218 réponses à ce sujet

[dragoager]

HeathenKing wrote...
 For example, no utopian society could exist in which both Sarah Palin and Richard Dawkins could both live peacefully.

Maybe society just needs a great big ignore button

Modifié par dragoager, 22 octobre 2009 - 10:23 .

[Panderfringe]

Given Maria's qualifications for a perfect society, it already would be perfect.

[Dahn-Var Starcloak]

Christoph Gasser wrote...

The problem is that computers are unable to find new solutions and to address new problems. They are just able to do what they were programmed to do. Therefore, humans are superior to computers in the area of problem solving if a new problem arises or new knowledge is available.

I can't argue with that- computers are essentially dumb as a rock. However, for performing routine tasks such as administration, logistics, distribution of goods etc, it is not required to have some state-of-the-art AI, which may or may not become available some day. Also, it really would require constant updating with new knowledge. 

[BluesMan1956]

Red Viking wrote...
Everyone can and would want to make a perfect society because that's what everyone wants, but everyone has a different idea of what a perfect society should be.

EXACTLY! 
You have hit the nail on the head!  So much of this topic is pointless on whether or not man can be perfectly empathic with every other human being in society.

Face it, it ain't gonna happen.  Once old enough to have gleaned more experience with human nature, the realization that  this is true and takes hold.   No amount of hopeful, altruistic optimism is going to change that.

'nuff said

(now waiting for the blowback from this flaming post to PROVE MY POINT!!!!)

Modifié par BluesMan1956, 23 octobre 2009 - 02:06 .

[Panderfringe]

BluesMan1956 wrote...

Face it, kiddies.  It ain't gonna happen.  Once you learn more about human nature, you will realize this is true and no amount of hopeful, altruistic optimism is going to change that.

Except if we go by what's in the OP, we've already got unlimited resources which would remove the issue of the Haves vs Have-Nots, essentially removing a substantial reason for conflict, if not removing conflict altogether.

EDIT: Sorry I didn't live up to your expectations of hostility.

Modifié par Panderfringe, 23 octobre 2009 - 02:09 .

[Panderfringe]

Feraele wrote...

Exactly..and with everyone thinking that THEIR idea of a perfect society is the best one, it would never come to fruition because they'd be too busy arguing about it. hehehehe

Except, like I said before, if we go by Maria's example we would already be in a perfect society.

[Panderfringe]

Feraele wrote...

Rofl!!  Hostility?  Ok who is getting hostile here

Well nobody. I was just responding to BluesMan's assertion that he would be flamed.

Reason being, petty jealousies, gossip, ambition..etc always get in the way...always hehehe. 

No matter how well fed or housed they are...thats beside the point.

Er, no. You really don't seem to understand what causes conflict. If everybody had space to live in, had food - if we had unlimited resources as Maria clearly outlined in her OP - there would be no conflict, besides maybe some petty arguments over small things. Why would anybody be jealous, when everyone has everything? Why would anyone be ambitious when there is literally nothing to gain?

Most human conflcit arises when one group of people is poor and does not have adequate space, food or education. That issue is solved in a world where we possess unlimited resources.

[Panderfringe]

Feraele wrote...

Human nature ..is to have ambition, to top someone else, to get ahead, to have more money ..to be better than everyone else.   This eventually causes conflict, as they struggle on. 
It doesn't matter how many material possessions they have..or if they are well fed, are you trying to tell me that rich people have no ambition to get more more more?  ^^  hehehe

Talk to me about corporations, who heads corporations...why humans of course.

All of which is competition for scarce resources. When scarcity is no longer an issue, when everyone has everything, what then?

[the_one_54321]

Feraele wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

BluesMan1956 wrote...

Face it, kiddies.  It ain't gonna happen.  Once you learn more about human nature, you will realize this is true and no amount of hopeful, altruistic optimism is going to change that.

Except if we go by what's in the OP, we've already got unlimited resources which would remove the issue of the Haves vs Have-Nots, essentially removing a substantial reason for conflict, if not removing conflict altogether.

EDIT: Sorry I didn't live up to your expectations of hostility.

Rofl!!  Hostility?  Ok who is getting hostile here, methinks this thread has been quite enlightening, but I am still of the opinion that human beings cannot get it together for long enough to agree on anything, put it into action and KEEP IT THAT WAY.

Reason being, petty jealousies, gossip, ambition..etc always get in the way...always hehehe. 

No matter how well fed or housed they are...thats beside the point.

right now you are likely right. but what about the future? what of progress? i already talked about this at length a page or two back. feel free to give it a read.

[Panderfringe]

Feraele wrote...

Scarce resources....??? Corporations? If anything they have them, and they will get more, and they will charge high prices for what they have to get more more more money.

You don't understand. There are limited resources in the world. Conflict arises from competition for these resources. In a world with unlimited resources, we would be able to do anything, pay for anything and never go without.

At the head of all this is a human being, who not realizing he can't take it with him when he's dead, will still be carrying on getting more, more more........

Again, what happens when everyone has everything?

But anyways this is getting offtopic, ...I still highly doubt given all the "perfect" conditions..well fed, well housed..all the amenities ..that a society will keep it together without doing something down the road, like someone from within stealing from them or what have you. That will create conflict and thats all there is to it.

Why would would anybody steal?

Human beings are imperfect and you can't get perfection from imperfection.

Humans are imperfect because of an imperfect world.

[Panderfringe]

Feraele wrote...

And humans being imperfect caused that world to be imperfect not the other way around.

No, it really wouldn't.

Alright, you know what? Screw it, you win. I'm not going to bother anymore. You neither know what you're talking about nor do you want to know. This is a headache waiting to happen and I'm not playing anymore.

[the_one_54321]

panderfringe has a point, but he's excluding something important.



again, read back some pages. it's all there.

[HeathenKing]

Feraele wrote...

And humans being imperfect caused that world to be imperfect not the other way around.

I wouldn't say 'imperfect' so much as 'downright f***ed.'

Modifié par HeathenKing, 23 octobre 2009 - 02:44 .

[the_one_54321]

BluesMan1956 wrote...

Red Viking wrote...
Everyone can and would want to make a perfect society because that's what everyone wants, but everyone has a different idea of what a perfect society should be.

EXACTLY! 
You have hit the nail on the head!  So much of this topic is pointless on whether or not man can be perfectly empathic with every other human being in society.

Face it, it ain't gonna happen.  Once old enough to have gleaned more experience with human nature, the realization that  this is true and takes hold.   No amount of hopeful, altruistic optimism is going to change that.

'nuff said

(now waiting for the blowback from this flaming post to PROVE MY POINT!!!!)

you two also completely neglect to take into account the notion of change. change is constant in society. and it's a very strong argument that the constant change has been in an overall positive direction. no one is going to argue with you about human nature as it stands right now, but that doesnt mean that human nature wont be different in the future. it certainly is different now from what it used to be 1000 years ago, or 10000 years ago.

[lychan_king]

Panderfringe wrote...

All of which is competition for scarce resources. When scarcity is no longer an issue, when everyone has everything, what then?

You can't make something not scarce. We only have a scarce amount of water in the ocean, we have a scarce amount of air in the atmosphere. Everything is always scarce. We can get rid of shortages....maybe, but not scarcity.

Someone mentioned unlimited resources, that's impossible. You only have a limited amount of space to grow a limited amount of food on. There is also a limited amount of fresh water to give out. The only real possible way to get rid of the limitations is to have some device that can take one matter and completly restructure it to be another. Essentially changing one element into another.

Even then you would still get conflict, there would be those who are simply too psychotic to do anything other than conflict. Eventually you would get one that convince others to join him and you would have a very large war on your hands. (If everyone was peaceful up to this time then they would get screwed) Plus as another poster said humans have a drive to get more. Someone would try to monopolize as much resources as possible just because they can.

[Panderfringe]

the_one_54321 wrote...

panderfringe has a point, but he's excluding something important.

again, read back some pages. it's all there.

No, since it's addressed by the idea of unlimited resources. Human society progresses because we are always searching for new ways to improve our lives and harness more, etc. When we no longer need to improve our lives we would not need to change.

Which brings about issues of stagnation, but that's a different topic altogether.

[Panderfringe]

lychan_king wrote...

You can't make something not scarce.

Which is moot since this is a hypothetical.

[HeathenKing]

Panderfringe wrote...
if we had unlimited resources as Maria clearly outlined in her OP - there would be no conflict, besides maybe some petty arguments over small things.

Many men could have 99% of the world, and would still fight for that last 1%.
Plus you fail to acknowledge idealogical issues.

Modifié par HeathenKing, 23 octobre 2009 - 02:52 .

[the_one_54321]

lychan_king wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...



All of which is competition for scarce resources. When scarcity is no longer an
issue, when everyone has everything, what then?

You can't make something not scarce. We only have a scarce amount of water in
the ocean, we have a scarce amount of air in the atmosphere. Everything is
always scarce. We can get rid of shortages....maybe, but not scarcity.



Someone mentioned unlimited resources, that's impossible. You only have a
limited amount of space to grow a limited amount of food on. There is also a
limited amount of fresh water to give out. The only real possible way to get
rid of the limitations is to have some device that can take one matter and completely
restructure it to be another. Essentially changing one element into another.



Even then you would still get conflict, there would be those who are simply too
psychotic to do anything other than conflict. Eventually you would get one that
convince others to join him and you would have a very large war on your hands.
(If everyone was peaceful up to this time then they would get screwed) Plus as
another poster said humans have a drive to get more. Someone would try to
monopolize as much resources as possible just because they can.

well first off, it's a thought experiment. you define the parameters and they
dont have to make a whole lot of sense in terms of the real world. Schrödinger’s
cat in a box with poison is a great example.



second, are you a scientist in energy research? you dont know that things will
forever remain scarce. star trek was the first instance of automatic doors and
instantly synthesized infinitely abundant food. neither of those existed when
the shows were airing. we now have automatic doors. who know's what else is to
come?



the fact of the matter is that the energy industry is growing by leaps and
bounds, and soon we'll be at a place where we want to be in terms of providing
energy without pumping carbon into the atmosphere.



last, why does everyone who claims a perfect society is completely
impossible also completely ignore the notion that humans are changing with
time? it's like cynicism is so ingrained in their heads that they just
assume the race not only sucks but is also totally stagnant.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 octobre 2009 - 03:04 .

[the_one_54321]

Panderfringe wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

panderfringe has a point, but he's excluding something important.

again, read back some pages. it's all there.

No, since it's addressed by the idea of unlimited resources. Human society progresses because we are always searching for new ways to improve our lives and harness more, etc. When we no longer need to improve our lives we would not need to change.

Which brings about issues of stagnation, but that's a different topic altogether.

like i said, read back. it's all there.