218 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravenshrike]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bio-Boy 3000 wrote...

If I created a poll right now asking, "What fruit do you prefer, apple or orange?" and one person answered different either or, than a perfect society could not exist. Simple.

now this. this is a text book example of a fallacy.

Horse****. Diversity creates friction. Friction creates tension. Tension creates violent events. The ONLY way to change that is to make humans not human.

[the_one_54321]

you're not following the line of reasoning of the original post.



and the two of you are speaking in absolutes that are not supportable. there is no way that you can objectively claim that people are incapable of change for the better. so long as they are capable of improvement one can argue that they are capable of reaching a level of cognizant reasoning that allow them to choose to not be violent or hurtful as a result of diversity.



your line of reasoning is a fallacy because it assumes that change is not possible. the assumption that change is not possible is false by precedent. therefore change is possible, however improbable, and the conclusion you reach is not supported by the line of reasoning presented.



humans will inherently disagree on trivial things =/=> humans are incapable of ever coexisting peacefully.

[the_one_54321]

wrexingcrew wrote...
So for me, question 1: at what point does it become sufficiently painless for wealthy societies to address resource distribution issues, thus bringing us to Maria's initial premise? I'm a bit surprised by the dearth of technoprogressivist perspectives here.* If anything, the prevailing attitude in the thread seems to be that technology is irrelevant to the creation of a perfect society. I'm not sure I agree. I doubt that technological advancement could solve all of our problems, but reducing the obstacles to resource-gathering and distribution makes Maria's premise much easier to arrive at. We could eradicate any number of social ills now by devoting sufficient resources, yes, but a less daunting cost for the privileged builds political will for taking those steps. I think technology has moved us or is close to moving us beyond the Malthusian catastrophe scenario (population growth putting an unsustainable strain on resources, or economic growth in later formulations). If the skepticism relates to technology's role beyond establishing Maria's premise, I understand.

this is a highly supportable view point. it's not one that anyone could claim is the objective solution, but history has taught us that advancement in technology leads to the ability to provide necessities to proportionately more people and a proportionately more reliable rate.

keeping in mind that "war of resources" has been historically one of the single largest causes of conflict among societies, the ability of technology to create constantly increasing supply of resources would suggest that conflict will decrease in a proportionate manner. though one must take heed of the effect of the other large cause of conflict between societies. namely: the inability of the average person to actively choose peace and cooperation over violence and domination.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 21 octobre 2009 - 05:47 .

[Mordaedil]

This is so silly. Of course a perfect society can exist. I've lived in one. It just depends on how far-reaching you want this perfection to go. Family? Individual preference? Or maybe an entirey city or nation of people?

Well, if you're going on a bit scale, the observation is pretty obvious. But to get there now would require a lot of killing. Especially of those who disagree with this. They are just bound to cause havoc just because of their sense of humanity.

Of course, I could say that in 1,000 years, this wouldn't be a problem for mankind anymore and I'd pretty much be right; mostly because mankind wouldn't exist anymore, at least not in the form we know it as now.

Will we evolve? Will we devolve? What is exciting about that question is that we're finding that out, right now! Mankind is currently tampering with their own fate and it'll be but a few years before we can start to see a new path being forged.

Of course, there are still dissients who will keep post-poning this process. They've done that since the middle-ages. But in this age of the Information Network, we're a bit better armed against such miscreants. Most of the people in dissent do not even realize they are tampering with reality.

That said, feel free to post your disagreement with me here. It will make it easier to identify you in the future.

Ooooh yes, lots of killing.

[Ravenshrike]

Individuals can sometimes change. However, given that not all individuals can change, a perfect society is an impossibility when composed of ****** Sapien Sapien.

[Mordaedil]

Ravenshrike wrote...

Individuals can sometimes change. However, given that not all individuals can change, a perfect society is an impossibility when composed of ****** Sapien Sapien.

This is true. Too many minds getting bent out of shape over minor misconceptions of slight.

It's really quite silly, all of it.

[Alexandus]

The concept of a perfect society is flawed in and of itself.



Perfection is a human preconception, it is an ideal not a state of being, whether you are talking about a person, a company, a family, or a society.



It is my humble opinion that it is the society that has the constant drive for self-improvement, the drive for the ideal of perfection, which is greatest. Evolution. Anything that stops improving starts to slide slowly backward into stagnation and ultimately Entropy.



What is required for such a society? A good balance between Order and Chaos. Enough Order to assure that people do not murder and steal, and to protect the nation. Enough Chaos to foster competition and opportunity.



The ideal traits for the individuals of that society:

-Above all, a passion and drive for self-improvement. If this is achieved, all else follows.

-A sense of personal responsiblity.

-A sense of enlightened self-interest.

-Creativity

-A deep understanding of causal reasoning that is applied to one's life.

-A syntropic code of ethics.

[Calibisto]

BioShock anyone?


It has been said by many people before, but I find Maria’s question difficult as most people have a different view of a perfect society. Ask a Strong religious person this question and his view of perfection would be very different than an Atheist.

So I’m setting some lines to guide my thoughts:
1. There is enough resources so even the biggest screwup with 2 left hands can have food and shelter.
2. It isn’t a communist/socialist society, so there are going to be people whom have more than others.
3. It actually comes closer to a Capitalist society. I.e. If someone whom isn’t smart enough to fully understand a contract and is thereby tricked into paying too much then it is his own fault. He should not have signed something he didn’t understand or hired someone whom did.
4. Violence is not accepted in a perfect society.


Then it is possible, but humans need centuries in a “secure, near perfect society” to overcome our instincts. It is said before but humans are still animals. We’re a long way from transcending our instincts. All we do comes from our needs for food/shelter/reproduction. Being the top dog, the Alpha male/female. Now as Maria said earlier conflict isn’t bad (it creates challenges, to which we may respond with creativity or perseverance), but humans tend to resolve conflicts with violence.

So until we can control our aggression and resolve conflicts without violence an perfect society is not available. In my opinion that might take years in a secure society. A society whom realizes that they no longer have to fight for food/shelter might eventually abandon violence against its members.


But you might also say we already have a perfect society. Accept violence as human nature then you might reason society is perfect. We have to fight for what we want and to keep what we have. We can find conflict with each other and our environment. Just a different view on perfect.

[Nighteye2]

Amberyl Ravenclaw wrote...

i am sure that the multitude of people who have to endure the suffering as a result of that path would disagree with you.

Even suffering serves its purpose. You cannot see light without darkness. Knowing what it is to suffer makes it easier to be happy, easier to appreciate what you have when you have it.

Sorry, that sounds an awful lot like the argument for the "spiritual goodness of poverty" to me. I can't help but think that those who evoke this sort of argument for the most are looking on the situation from a distance, and not putting themselves directly in the shoes of people who are having to live in constant deprivation, pain, fear, and suffering that they had never wished upon themselves in the first place. While there may be some educational value in there, it sometimes seems to be that some people (not you, Nighteye2) can have the gall to adopt a holier-than-thou approach which trivializes and glamorizes a problem that has the potential of diverting intention away from the task of actually fixing it. Just my brief two cents.

If the suffering persists, it quickly loses it's educational value. People who trivialise it like youd escribe haven't suffered enough.

But poverty doesn't need to result in suffering. There are many people who are very happy living a very simple life, for example as a farmer. They can even be happier than a bored millionaire who doesn't know what to do with all his money, who is always dissatisfied wanting to have more.

If you have experienced poverty in the past, you can be happy when you have enough - instead of being unhappy because you want more, despite having enough.

[soteria]

the_one_54321 wrote...

you're not following the line of reasoning of the original post.

and the two of you are speaking in absolutes that are not supportable. there is no way that you can objectively claim that people are incapable of change for the better. so long as they are capable of improvement one can argue that they are capable of reaching a level of cognizant reasoning that allow them to choose to not be violent or hurtful as a result of diversity.

your line of reasoning is a fallacy because it assumes that change is not possible. the assumption that change is not possible is false by precedent. therefore change is possible, however improbable, and the conclusion you reach is not supported by the line of reasoning presented.

humans will inherently disagree on trivial things =/=> humans are incapable of ever coexisting peacefully.

Just because you disagree with the premise (humans as a species are incapable of significant change for the better) doesn't make it a fallacy.  For it to be a fallacy you would have to demonstrate that the basis for thinking so is invalid--I don't know about the person you responded to, but I base that off however many years of written human history to show that we haven't changed for the better.

People were saying the same things you're saying now 100 years ago--war is an anachronism, we've improved, etc.  Then after WWI, they said, "Well, we got THAT out of the way, that was The Great War, and there will never be another like it." When you suggest that the human race is done with large-scale conflict, I can only point out that you aren't the first to think so and be proven wrong.

[Mordaedil]

soteria wrote...

People were saying the same things you're saying now 100 years ago--war is an anachronism, we've improved, etc.  Then after WWI, they said, "Well, we got THAT out of the way, that was The Great War, and there will never be another like it." When you suggest that the human race is done with large-scale conflict, I can only point out that you aren't the first to think so and be proven wrong.

True. So many people are resistant to throwing down their false idols and accept unity as the only way forward, it's kind of disappointing. The answer to world peace is obvious, yet everyone seems to think themselves so important their free will must be sacred, as well as their beliefs. And idols appear in more ways than just in the form of a Golden Calf, but I guess people can't learn these lessons.

It is so bad that the *easiest* way to solve it in the next few years would be to have the second savior appear.

That might happen, but I have my doubts, especially with faith as frail as human idiocy.

As said, the answer is obvious. Just as obvious as making communism work.

[the_one_54321]

[quote]soteria wrote...
Just because you disagree with the premise (humans as a species are incapable of significant change for the better) doesn't make it a fallacy.  For it to be a fallacy you would have to demonstrate that the basis for thinking so is invalid--I don't know about the person you responded to, but I base that off however many years of written human history to show that we haven't changed for the better.

People were saying the same things you're saying now 100 years ago--war is an anachronism, we've improved, etc.  Then after WWI, they said, "Well, we got THAT out of the way, that was The Great War, and there will never be another like it." When you suggest that the human race is done with large-scale conflict, I can only point out that you aren't the first to think so and be proven wrong.
[/quote]
[/quote]
it's not that i disagree it's that you're just wrong. the existence of some lack of improvement does not negate the existence of the improvement that has occurred. i usually try not to use phrases like “you’re wrong,” but in this instance that really is the case. you’re just wrong. improvement has occurred, and that by itself is enough to make those claims fallacies.

do not mistake the concept of improvement with the concept of reaching perfection. just because we have managed to improve does not mean that we should have also managed to become a perfect society. it is, and shall for the time being remain to be, an ongoing process. we are improving, but we have not yet become perfect, and we likely will not within any of our lifetimes.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 21 octobre 2009 - 02:28 .

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

it's not that i disagree it's that you're just wrong. the existence of some lack of improvement does not negate the existence of the improvement that has occurred. i usually try not to use phrases like “you’re wrong,” but in this instance that really is the case. you’re just wrong. improvement has occurred, and that by itself is enough to make those claims fallacies.

do not mistake the concept of improvement with the concept of reaching perfection. just because we have managed to improve does not mean that we should have also managed to become a perfect society. it is, and shall for the time being remain to be, an ongoing process.

Hmm... how do you separate the improvement of humans versus the improvement of human societies? While I would agree that our societies have improved (or at least changed), I do not see much change in, for a lack of a better term, human nature.

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

it's not that i disagree it's that you're just wrong. the existence of some lack of improvement does not negate the existence of the improvement that has occurred. i usually try not to use phrases like “you’re wrong,” but in this instance that really is the case. you’re just wrong. improvement has occurred, and that by itself is enough to make those claims fallacies.

do not mistake the concept of improvement with the concept of reaching perfection. just because we have managed to improve does not mean that we should have also managed to become a perfect society. it is, and shall for the time being remain to be, an ongoing process.

Hmm... how do you separate the improvement of humans versus the improvement of human societies? While I would agree that our societies have improved (or at least changed), I do not see much change in, for a lack of a better term, human nature.

the gradual spread of the recognition of every human to live a comfortable happy life signifies improvement in the human society. we havent gotten there yet. but there has been advancement on that front.

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

(...)

the gradual spread of the recognition of every human to live a comfortable happy life signifies improvement in the human society. we havent gotten there yet. but there has been advancement on that front.

Umm... sorry but I do not understand. What does it mean "recognition of every human to live a comfortable happy life"?

[BoomWav]

In fact, it's possible and we're closer to it than we think. According to Ray Kurzweil (lead futurist and inventor), the world will change more than we think in the next 35 years.

The more you think about it, the more it makes sense. We're adopting new technology at a greater rate than ever before. New technology groundbreaking technology appear monthly, even weekly! We're already have some problem following the trends as I write this.

Information is also being shared at a speed we've never seen before. The Internet is relatively and is now completely changing how studies are being held and how technology is being shared. According to him, health will also take the path of information and soon, we'll be able to completely control our bodies with our technology. There's 3 important parts to future technology.

Biotechnology
Here, we edit our body at a molecular level. At this very moment, we're really prolific in this area. Cancer is being fought better than ever before and we're discovering new stuff every weeks. In Vitro meat was produced before. Using some cell-cloning technique, we could grow meat inexpensively in labs. The meat would not necessitate animal harm and could potentially be a way to feed the whole world.

Nanotechnology
The progress here is a bit slower. It's still there and the possibility here are endless. Nano-construction could let us build ore and material from any junk out there. It would be inexpensive and would gives us infinite ressources. It would also have health benefit. Using nanotechnology, we could become immortal (except of accidents of course). Nanorobots could be in your bloodstream, replacing or helping white cells do their job. They could nurtur all your cells so that they continue reproducing endlessly. There's no proof yet that suppose the human body have a limit to aging. The fact is we could not only stop physical aging but also biological aging so that you stay 30, all your life. There's also no proof that we couldn't reverse aging this way either. Nanorobots could also control every function of the body. We could, eventually, remove completely the necessity to eat. Nanorobots could have a way to nourish on patch on the body or from the environnment itself. We could also remove the necessity to breath and even the necessity to pump blood in our vein. Nanorobots could also be used for full virtual reality. Nesting in the brain capillary, they could hijack your senses completely. You would live completely in a virtual world. You could move using the same brain signal you used when you moved in reality. Technically, it would be the perfect simulation.

In fact, that's one of my main reason why I think the perfect society is possible.

Robotic
Using progress in neurotechnology, we'll soon be able to recreate a model of the brain in a computer. Near 2045, computers will match the speed of the human brain. Technically, it would be possible to completely simulate the model and therefore obtain a virtual intelligence, just like us. The idea here is that this kind of intelligence is borderless. Our own brain is limited in size and by evolution. The simulated one however, is not. We could, eventually, start engineering it and make it better than us. At this point, we could potentially give it the task of making it-self better. This would be the last of our invention. In a few years, the intelligence would become more intelligent than we can now imagine. Technology will not be discovered in weeks or days but in minutes. It'll be impossible for us to keep up. Unenhanced us. The technological revolution is already changing how we see the world. In the last 20 years, the live changed drastically. In the comming years, technology will arrive that will completely change us. We will gradually merge with our technology. By 2045, we'll have merge to the point where the difference between us and our technology will become negligeable. We'll have a complete virtual reality where anything we've ever dreamed of is free. Using nanotechnology, we'll be able to control our body in any detail. The body itself will become an art piece. A control of everything at a molecular level makes it possible to completely alter the body apparence and function. Food will be either useless or free.

Will there be another world war? Probably. Ludite and fundamentalist will clearly fail to see the good behind the progression of the technology. Once we start merging more and more with our technology, they will see their downfall and some of them will do anything to stop it. The UNABOMBER has seen it before and was clearly against it.

All this is called, the Singularity. If you are interested in reading more about it or if you're curious about the subject, I suggest you read the book "The Singularity is Near." by Ray Kurzweil. If you're unsure, I suggest you search wikipedia. The Ray Kurzweil preditions page is really detailed. Personally, I think it's an incredible read and it changed my view of the world and society.

I will stop now because I could probably speak about this all day long. If you want to know more, you can Message me.

Modifié par BoomWav, 21 octobre 2009 - 02:51 .

[soteria]

it's not that i disagree it's that you're just wrong. the existence of some lack of improvement does not negate the existence of the improvement that has occurred. i usually try not to use phrases like “you’re wrong,” but in this instance that really is the case. you’re just wrong. improvement has occurred, and that by itself is enough to make those claims fallacies.

do not mistake the concept of improvement with the concept of reaching perfection. just because we have managed to improve does not mean that we should have also managed to become a perfect society. it is, and shall for the time being remain to be, an ongoing process. we are improving, but we have not yet become perfect, and we likely will not within any of our lifetimes.

Ok, repeating yourself doesn't do anything for the discussion either.  I said that I haven't seen any evidence of improvement to mankind in recorded history.  I conclude that if improvement hasn't happened in the past then it won't happen in the future.  Saying "you're wrong" is perfectly acceptable in a discussion, but not the way you did it here.  All you told me is that you disagree with me, which I already knew.  For you to support your claim that I'm "just wrong" you need to provide some sort of tangible evidence that humans *have* improved within recorded history. 

You keep on saying "we're improving."  I'm saying "I see no evidence of it," and provided an example of a way humanity has not improved. If your best response is, "well, you're just wrong," then I guess we're done here.

Modifié par soteria, 21 octobre 2009 - 03:19 .

[Christoph Gasser]

You keep on saying "we're improving."  I'm saying "I see no evidence of it."  If your best response is, "well, you're just wrong," then I guess we're done here.

I guess the question is what you regard as improvement. This is rather subjective. Societies have certainly constantly changed over the course of history. In my opinion some have improved by e.g. adopting human rights, get rid of slavery, improving womens rigths...

[Red Viking]

I don't think it's possible to have a perfect society mainly because humans are individuals with different ideas on what a perfect society is. People are always going to disagree with how they think things should be run.  Take a look at this thread, for example.  There are a lot of different opinions here.

That said, if the society is small enough, you may get some consensus and people meeting each other half-way, but that still doesn't make a perfect society because not everyone is in total agreement.

Modifié par Red Viking, 21 octobre 2009 - 04:57 .

[soteria]

Christoph Gasser wrote...

You keep on saying "we're improving."  I'm saying "I see no evidence of it."  If your best response is, "well, you're just wrong," then I guess we're done here.

I guess the question is what you regard as improvement. This is rather subjective. Societies have certainly constantly changed over the course of history. In my opinion some have improved by e.g. adopting human rights, get rid of slavery, improving womens rigths...

That's a really good point.  I'm not editing my post, but I'd like to correct myself, or perhaps clarify:  Some modern societal institutions are an improvement over what has gone in the past.  Human nature has not changed.  This is perhaps a topic for a different discussion, but I'd argue that a lot of what people view as improvements to society are really just improvements to the technology that supports society--the people haven't really changed.

[Punahedan]

the_one_54321 wrote...


the insatiability of human curiosity would be enough to drive inovation.

That was my point. And innovation brings conflict because not everyone will agree on one way to approach something.

Edit: Quotes are so tempermental on this forum.

Modifié par Hawkeyed Cai Li, 21 octobre 2009 - 06:06 .

[Ravenshrike]

grregg wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

(...)

the gradual spread of the recognition of every human to live a comfortable happy life signifies improvement in the human society. we havent gotten there yet. but there has been advancement on that front.

Umm... sorry but I do not understand. What does it mean "recognition of every human to live a comfortable happy life"?

It means his worldview is heavily influenced by Kantian philosophy and so arguing with him over the matter is useless.