22 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI can't imagine a more dystopian future than that. A society managed by computers. A society where we are not just the slaves of our technology in theory, but in complete fact. Pray tell, what role does humanity play in this vaunted society of yours?
there are modern concepts in development that given more thought can become workable systems. there is the venus project for example, still a long way from becoming viable system, it proposes a directed democracy communal society of high technology organized into self-sustained cities with resources managed by computers.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingetti think you've been watching too many sci-fi-horror movies. read a little isaac asimov instead. computers don't have to rule our lives any more than automated factories do now.
I can't imagine a more dystopian future than that. A society managed by computers. A society where we are not just the slaves of our technology in theory, but in complete fact. Pray tell, what role does humanity play in this vaunted society of yours?
you can read up on the concepts of the venus project here
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
it's a little eutopian, but i did mention that it needs work.
22 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIndeed. I don't expect a future garden of Eden, we are here to work and make the best of it.
Yea, I say unto you, divegeester, that it was the Garden of Eden. But we were expelled from that paradise and condemned to till the soil from which we were taken. And we suffer under that curse to this day.
Let's try to move on from mud huts and bartering with half a pig for bowl of corn; actually what you propose doesn't involve bartering as far as I can tell, because everybody jointly owns everything, don't they?
Tell you what, why don't we innovate and cultivate a universal drive to overcome poverty, leverage technology to feed the billions of open mouths, explore medicine and provide economic opportunity for those who wish to excel.
Your dream of a agricultural Eden where all the inhabitants of the earth share a common wealth isn't politics, it's a failed fairy tail where anarchy rules.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by divegeesterYou are correct, divegeester, it is not politics. It is the transcendence of politics. Verily I say unto you, it is what the Kingdom will look like.
Your dream of a agricultural Eden where all the inhabitants of the earth share a common wealth isn't politics, it's a failed fairy tail where anarchy rules.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobOur propensity for violence is the direct result of our alienation from the natural world. Your vaunted civilization was an unnatural imposition upon a species that had evolved over millions of years to live in small, nomadic groups that were fully immersed in the natural world. If you remove any species from its natural environment and place it into a foreign, stressful environment, then it will behave in a pathological manner. It's propensity for violence will increase.
Knowing our species huge propensity for violence i find that slightly hard to believe.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettOur propensity for violence is the direct result of our alienation from the natural world.
Our propensity for violence is the direct result of our alienation from the natural world. Your vaunted civilization was an unnatural imposition upon a species that had evolved over millions of years to live in small, nomadic groups that were fully immersed in the natural world. If you remove any species from its natural environment and place it into a fore ...[text shortened]... ment, then it will behave in a pathological manner. It's propensity for violence will increase.
I understand your argument, but i'm not buying it. Our propensity for violence has always been there, just look at chimpanzees. They still live in their natural world, yet violence between different communities is well documented and organised. The scientific evidence shows violence has been common throughout our history, have a look (it won't let me copy and text from the page) -
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3069229
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsno,
So we need a one world government, do we? A new world order?
although it might be nice to imagine a world where everyone gets along in one
big happy civilisation, I don't see it happening, or being desirable, any time this
millennium.
But we do have to cooperate and plan on a global scale.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingetthttp://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
I can't imagine a more dystopian future than that. A society managed by computers. A society where we are not just the slaves of our technology in theory, but in complete fact. Pray tell, what role does humanity play in this vaunted society of yours?
Have a gander at this.
It's a utopia so not necessarily possible, and of course you have to adjust for real
world physics, but as an aiming point.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI do not buy the argument that because chimpanzees exhibit violent behavior that it therefore means mankind is likewise violent by nature. As I have pointed out elsewhere, we are equally related to the bonobos, who are much more peaceful and less violent than chimpanzees. So which is our 'true' heritage? The violence of the chimpanzee, or the peacefulness of the bonobo? Or is it the case that the chimpanzee represents the little devil hovering over our one shoulder, while the bonobo represents the angel over the other? It has been suggested, by the way, that the violence observed in chimpanzee social groups is not their 'natural' behavior, but, rather, is a reaction to the mounting stresses of habitat loss and human encroachment.
[b]Our propensity for violence is the direct result of our alienation from the natural world.
I understand your argument, but i'm not buying it. Our propensity for violence has always been there, just look at chimpanzees. They still live in their natural world, yet violence between different communities is well documented and organised. The scient ...[text shortened]... ave a look (it won't let me copy and text from the page) -
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3069229[/b]
But I do not accept that there is any such thing as 'human nature' that predisposes us toward one set of behavior or another. Violent behavior is culturally learned and is not intrinsic. Raise someone in a peaceful and cooperative environment and he will behave peacefully. Raise someone in a violent and competitive environment and he will behave violently. One need only look at the Amish and Hutterite communities to see this in action. There has been only one homicide in their entire history. One. If it were 'human nature' to bump each other off with a certain regularity, then this would inevitably manifest itself equally in Amish/Hutterite society. But it doesn't. We can arrange our social environment to promote one set of behavior, or we can arrange it promote another.
But, again, I reiterate my point that in hunter-gatherer societies there was no organized violence. There were certainly personal quarrels, but there was no warfare with one social group pitted against another.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThanks for the link for that.
i think you've been watching too many sci-fi-horror movies. read a little isaac asimov instead. computers don't have to rule our lives any more than automated factories do now.
you can read up on the concepts of the venus project here
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
it's a little eutopian, but i did mention that it needs work.
I agree it needs work, I can see areas for improvement, for example he has beautiful
symmetrical cities, which look pretty but are highly inefficient for moving stuff around.
He needs to take fractals and Chaos theory into account to design his structures, in the
same way that nature and evolution have do optimise his designs.
He also needs to add fusion to his list of power sources.
Also I think the one world utopia is a pipe dream... it might be possible someday, but I don't
see it happening any time remotely soon, certainly not soon enough.
However there are a lot of ideas there that could be implemented nationally without having to
wait for a global consensus you are never going to get.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettexperiments have been done that show that bonobos are violent if living in areas
I do not buy the argument that because chimpanzees exhibit violent behavior that it therefore means mankind is likewise violent by nature. As I have pointed out elsewhere, we are equally related to the bonobos, who are much more peaceful and less violent than chimpanzees. So which is our 'true' heritage? The violence of the chimpanzee, or the peacefulness o ...[text shortened]... rsonal quarrels, but there was no warfare with one social group pitted against another.
without the huge over-abundance of food, of there natural habitat.
and that chimps living in with the bonobos and without having to hunt for food
are much less violent.
And there is lots of evidence that suggests that hunter gatherer tribes did come into
conflict with each other and also with the Neanderthals whom they pushed to extinction.
Very peaceful... they committed speciside.
Also, violence is violence. If someone clubs you to death it doesn't really matter if they were
organised or not.
Nowadays we have far far less violence than we used to in the past.
22 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeLess violence? Really? Did the 56 million people killed in WWII die due to our less violent behavior? What was Auschwitz? Mass violence enabled by technology. It has been said that the 20th century was the most violent in all of human history. The 21st isn't shaping up to be much better.
experiments have been done that show that bonobos are violent if living in areas
without the huge over-abundance of food, of there natural habitat.
and that chimps living in with the bonobos and without having to hunt for food
are much less violent.
And there is lots of evidence that suggests that hunter gatherer tribes did come into
conflict with ...[text shortened]... were
organised or not.
Nowadays we have far far less violence than we used to in the past.
The industrial way of life leads to the industrial way of death. From Shiloh to Dachau, from Antietam to Stalingrad, from Hiroshima to Vietnam and Afghanistan, the great specialty of industry and technology has been the mass production of human corpses.
— Edward Abbey
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWell how are you measuring?
Less violence? Really? Did the 56 million people killed in WWII die due to our less violent behavior? What was Auschwitz? Mass violence enabled by technology. It has been said that the 20th century was the most violent in all of human history. The 21st isn't shaping up to be much better.
The industrial way of life leads to the industrial way of death ...[text shortened]... industry and technology has been the mass production of human corpses.
— Edward Abbey
There are vastly more people in the 20th century.
The only meaning full way of measuring violence levels is in per capita terms.
EDIT: Also look at some of the genocides in africa where the only available
technology is the machete... The massacre wasn't enabled by technology.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Sep 11
1 edit
@ rwingett
ok, So you postulate a Hutterite society, as the thing we should be aiming for.
Lets say your dream comes real, lets look at (for example) the USA.
The USA is now covered in a patchwork of farming communities who have somehow
peacefully allocated the viable farming land equally amongst the population.
Now set off the Yellowstone super volcano.
Half the country has now become (at least temporarily ie several years minimum) uninhabitable,
and the other half (along with much of the northern hemisphere) has major
crop failures.
How does your society cope or fare?
The land area currently called the USA would no longer be able to sustain the population living
on it.
Are the excess people supposed to just die?
How does the rest of the world cope with the massive crop failures?
Do they all just pray to god because they don't understand what is happening and just slowly
stave to death?
How do you stop people who don't want to just die, from fighting over the remaining food
and growing area?
How do you make it work with how people are, not how you wish they would be?