until you realise that this has actually been done, in several places, the Kibbutzim of Israel, the experiments in Nordic Europe, in Spain under the CNT during the Civil War and the Mondragon Corp. Having said all this, how does it feel to be intellectually flayed continually?


Let us first determine what Socialism is- Socialism is the idea that those that work should own the means of production, the logical extension of this is to allow workers make decisions all concerning their labour, and receive the full profit for their labour, rather have their labour controlled and exploited by others.



Besides the fact that you refuse to spell the world labor correctly you somehow missed the definition of socialism. However I'll help you out so let's first start by taking a look at Webster.


The idea of socialism is appealing on paper because like you said it seems Utopian. There is a more even distribution of wealth, people have a set pay for whatever good or service they provide, so heart surgeon A doesn't make more than heart surgeon B. However as I also said it works till you add the human factor. When put into practice socialism eliminates competition leaving consumers with no choices and prices can be set by the government giving people no other options but to either pay the price or go without. Also financial incentives play an extremely small role or aren't even a factor and without incentives said worker A could be better at his job than worker B but be paid the same because they do the same job. Also given the human factor one can never practice "true" socialism because humanity by nature is self serving and by nature and is incapable of sacrificing the potential of self gain for "the common good."

So after once again you've dragged me into semantics. Well hell it really wasn't evens semantics because your definitions were utterly wrong so now I get to revisit my initial point. Eternal life is a lot like socialism because both seem beneficial to society on paper. Eternal life means an Eternal wealth of knowledge meaning wiser people, greater technological advances, and no sick or elderly all things that would benefit the existence of man as a whole. However humanity by nature is self serving and for the same reason socialism fails so would eternal life fail. The original OP mentioned standards or guidelines for obtaining eternal life. Who would set those guidelines? Also with Eternal life you could acquire eternal wealth and power. Given the numerous examples in history we can not assume that people given eternal life would use their time to benefit humanity instead of trying to dominate over it. Just like socialism you can try to hand eternal life to all but whoever is doing the handling is always in a position of power and more often than not power corrupts. The world is not filled with Dicletians and once someone has power they are not likely to relinquish it and then add eternal life and you have a recipe for disaster.
2898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/16/12 , edited 10/16/12


I don't think religion is wholly negative. It gives a lot of people hope for the future.
I do however not believe that that little amount of good weighs up for all the bad stuff that it brings with it, and so, I'd rather see it erased from existence.

Is it not obvious why I think it would be a good thing? Removing all the violent, despicable and vulgar people from existence, leaving only good and intelligent people left alive? How would that NOT be a good thing?
Obviously, it does not benefit the ones that are deemed "undesireables", but is it not the undesireables that keep pushing humanity backwards? Or at least slowing down our progress? I don't see how getting rid of that factor would be anything but good.

As for the comparison to the Nazi empire... well I can certainly see why you would compare it to that.
But remember that the nazis tried to purify the world via torture and murder. Not with just letting people live on their lives until they die naturally, which would be the case here.
It is indeed a programme designed to purify the human race of negative elements, but unlike those other cases, it would not be based on ethnicity, sexual orientation or the likes. But rather on intelligence, kindness and whatever other positive aspecs that one would want in society.

Indeed the evils of the Nazi Empire and the Japanese Empire stemmed from other evils that if taken care of, could've prevented the later evils.
But that didn't happen. And since one cannot reverse time, one has to deal with the situation as it is and try to find solutions to the current situation, rather than dwelling in hindsight.

The alternatives you speak of would of course be preferred, but seeing the way things are today, and with the gready nature of the world leaders, I actually find that alternative to be implausible. Especially since that would require a stable, equal worldwide economy, to get the desired results everywhere to accomplish the same goal.
In addition to this, unless we also start embracing the concept of designer-babies (which I do believe we should), new evils would be bred from the already repulsive evils that exist in our world today.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/16/12 , edited 10/16/12

crazyfirefly wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:



At one point in the future, mankind will most likely find a way to grant humans eternal life (note: not immortality, but eternal youth).


I hope the world comes to an explosive end before that happens. Eternal life is a lot like socialism, it looks good on paper and it's only in a real life application involving the human factor that you realize it's a superbly bad idea.


Of course, not content to display your ignorance of science, you try to expand your area of incompetence by speaking of thing of which you know little of, Political Economy and Philosophy for example. The first claim, that Eternal Life is a superbly bad idea when you consider the human factor, is completely unfounded, and I would assume you know it, given that you give no reason for its being a bad idea. But, that is not the my main objection, my main objection is that you declare that 'Socialism is a superbly bad idea given the human factor', also unfounded, and directly contrary to the realities of the world. Let us first determine what Socialism is- Socialism is the idea that those that work should own the means of production, the logical extension of this is to allow workers make decisions all concerning their labour, and receive the full profit for their labour, rather have their labour controlled and exploited by others. In effect, it is the extension of the idea of Democracy to Economics- rather than a hierarchical model of small totalitarian and despotic regimes of Capitalism, we should, instead, embrace a more democratic approach to the management of business and to the workers under Socialism. This, of course, can be easily derided as 'Utopian', until you realise that this has actually been done, in several places, the Kibbutzim of Israel, the experiments in Nordic Europe, in Spain under the CNT during the Civil War and the Mondragon Corp. Having said all this, how does it feel to be intellectually flayed continually?


Let us first determine what Socialism is- Socialism is the idea that those that work should own the means of production, the logical extension of this is to allow workers make decisions all concerning their labour, and receive the full profit for their labour, rather have their labour controlled and exploited by others.



Besides the fact that you refuse to spell the world labor correctly you somehow missed the definition of socialism. However I'll help you out so let's first start by taking a look at Webster.


First, let's get the pedantry out of the way (as much as I love pedantic quibbling). You state that I do not know the definition of Socialism and that I have spelt 'Labour' incorrectly, I shall deal with the second, less consequential charge first. If you had bothered to look at a dictionary, you would find that 'Labour' is actually the correct way to spell that word, and the Americanism 'Labor' is simply a corruption. It is as Ambrose Bierce would say, Labor 'is good American, but bad English.'

Like in our discussion of the word 'Emotion', you have failed to even read your own definition- First, it says 'any of the various economic and political theories advocating for collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of good'- that is a rephrase of what I have just said, that the means of production should belong to the workers. I have only said that the logical extension of that would be Workplace Democracy, where the distribution of labour, of pay, of all things of the workplace, is to be decided by the whole body of the Worker- hence 'collective'. You really love contradicting yourself don't you. Now, considering this, labour is not 'exploited' or 'controlled' because the decision of the workplace is based primarily on the wants of the workers themselves, who decide how they want to work and who, being owners of the means, receive full pay for the profit of their labour.

But, optimist that I am, maybe you may say something more intelligent after this-




System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (see utopian socialism). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, seeing socialism as a transition state between capitalism and communism, appropriated what they found useful in socialist movements to develop their “scientific socialism.” In the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the principal model of strictly centralized socialism, while Sweden and Denmark were well-known for their noncommunist socialism.

Pretty sure the phrase social control pretty much unhinges your idea that socialism isn't being under the control of others. Hell even in the case of Utopian Socialism you aren't working for yourself but rather the "common good of all" a standard that has to be determined by someone whom you would undoubtedly answer to.


No, because the people, most of whom are workers, are what makes up society- it is only 'socially controlled' in so far as the Workers are the one who controls it. Amazing, you lack even a basic knowledge of what 'social' means. You manage to skip over the whole discussion of workplace democracy, and decided to set up a strawman representing a position that I, and most Socialists, do not hold, that of a Statist Economy, like the Soviet State Capitalism. I have a feeling you aren't arguing with me anymore, and you are simply arguing with an imaginary opponent.


rather than a hierarchical model of small totalitarian and despotic regimes of Capitalism

Again what?????????????????? I'm gonna be honest here at this point I don't even have the heart to be mean because I believe your confused the two definitions for capitalism and socialism and have made a big enough ass out of yourself as it is and I don't want to add insult to injury. Now lets take a look at the Webster definition of capitalism.

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

This of course is the economic model we use in the US. We have competition, supply and demand, and consumer choice. We can buy what we want, when we want, and can be willing to pay what we want for such goods.


I'm going to honest here, and say that you do not have the intellectual competence to even read what I have just wrote. In a Capitalist and Corporate system, you have a hierarchical model, with those on top making all the decision for those below- as your definition aptly shows, viz. 'an economic system characterised by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investment that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.' In a capitalist system, the means of production are own by the Capitalist, rather than the workers. The workers lend themselves to the Capitalist to work in their factories, under his condition and direction, but, in return, they do not own the fruit of their labour, instead, they are paid for their labour. The Capitalist then takes this to sell- here, there is a fundamental inequality- the Capitalist must pay the worker less than what the object is worth in order to profit. If you want to criticise Statist Economy, then the US is a prefect example of Statism, we have used public money to loan to the Banks and other Industries that have failed and imploded, and we still are the largest owner of several private firms, clearly this would make America socialist by your own definition, 'A state controlled enterprise'.



In effect, it is the extension of the idea of Democracy to Economics- rather than a hierarchical model of small totalitarian and despotic regimes of Capitalism, we should, instead, embrace a more democratic approach to the management of business and to the workers under Socialism. /[blue]easily derided as 'Utopian', until you realise that this has actually been done, in several places, the Kibbutzim of Israel, the experiments in Nordic Europe, in Spain under the CNT during the Civil War and the Mondragon Corp.

Now you'll notice that part of your text is red and the other is blue. I'm not sure how but despite getting the idea behind socialism completely wrong you managed to argue my initial point for me. "Hierarchical of small totalitarian and despotic regimes of Capitalism." I have no idea where you got this unless your referring to a corporation or good or service that is dominated by said corporations to the extent that it is near impossible for a new company to provide good or service because they can not compete with the few corporations that control the market. (Example is the commercial airline industry.) However I digress. The purple is because I'm confused by,the examples you've given for socialism. How...I don't know...the soviet union managed to not show up on your radar as a prime example of failed socialism I'll never know. Now to get back to my initial point.


Now, you notice that there are colour abound above, but no sense below. I am not sure how you, despite your massive stupidity, managing to argue against something for which I have never argued or even said, proved yourself wrong with your own definition, and falsifying everything that does not conform to your reality, you still have the dignity to speak to your betters. Well, lass, after this, I hope you will retreat to your Liberal Arts coven to weep and speak no more until you have actually learned something. In fact, I believe that what we are discussing is within the domains of your 'Liberal Arts' rather than my Science. First, you have no idea what Capitalism is, despite living in one for, what I would guess, is your entire life. Capitalism is inherently totalitarian, and you manage to illustrate that perfectly- you have a private organisation organised in a model where people at the top who makes all the decision for those below. These people are not chosen by those below, they only view those below a convenient tools, like the machines, and their decision are divorced from the people who actually toil and labour. Secondly, I have argued for Work Place Democracy, and those examples are argument for Workplace Democracy. You were the one who brought Statist economy into this discussion, when I, clearly, never advocated for it, because it is so much simpler to attack a perceived position.



The idea of socialism is appealing on paper because like you said it seems Utopian. There is a more even distribution of wealth, people have a set pay for whatever good or service they provide, so heart surgeon A doesn't make more than heart surgeon B. However as I also said it works till you add the human factor. When put into practice socialism eliminates competition leaving consumers with no choices and prices can be set by the government giving people no other options but to either pay the price or go without. Also financial incentives play an extremely small role or aren't even a factor and without incentives said worker A could be better at his job than worker B but be paid the same because they do the same job. Also given the human factor one can never practice "true" socialism because humanity by nature is self serving and by nature and is incapable of sacrificing the potential of self gain for "the common good."







So after once again you've dragged me into semantics. Well hell it really wasn't evens semantics because your definitions were utterly wrong so now I get to revisit my initial point. Eternal life is a lot like socialism because both seem beneficial to society on paper. Eternal life means an Eternal wealth of knowledge meaning wiser people, greater technological advances, and no sick or elderly all things that would benefit the existence of man as a whole. However humanity by nature is self serving and for the same reason socialism fails so would eternal life fail. The original OP mentioned standards or guidelines for obtaining eternal life. Who would set those guidelines? Also with Eternal life you could acquire eternal wealth and power. Given the numerous examples in history we can not assume that people given eternal life would use their time to benefit humanity instead of trying to dominate over it. Just like socialism you can try to hand eternal life to all but whoever is doing the handling is always in a position of power and more often than not power corrupts. The world is not filled with Dicletians and once someone has power they are not likely to relinquish it and then add eternal life and you have a recipe for disaster.


You have once again shown that your intellect is feeble and unworthy of my consideration, if not for the vituperation, the opprobrious slandering, and the vast amount of inaccuracy and stupidity.

Eternal life is a lot like Socialism, you have no idea what either are or what they entail. First, those are already answered by the OP, the criteria of kindness and intellect are determined by the kind and wise. I have argued against that, but that is not the point. Secondly, you say that human nature is self-serving, which is an incomplete and incomprehensible philosophical position- where does altruism come from then? An unsatisfactory account of human nature is not enough to prove your point. Then, you ask, why shouldn't they dominate the rest of humanity? Well, in this case, they have, they are the immortal rulers of humanity who are selected based upon their intellect and their kindness- as I have said, I have argued against this, and but that is a discussion betwixt me and him, who are close enough in intellectual abilities to have an argument, rather my intellectual whipping, flaying of you- I am surprise you can still stand after that beating I gave you back in the Paedophila discussion! Secondly, when the rest of humanity perish, there will only be a community of equals, of immortal equals, who are not capable of dominating each other, therefore, they are forced into cooperation for the benefit of all. As I have said, I find this position problematic, but that is a discussion between your intellectual betters, and will fly across your head.

Which reminds me, how is School and Thirty Hours a Week coming along, that you have enough time to make a fool of yourself during the weekdays- and so lengthily too, my dear lover of simplicity?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.