Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[malimbar04]

I don't have a utopia. I *can't* because for a perfect society to exist, there can't be any warfare. As long as their are soldiers like me, there'll never be an end to war, becuase I'll *always* see someone else to prepare for. Until the last soldier dies to the last bullet of the last battle of the last war.

There is a way to fight wars without actual (physical) violence, but it takes a lot more creativity and a certain amount of tolerance. That's to fight politically, ideologically, and psychologically. If the campaign is good enough, it's amazing the odds a group can overcome - looking at Ghandi of course is the most famous example. He wasn't successful by doing nothing and being peaceful.
----
The main problems I have with governments right now are intolerance and inefficiency. I think both of these would be better if we had some better way to get rid of ideas - like a spring cleaning. In Michigan, we can vote every 16 years to replace our state constitution, and I kind've like that idea. I'd go even further though and say that we should do the same thing with our laws, tax code, and so forth. Every 50 years simply replace all of the laws of a government with a new one that is voted into place. For flexibility, vote on whether to do this every 15-20 years.

[Leafsnail]

Armok. I am going to go out on a limb here and say, without looking up what you are trying to say in my Armok to English dictionary, you are wrong.

Judging from my Google search, I think he's telling us to buy a Volkswagen.

[Nikov]

Fun Theory is that you can get people to do what you want by making it entertaining to do so. For example, stairs are better for a pedestrian's health than escalators. Install musical keyboard stairs. More people take the stairs now that it is "fun".

Malimbar, I read an interesting short story where Ghandi attempted his noncooperation against Nazi occupation instead of British occupation. It was not a happy ending.

[Criptfeind]

Armok. I am going to go out on a limb here and say, without looking up what you are trying to say in my Armok to English dictionary, you are wrong.

Judging from my Google search, I think he's telling us to buy a Volkswagen.

I always figured that he was a really really poorly made add bot from some of the things he said. Now we know what all his posts have been trying to do!

Fun Theory is that you can get people to do what you want by making it entertaining to do so. For example, stairs are better for a pedestrian's health than escalators. Install musical keyboard stairs. More people take the stairs now that it is "fun".

Yeah. I know. But since that has nothing really to do with the topic at hand I just assumed he was crazy.

[Ochita]

Searching fun theory lead me to choice theory...

[TherosPherae]

Install musical keyboard stairs. More people take the stairs now that it is "fun".

Off-topic: Why have I never seen this?!?

On-topic: I don't think a utopia would be possible or even plausible, considering that there are always the people who disagree with everything just for the sake of disagreement.

[Armok]

Huh? a) I can't be wrong for saying what the *field of study* is called, if you didn't like a particular theory of Fun Theory that doesn't invalidate every theory. That's like saying physics is wrong because you happened to get an article on auras as the first google result.

And apparently google dosn't recognize it, fancy that. Here's a summary by my favorite authority on the subject: http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/

Fun Theory is the field of knowledge that deals in questions such as "How much fun is there in the universe?", "Will we ever run out of fun?", "Are we having fun yet?" and "Could we be having more fun?"

[Siquo]

It's a bit long, but a good read:

Utopia:
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

[Angle]

This is a question I've been thinking about a lot. What I've come up with isn't really a utopia-As people have said, that idea is impossible- but I think it would be a great improvement over what we have now.

I'm not very good at communicating ideas, so if you have questions or feel I didn't cover something, don't be shy.

I think that “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is a good description of how society should work. I also think that such a society should organized “From the bottom up.” To this end, I see great potential in things like Open Design and Open Space. Instead of moving from the top down, Initiatives start at the bottom, among the people, and work their way up.

In order to create this kind of society, we should begin by creating individual operations. At first, these operations should work on their own, within the existing structure of society. For example, an employee owned small business or an agricultural commune. As more of these are created, they can begin to connect, coordinating for greater effect and to allow greater specialization. Eventually, this system will make up the majority of the worlds economy.

[Sowelu]

Post-scarcity, infinite frontiers.  If you don't like who you're with, you are always, in all cases, free to go somewhere else.  Post-scarcity means no relying on others for survival resources, or even for most luxury items, even if you're alone.  You can choose to join whatever social group will let you in, and surely there will be many, and surely many of them will be large.  Your group can rule itself however it wishes, and have some power over its environment, specifically any group has the freedom to be democratic, autocratic, whatever, where the primary power of authority is the ability to kick someone out of the group.  Freedom of travel, so that moving from group to group is essentially effortless.

If you want to be lazy, a post-scarcity world will let you get away with it, alone or with whatever others you wish to share your laziness with.  If you wish to work hard, to create art, you can share it.  Let AI control resource production and the means thereof, so long as there is always enough for all.  Anyone who wishes to provide for themselves can still choose to do so, in whatever partial or whole capacity they wish.

Children stay with their parents, but can go anywhere freely at age thirteen.  (Before then, parents may allow them to leave, but can recall them.  Want to let your kids go join some crazy Ender's Game thing, or hell, some Lord of the Flies thing?  Oh, why not, if they want.)  They're required to accept some form of communication from their parents until age sixteen, which is the age of majority.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i always imagined the ai would try to optimize resource production and consumption, and would eventually decide humanity was a defective gear in society's machine, and would eventually, either passively or violently, wipe us out

[Realmfighter]

But what is its purpose in Optimization?

[SalmonGod]

My utopia utopia:  A world where everyone makes honest effort not to be a jerk.  Pretty simple, but yes, it's unrealistic.  I think this is what most people are commenting on when they say utopia is impossible.

This is why I have my real utopia:  A societal structure that cannot be taken advantage of for the sake of being a jerk.  This only requires one guiding principle, no opportunities within the social structure for the decisions of a small amount of people to have significant impact on a large amount of people.  This means specifically, no hierarchy of coercive authority and no contract for material leverage over a population.  We're currently very very far from this, but I have yet to be convinced that it's impossible. 

[Strife26]

Whenever competition exists, it'll always turn to war eventually.  Any type of war will eventually turn violent.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

My utopia utopia:  A world where everyone makes honest effort not to be a jerk.  Pretty simple, but yes, it's unrealistic.  I think this is what most people are commenting on when they say utopia is impossible.

This is why I have my real utopia:  A societal structure that cannot be taken advantage of for the sake of being a jerk.  This only requires one guiding principle, no opportunities within the social structure for the decisions of a small amount of people to have significant impact on a large amount of people.  This means specifically, no hierarchy of coercive authority and no contract for material leverage over a population.  We're currently very very far from this, but I have yet to be convinced that it's impossible.

what about when a large amount of people are jerks to a smaller amount of people? prejudice against minorities arises naturally in all societies

But what is its purpose in Optimization?

what's the purpose of an ai?