Debates
29 Jan 06
05 Feb 06
Hey, Mike: Has this storyline been done? Probably, but here goes:
Silicon takes over, considering it has an IQ of over 1,000
or better collectively so it can see any feeble human attempts at a
takeover, you know, ala viruses, trojans, and the like the hackers
are so fond of. So realizing this, the human illumintati goes under
ground and starts a breeding program to increase the intelligence
level of at least a small group of humans to exceed the IQ of
silicon. Do they succeed or does the silcon overlord know about the
attempt from the start and just allow them to have their doomed fun?
05 Feb 06
1 edit
It has been questioned why Communism/Socialism seems to invite the dregs of power-trippers to the table. This goes back to my original query, that the evil nature of man guarantees that neither of these systems will ever work.
When any group of people approach societal contructs with a large degree of naivete toward the nature of man, they are left with despots ruling them.
Not Mike
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by AmauroteYeah, collectivising all the leopard skins possible! I was pointing out
Lions or lion? If anything, you seem to be advancing the case for leonine collectivism.
our heritage is as they say, '' survival of the fittest" which makes
us fundamentally contentious and competitive which is not in any way
evil, just what it is and communism cannot come to terms with that
issue.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree, pure communism was always destined to fail imo.
Yeah, collectivising all the leopard skins possible! I was pointing out
our heritage is as they say, '' survival of the fittest" which makes
us fundamentally contentious and competitive which is not in any way
evil, just what it is and communism cannot come to terms with that
issue.
You cannot have a doctor getting paid the same as a chimney sweep and for the doctor to be happy with the situation.
Wheres the incentive for doing 8 years study and working long hours if you are going to be on the same wage scale as everyone else anyway.
Okay, maybe a doctor isn't a good idea as theres a certain amount of job satisfaction, how about a high risk job like a miner.
Pay should reflect the intelligence, hard work and personal risk necessary to perform a job.
However, capitalism unfettered also stinks.. Environment gets eated up, air polluted, rich get richer, poor left to rot in shitty trailer parks..
The best balance is where theres a trustable government who has high taxes, free education for all (get pple out of the gutter/trailer park), decent healthcare and also helps out the impovrished, whichout letting them sit on their a-holes all day doing nathin for free..
Social Democracy anyone?
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by dk3nnyOne problem with that agenda is the huge cost of health care in
I agree, pure communism was always destined to fail imo.
You cannot have a doctor getting paid the same as a chimney sweep and for the doctor to be happy with the situation.
Wheres the incentive for doing 8 years study and working long hours if you are going to be on the same wage scale as everyone else anyway.
Okay, maybe a doctor isn't a good idea as ...[text shortened]... out letting them sit on their a-holes all day doing nathin for free..
Social Democracy anyone?
our century. That problem is killing most of the social democratic
societies. Here in america its almost a trillion dollar industry.
That comes out to over $3,000 per person. That is a pretty large
order for some countries, say one with 50 million people thats still
150 billion bucks a year. That is going to bankrupt some of these
countries if they try. So 5 million people, 15 billion. That would have
to be a large portion of the GNP of such a country.
06 Feb 06
Originally posted by sonhouseWell hopefully with a responsible government, people's diets would improve. Tax breaks for health foods, and incentives for business people to not only pollute less, but also to provide healthier foods would go a long, long way to cutting the health expenditure.
One problem with that agenda is the huge cost of health care in
our century. That problem is killing most of the social democratic
societies. Here in america its almost a trillion dollar industry.
That comes out to over $3,000 per person. That is a pretty large
order for some countries, say one with 50 million people thats still
150 billion bucks a yea ...[text shortened]... million people, 15 billion. That would have
to be a large portion of the GNP of such a country.
As things stand now, sick people are big business in the u.s. especially, but also in the countries which are following the lead, so the governments have no incentive to try to get people healthier.
D
06 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThen maybe the government should take a leaf from Cubas book on that one..
One problem with that agenda is the huge cost of health care in
our century. That problem is killing most of the social democratic
societies. Here in america its almost a trillion dollar industry.
That comes out to over $3,000 per person. That is a pretty large
order for some countries, say one with 50 million people thats still
150 billion bucks a yea ...[text shortened]... million people, 15 billion. That would have
to be a large portion of the GNP of such a country.
Subsidise and encourage the training of more doctors..
That and put a cap on the price paid for certain essential drugs that are costing an arm and a leg. In many cases the government is actually developing these drugs themselves and then giving the patent to pharma companies to milk..
I'll find a link on that one if you give me some time..
06 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWhich is fine so far as it goes, but what I was getting (maybe too obliquely) at is this: lions is a plural, and of course implies packs, which is something you would be quite right to imply, because it reflects the truth - that lions cooperate to hunt for the sake of their common good. If our heritage is nature red in tooth and claw, as you claim, I suspect it's red in more than one sense of the word.
Yeah, collectivising all the leopard skins possible! I was pointing out
our heritage is as they say, '' survival of the fittest" which makes
us fundamentally contentious and competitive which is not in any way
evil, just what it is and communism cannot come to terms with that
issue.
07 Feb 06
Originally posted by AmauroteJust look at the danish embassies....all that co-operative effort.
Which is fine so far as it goes, but what I was getting (maybe too obliquely) at is this: lions is a plural, and of course implies packs, which is something you would be quite right to imply, because it reflects the truth - that lions cooperate to hunt for the sake of their common good. If our heritage is nature red in tooth and claw, as you claim, I suspect it's red in more than one sense of the word.
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by RedmikeAnd you think this is news? I have already stated that "Communism" and "Anarchy" are the same thing. Ideally, both end with the total destruction of any and all government, and the masses united in TOTAL EQUALITY -- ruling themselves for the benefit of all and the detriment of none. Why the hell did you think I said you are a "much better person than me" because you really think this is a good thing?
I'm not sure whether its worth my replying.
You seem content to post what you think I think, and then proceed to criticise what you think I think.
Isn't this something you can do on your own? (I'm sure your used to many different solitary activities).
One fundamental fact you need to understand about communism - while the state exists, there is no communism.
I am a bad person compared to you because I want everyone to have to strive to survive and know the joys of failure and success that THEY CREATE by their efforts.
Maybe if your dream of total equality every comes about, ALL people can share the feeling of success that eliminating all poverty and strife MAY bring. But maybe we will all just feel like Winston Smith.
The problem with you Mike is that I have to just guess your level of understanding of communism because you never have stated your degree of "involvement" in the movement. For all I know you are just an amateur provocateur.
I don't expect you to get too technical, based on your past posts. About all I can do is estimate your "enemies list" based on posts.
Your number one enemy seems to be "Anything American" then "Anything not socialist" and then to lesser degrees -- anything that doesn't fit into your vision... whatever that is. I have no clue what you believe. Do you?
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by sonhouseSo your saying that it will be better to be ruled by a single machine intelligence with an IQ of a thousand than the current system of being ruled by six hundred humans with a cumulative IQ of 1000?
Hey, Mike: Has this storyline been done? Probably, but here goes:
Silicon takes over, considering it has an IQ of over 1,000
or better collectively so it can see any feeble human attempts at a
takeover, you know, ala viruses, trojans, and the like the hackers
are so fond of. So realizing this, the human illumintati goes under
ground and starts a breed ...[text shortened]... on overlord know about the
attempt from the start and just allow them to have their doomed fun?
I don't know. Seems like "we the people" are pretty happy having inept fools in charge. Why else does the human populace always vote in the least intelligent and least able of us all?
But what the hell. Can't get any worse than it is. I would go a step further and have the machine nuke every university on earth so that we can get back to actually learning and advancing instead of learning how to advance.
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou get a Rec. Well said.
It has been questioned why Communism/Socialism seems to invite the dregs of power-trippers to the table. This goes back to my original query, that the evil nature of man guarantees that neither of these systems will ever work.
When any group of people approach societal contructs with a large degree of naivete toward the nature of man, they are left with despots ruling them.
Not Mike