218 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

HeathenKing wrote...

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.

and there are a number of things that you fail, or refuse, to acknowledge.

[lychan_king]

Actually there was a scientist that managed to change a portion of some peptol bismol cheap knock off into a very small portion of gold(I think it was microscopic). It's true we may have some space age stuff in the future that would allow that kind of thing. There is another problem I mentioned, what about those who are psychotic? They would give arise to conflict as well. Unless of course we found a way to make them not so(really the only way I can see this happening is a labotomy.



Also I am very cynical.

[the_one_54321]

lychan_king wrote...
There is another problem I mentioned, what about those who are psychotic? They would give arise to conflict as well. Unless of course we found a way to make them not so(really the only way I can see this happening is a labotomy.

Also I am very cynical.

physical restraint. i actually went over all of this early
in the discussion. there are nine pages of this stuff, you know.



sadly, i cannot help you with the cynicism.

[Panderfringe]

lychan_king wrote...

.

Also I am very cynical.

Clearly. And it is clouding your judgment.

[lychan_king]

It quite possibly is, but maybe your optimism is clouding your judgement?



also I'll get around to reading first nine pages in a few minutes.

[Panderfringe]

lychan_king wrote...

It quite possibly is, but maybe your optimism is clouding your judgement?
 

I'm not being optomistic. I am following the terms of the OP.

[Mordor the Redguard]

Yes, Star Trek or Mass Effect humanity is possible if we make it a priority but a large portion of humanity thinks it is ok to profit from suffering, purposly stop people from making life better, or look out just for themselves. I can see it in the future because there are groups out there trying to make things better and a fundamentally changing socity. The requirments for the perfect society with the stipualations listed are:



Universal Healthcare

Free or extremely subsidized higher education(Basicially a public higher eduction like public schools do for k-12)

Nature concervation akin to what saved the Great Plains and Mid-west after the dust bowl

A large(but not totalitarian) police force (one that is there to keep actual crime down, not the people so you can walk down the darkest back alley and feel totally safe)

A military that is similar to the ideal of WWII (good guys taking down the bad guys, the right way not the easy, dirty way)

Free speech (goes almost without saying)



These are basically Star Trek ideals but with profit seeking motive. The reason for this is communism does not work except in very small group and it helps inovation for the majority if there is a gold plated carrot on the end.



This will create the closest thing to a "perfect" society as possible but one of the greatest things about humanity is the fact "perfect" to a human is subjective. Previous attempts at creating a "perfect" society have said that genocide, the removal of free speech, and genetic manipulation are ok but they all ended horribly, ex. Holocaust, dictatorships and ghettos, Khan Noonien Singh. Frankly, an imperfect society is the best, one that has is similar to a bell curve where the really good and the really bad are on the far ends with the vast majority in the center. An imperfect society knows it is not prefect but a good society, similar to the suburbs and the majority religous communities, i.e. churchs, mosques, synagogues, etc. Imperfect societies are more perfect than "perfect" societies.



My only hope is that we achive something similar to the society of humanity that is protrayed in Star Trek.

[Dahn-Var Starcloak]

the_one_54321 wrote...

sadly, i cannot help you with the cynicism.

Can you help with my stoicism? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

Mordor the Redguard wrote...

My only hope is that we achive something similar to the society of humanity that is protrayed in Star Trek.

+1

[the_one_54321]

Dahn-Var Starcloak wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

sadly, i cannot help you with the cynicism.

Can you help with my stoicism? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

no, in fact i'll probably make it worse. (better)

[Christoph Gasser]

Dahn-Var Starcloak wrote...

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. 

I guess we agree then . Of course you can give routine tasks to computers. I only wanted to make the point that computers are unable to fully replace humans. While they do some things better and faster than humans they are unable to do other things that humans can, i.e. finding new solutions etc...

[Maria Caliban]

So.



Did you guys ever get an answer for me?

[DigitalOrigami]

Maria Caliban wrote...

So.

Did you guys ever get an answer for me?

What was the question again? :innocent:

Oh, right: is a perfect society possible? Sure it is. And it's easy too. First thing we have to do though is get rid of all the people. 

[Skaargoroth]

I guess I can state my opinions on this.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, because it doesn't matter if one builds a society from a couple of rocks, people will always find a fault or two about the society they live in. It's all about different opinions but if a leader decides to kill those who think differently than him, he could be considered as a murder in the eyes of those who oppresses him.

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...

So.

Did you guys ever get an answer for me?

the answer is that it depends on the constraints of the question.

in theory, maybe in the future. in practice, certainly not at present.

[Maria Caliban]

DigitalOrigami wrote...

Oh, right: is a perfect society possible? Sure it is. And it's easy too. First thing we have to do though is get rid of all the people. 

I don't wonder which ending you picked in Arcanum.

[PsychoBlonde]

Doesn't the answer to this depend a lot upon how you define "perfect"?



If by "perfect" you mean, a society which prevents people from being evil, then no. People have free will. Even if you convince everyone to be good today, this doesn't mean that they will remain so tomorrow. A lot of social planners see this as a defect and attempt to invent Utopias that will somehow counteract this "problem". However, this is a bit like trying to prevent sunburns by putting out the sun. The result is tyranny and oppression because the exercise of free will is necessary for human life. If you try to shut it off, you will only cripple humans and force them to a subhuman level of life.



If, on the other hand, you recognize what humans really are, you can construct a society that is perfectly designed to take all these factors into account. It allows humans to act in the ways that they need to act in order to survive and has mechanisms in place to deal with the results when people choose to act stupidly. The structure of the society is based on justice, where the people who choose to act properly (as humans) gain their just rewards and those who do not suffer the consequences of their own actions. It is a society based on the recognition of free will and thus of individual rights, and it almost existed in the U.S. for a century or so. Unfortunately it was brought down by some of the contradictions in its original makeup. But it can be rebuilt if enough people are willing to wake up and realize that free will is not some kind of design flaw.

[the_one_54321]

you also didnt read a whole lot of the eight pages that came before this, did you?

[wrexingcrew]

Note for upcoming dinner party: do not seat PsychoBlonde next to Thomas Hobbes.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

 It is a society based on the recognition of free will and thus of individual rights, and it almost existed in the U.S. for a century or so. Unfortunately it was brought down by some of the contradictions in its original makeup. But it can be rebuilt if enough people are willing to wake up and realize that free will is not some kind of design flaw.

I'd be interested in hearing you expand on this point.  Could you specify the century you're referring to, as well as the contradictions as you see them?  I say that not to drag things off-topic, but because it would help me understand your conception of a perfect society.  It sounds like you're a fan of Mill's On Liberty - particularly his anti-paternalism/non-interference principles - but want to do the work via (natural?) rights rather than liberty-as-possessing-utility.  Your sentence about acting properly confuses me a bit, though.  Does acting properly mean exercising your free will without interfering with another's free exercise, or does it mean something more?  Part of my confusion comes from your introduction of the concept of justice - perhaps you could explain its relation to individual rights from your perspective.  Different theorists see that relationship in very different ways, so suggesting a connection without explaining leaves me feeling like I missed a couple of unwritten premises.