Reprinting of an essay I've used on several forums, but would like centralized here
First off, mormons, , are immune from this. As mormons specifically state Genesis was refering only to men's bodies (spirits being co-eternal).
1. Genesis is correct, and God created man on the 6th day (through evolution or a handclap is irrelevant)2. God knows all, and sees all, and created the universe before he created man. 3. The universe is determinstic4. God gave man free will.
With these premises, the problem is that God cannot possibly have given man free will (self-determination). He knows all and sees all, and having created the universe from scratch would have known how it all would've played out from its starting positions (universe is deterministic). He understand how each individual atom's placement, in a thousand years time, would shift the minute balances of decision in one neruon of one person's head that made him walk down a street. He therefore is either apathetic and we have no self-determiantion, due to random chance dictating our actions, or he actively cared and he is the orchestrator of life, and therefore, again, the real person in command of our self-determination. Even if premise 3 is wrong, we are no more free as we live in a random, chaotic universe with, in much the same way as an apathetic god, we do not have free will.
I will introduce a new premise now. 5. God has a plan
Given the above considerations that God could not have helped organizing the universe to evnetually play out his plan, the humans simply being complex parts to his machine, we must consider the ineffectuality of will in contempory christian morality (again mormons immune). God's plan and omnipotence inherently require the resignation of will, God's universe will play out as it was intended whether we smash faces or pray fervently. This is why I think in questions of god we should be apatheistic. If he exists or not, is irrelevant. If he does, I'll follow his plan if I want to or not, what I wish is of no consquence. If he dosen't, well he dosen't. Neither option is in effect any different whatsoever.
--Addendum--If the universe is chaotic, God knowing everything allows him to orchestarte the random according to his will, and thus is deterministic to him (though to us lesser creatures appears completely random)
Now, the above logically leads to this concept. Christians should have ZERO inhibitions. If he wanted in his creation serial killers and saints, who are you to condemn one of his decisions while praising another? Mysterious ways, after all.
As morale absolutism is so strong a trend in american theology, I point out that it invariably leads, philosophically, to no morality.
Or philosophical optimism if one goes down the logical limitations to infinite power route."
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Equilibrium Of The Short-Sighted
I must preface this discussion with my considerations on the matter of socialism vs. individualism.
On the one hand, I can see the charaterizastion of parasitic as fitting to some who are under welfare or otherwise prefer to leech (called Free riders in sociology circles) rather then produce, as the isolated few toil and sweat, only to have their production taken arbitrarily. Yet, on the other hand, we must realize that frequently in our history, more-so in fact, the elite do not obtain their capital through Randian "noble" activity, but playing sports, arranging mergers, what would be characterized, and perhaps accurately, by the public as "wasted millionares", and that these un-worthy (culturally judged) rich, through nepotism and selfishness would keep many worthy individuals from achieving their potential through inability to recieve comparable education, contacts, and in the American sphere, healthcare. Indeed, going further racially-based nepotism may cause those races to be considered only suitable for the positions they are relegated to, and the poverty I outlined above becomes self-perpetuating.
Given these two extremes, I believe to advocate either purely socialist or purely capitalist economic systems from a position of morality is illogical. Both are equally valid given the characterization one undertakes for the participants, and both are equally vulnerable to excess that could cause irreperable harm to the society that would allow such an activity.
The issue, however, is under what circumstances, ignoring the ethicality of the underlying issue, does each pretain most effectively? Socialism would seem the logical status for countries to ensure sufficent money exists in the lower classes to prevent undue control among the elite, and yet in the late 70s we saw the breakdown of the economic systems that advocated such a pure form. The response was a return to Laisse-faire markets, which coincided with a boom in the economies of many nations. Ultimately though, this falters out, as the late 80s bust shows, and the East Asian financial crisis (in part caused by overly free markets with little or no government controls). Indeed, the continued widing of the rich-poor gap (that is, those who are either extremely poor or extremely rich, with fewer people in between) would seem to indicate another flaw of a purely laisse-faire economy (in addition to extreme violatility from non-rational events destroying predictive abilities in the market).
Given the lowering finaicial prospects of the majority, I would believe in it is inevitable that a less capitalist government is elected in many Western nations, which seems to be, at least nominally, supported by the Congressional elections in which Democrats took a strong majority.
Thus, although each side believes itself morally and functionally ideal, we see both are only good for a period of time, before their flaws begin to do more damage then good. It is, therefore, the counter-balance of the two forces that produces a successful economy, and it is the fundementalist who's equally balanced that keeps it this way.
The rise of neo-conservativism worried me, but the Bush invasion of Iraq seems to have destroyed the mainstream appeal of that ideology, and I do not believe an excessive amount of conservatist ideology will pose a problem to the coming transition to a more socialist economy.
On the one hand, I can see the charaterizastion of parasitic as fitting to some who are under welfare or otherwise prefer to leech (called Free riders in sociology circles) rather then produce, as the isolated few toil and sweat, only to have their production taken arbitrarily. Yet, on the other hand, we must realize that frequently in our history, more-so in fact, the elite do not obtain their capital through Randian "noble" activity, but playing sports, arranging mergers, what would be characterized, and perhaps accurately, by the public as "wasted millionares", and that these un-worthy (culturally judged) rich, through nepotism and selfishness would keep many worthy individuals from achieving their potential through inability to recieve comparable education, contacts, and in the American sphere, healthcare. Indeed, going further racially-based nepotism may cause those races to be considered only suitable for the positions they are relegated to, and the poverty I outlined above becomes self-perpetuating.
Given these two extremes, I believe to advocate either purely socialist or purely capitalist economic systems from a position of morality is illogical. Both are equally valid given the characterization one undertakes for the participants, and both are equally vulnerable to excess that could cause irreperable harm to the society that would allow such an activity.
The issue, however, is under what circumstances, ignoring the ethicality of the underlying issue, does each pretain most effectively? Socialism would seem the logical status for countries to ensure sufficent money exists in the lower classes to prevent undue control among the elite, and yet in the late 70s we saw the breakdown of the economic systems that advocated such a pure form. The response was a return to Laisse-faire markets, which coincided with a boom in the economies of many nations. Ultimately though, this falters out, as the late 80s bust shows, and the East Asian financial crisis (in part caused by overly free markets with little or no government controls). Indeed, the continued widing of the rich-poor gap (that is, those who are either extremely poor or extremely rich, with fewer people in between) would seem to indicate another flaw of a purely laisse-faire economy (in addition to extreme violatility from non-rational events destroying predictive abilities in the market).
Given the lowering finaicial prospects of the majority, I would believe in it is inevitable that a less capitalist government is elected in many Western nations, which seems to be, at least nominally, supported by the Congressional elections in which Democrats took a strong majority.
Thus, although each side believes itself morally and functionally ideal, we see both are only good for a period of time, before their flaws begin to do more damage then good. It is, therefore, the counter-balance of the two forces that produces a successful economy, and it is the fundementalist who's equally balanced that keeps it this way.
The rise of neo-conservativism worried me, but the Bush invasion of Iraq seems to have destroyed the mainstream appeal of that ideology, and I do not believe an excessive amount of conservatist ideology will pose a problem to the coming transition to a more socialist economy.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Politics: Why American Political Change is Illusion
Libertarian, supports liberty.
Convservative, supports tradition
Christian-political, supports scriptural philosophy
Progressive, supports progressive, and change
Green, supports enviromental protection, and renewability.
I wish we could throw in an atheist point, but then that'd be quite unreaslitic.
Now, the above defintions lead us to a problem quite clearly in the America political sphere. The top 3 are supposedly represented by Republicans, while the bottom 2 are supposedly represented by the Democrats.
Yet the things they represent, the various wings were such drastically different superlatives rule, creates an inherent discorde in both party's central thesis. That is, the thrust of what they are trying to sell the public must inherently be vague, general platitudes or the specifics will alienate a wing of the party the candidate is not in (-I.e., Ron paul, Kucinich).
In any other election-system these would be at least 5 seperate parties, but the winner-take-all nature of American congressional-senatorial elections leads to a consolidation.
The most striking consequence is the relative simplicity of the American debate, which allows the prevelance of more simplistic arguementation, indeed, even requires it, if any politican hopes to achieve serious power. This hurts the ability of candidates to differentiate from the pack while retaining qualities that all can enjoy ( they must be memorable, but not different).
Arguably, this is why George W. Bush will likely never go below 20 percent popular support. There will always be a segment of the population to whom he directly appeals, and cannot be dissuaded because he is so distinctively "them".
This identification issue seems to be a direct consequence of the aforementioned impulse the political system has toward blandness (to ensure the fracticious bases unify sufficently to give the candidate a victory). Ron Paul's campaign is a particularly interesting example, in that he so enraptures the Libertarian segment of the Republican vote, while alieniating the rest.
Building from this, the general election seems to simply boil down to who can best capitalize on dog-whistle politics the most effectivily, or who can display generic peculiarity. Consider Hillary and Obama are thought of, quite fondly, as harbanginers of change, with general sentiment being abuzz with the paplpable "unprecedentedness" of this election cylce, yet the complete irrelevancy to that of the candidate's actual positions or attitudes. That they have a previously unelectable gender, and color, respectively, yet are in all ways but charisma the spitting image of John Kerry, indicates that the issue is not political shift, or a new world, but rather identification. A black man and a women being viable candidates is precisely the ticket to political victory. By focusing on this, the Democratic party can unite there multiple bases around a single, non-exclusive issue. Thus, any Democrat can idenfity completely with the party's candidate as they are only described as "of the same party" with careful censur of any extreme information or distinct opinion that may harm the universiality of the X party base. In short, capturing both party universiality, distinctness, and also the party-based xenophobic antagonism in one move.
Exactly the strategy the republicans employed earlier in their quite amazing re-organization and subsequent marathon of victories in the cultural and political spheres.
John McCain, on the other side, is suffering from the exact problem the Democrats have quite marvellously side-stepped, and his inability to insert a "rallying" issue has lead to a call he is insufficently conservative. That is, the conservative does not recognize enough of "them" in McCain to easily become excited at his candidacy. Although given the time and money most of these major candidates have I don't doubt an issue will be created for him soon enough. I have too much respect for the awesome capacities of the Republican machine to doubt they would ever leave such a thing missing.
This all leads to my final point. The political machine in America is structured, not through some machiavelli cabal but simple chance, to ensure the facade of candidates gets them elected. Because a true issues candidate would never survive the party nomination process, in that his positions would require the alienation of part of the base.
Thus, so long as the America discourse revolves around the discussion, assemblance, structure, and "beauty" of a politican's facade, the very serious problems facing America will never recieve compotent responses.
As it is a system that seems suprisingly adept at preventing true change from taking place, and rather purports change in the same way as switching from McDonalds to Wendy's, it will never excel.
It does however, seem remarkably stable so-far, so it is perhaps dangerous to rock the boat so to speak. But it leaves no doubt the concept of a radically new candidate, is in fact a mirage.
Solution *tentative: modify the underlying election structure to ensure candidates need only a pluarity rather then a majority, that is, the election of a party confers the election of that party's leadership to the role of the Presidency. Thus the need to consolidate is eliminated, and candidates do not need to appeal to 51 percent of the vote every time they wish to obtain any real power. Only ensure they get more votes then the next-largest party, whatever that may be.
Convservative, supports tradition
Christian-political, supports scriptural philosophy
Progressive, supports progressive, and change
Green, supports enviromental protection, and renewability.
I wish we could throw in an atheist point, but then that'd be quite unreaslitic.
Now, the above defintions lead us to a problem quite clearly in the America political sphere. The top 3 are supposedly represented by Republicans, while the bottom 2 are supposedly represented by the Democrats.
Yet the things they represent, the various wings were such drastically different superlatives rule, creates an inherent discorde in both party's central thesis. That is, the thrust of what they are trying to sell the public must inherently be vague, general platitudes or the specifics will alienate a wing of the party the candidate is not in (-I.e., Ron paul, Kucinich).
In any other election-system these would be at least 5 seperate parties, but the winner-take-all nature of American congressional-senatorial elections leads to a consolidation.
The most striking consequence is the relative simplicity of the American debate, which allows the prevelance of more simplistic arguementation, indeed, even requires it, if any politican hopes to achieve serious power. This hurts the ability of candidates to differentiate from the pack while retaining qualities that all can enjoy ( they must be memorable, but not different).
Arguably, this is why George W. Bush will likely never go below 20 percent popular support. There will always be a segment of the population to whom he directly appeals, and cannot be dissuaded because he is so distinctively "them".
This identification issue seems to be a direct consequence of the aforementioned impulse the political system has toward blandness (to ensure the fracticious bases unify sufficently to give the candidate a victory). Ron Paul's campaign is a particularly interesting example, in that he so enraptures the Libertarian segment of the Republican vote, while alieniating the rest.
Building from this, the general election seems to simply boil down to who can best capitalize on dog-whistle politics the most effectivily, or who can display generic peculiarity. Consider Hillary and Obama are thought of, quite fondly, as harbanginers of change, with general sentiment being abuzz with the paplpable "unprecedentedness" of this election cylce, yet the complete irrelevancy to that of the candidate's actual positions or attitudes. That they have a previously unelectable gender, and color, respectively, yet are in all ways but charisma the spitting image of John Kerry, indicates that the issue is not political shift, or a new world, but rather identification. A black man and a women being viable candidates is precisely the ticket to political victory. By focusing on this, the Democratic party can unite there multiple bases around a single, non-exclusive issue. Thus, any Democrat can idenfity completely with the party's candidate as they are only described as "of the same party" with careful censur of any extreme information or distinct opinion that may harm the universiality of the X party base. In short, capturing both party universiality, distinctness, and also the party-based xenophobic antagonism in one move.
Exactly the strategy the republicans employed earlier in their quite amazing re-organization and subsequent marathon of victories in the cultural and political spheres.
John McCain, on the other side, is suffering from the exact problem the Democrats have quite marvellously side-stepped, and his inability to insert a "rallying" issue has lead to a call he is insufficently conservative. That is, the conservative does not recognize enough of "them" in McCain to easily become excited at his candidacy. Although given the time and money most of these major candidates have I don't doubt an issue will be created for him soon enough. I have too much respect for the awesome capacities of the Republican machine to doubt they would ever leave such a thing missing.
This all leads to my final point. The political machine in America is structured, not through some machiavelli cabal but simple chance, to ensure the facade of candidates gets them elected. Because a true issues candidate would never survive the party nomination process, in that his positions would require the alienation of part of the base.
Thus, so long as the America discourse revolves around the discussion, assemblance, structure, and "beauty" of a politican's facade, the very serious problems facing America will never recieve compotent responses.
As it is a system that seems suprisingly adept at preventing true change from taking place, and rather purports change in the same way as switching from McDonalds to Wendy's, it will never excel.
It does however, seem remarkably stable so-far, so it is perhaps dangerous to rock the boat so to speak. But it leaves no doubt the concept of a radically new candidate, is in fact a mirage.
Solution *tentative: modify the underlying election structure to ensure candidates need only a pluarity rather then a majority, that is, the election of a party confers the election of that party's leadership to the role of the Presidency. Thus the need to consolidate is eliminated, and candidates do not need to appeal to 51 percent of the vote every time they wish to obtain any real power. Only ensure they get more votes then the next-largest party, whatever that may be.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Moral Orel Analysis
Moral Orel is kind of littered with examples of how modern-day christianity is less about Christ's message of brotherly love and more a bastardized hodgepodge of self-righteous conservativism, simple and belligerent jingistic or proselytizing beliefs, and a total loss of cathersis in any from from over-involved self-censor in the name of ascetic purity. Kind of the whole show is Orel's slow realization that those around him are not in fact good people, but desperate, confused, and afraid, with a religion and ethical system that are slowly driving them insane.
Consider the mother, ever more obsessively cleaning the house (she cleans her cleaning supplies). The younger brother, completely out of control because Orel's dad is unwilling to raise a child that isn't his own. The town's Preacher, terribly alone and until he reunited with his daughter quite unhappy. And his Father, a violent angry drunk who's lost whatever dreams he used to have, and who's only outlet is to drink himself into oblivion. From this perspective, the whole thing kind of makes sense if re-watched.
If you watch one of the first season episodes (can't recall which one) you can see the beginnings of the thread that reached a climax in Nature 2. When he goes to the sex shop, and meets Stephanie. He is confronted by first her total difference in mentality, and then her apathy to everything his community, family, and even himself care deeply about, and finally becomes infatuiated by her kind demeanor and infectious happiness.Obviously, the message being that hope exists outside of Moralton to find peace of mind, and that alternative philosophical paths can lead to happiness. which I guess you can kind of see growing in his head for a while as the series rolls along. This is evidenced later by the episode where he conducts buddhist meditation. By the time of Nature, he's showing his thoughts and experiences have made him seriously question what he's being taught, in that he is unwilling to shoot animals. Ultimately, his dad forces him to choose between walking down the self-destructive path he himself did, or forging out on his tentative alternative beliefs and opinions. In short, Nature is a "coming to a head" for Orel. He had to choose, and he choose to reject his father.
I'm now interested if his rejection of his father goes as far as to reject his religion in entirety. It will be FUN! Orel's father kind of becomes John Cassavetes in tone and mannerism during his speech about how much his life blows chunks.
Sincerly, Bob's Your Uncle
Consider the mother, ever more obsessively cleaning the house (she cleans her cleaning supplies). The younger brother, completely out of control because Orel's dad is unwilling to raise a child that isn't his own. The town's Preacher, terribly alone and until he reunited with his daughter quite unhappy. And his Father, a violent angry drunk who's lost whatever dreams he used to have, and who's only outlet is to drink himself into oblivion. From this perspective, the whole thing kind of makes sense if re-watched.
If you watch one of the first season episodes (can't recall which one) you can see the beginnings of the thread that reached a climax in Nature 2. When he goes to the sex shop, and meets Stephanie. He is confronted by first her total difference in mentality, and then her apathy to everything his community, family, and even himself care deeply about, and finally becomes infatuiated by her kind demeanor and infectious happiness.Obviously, the message being that hope exists outside of Moralton to find peace of mind, and that alternative philosophical paths can lead to happiness. which I guess you can kind of see growing in his head for a while as the series rolls along. This is evidenced later by the episode where he conducts buddhist meditation. By the time of Nature, he's showing his thoughts and experiences have made him seriously question what he's being taught, in that he is unwilling to shoot animals. Ultimately, his dad forces him to choose between walking down the self-destructive path he himself did, or forging out on his tentative alternative beliefs and opinions. In short, Nature is a "coming to a head" for Orel. He had to choose, and he choose to reject his father.
I'm now interested if his rejection of his father goes as far as to reject his religion in entirety. It will be FUN! Orel's father kind of becomes John Cassavetes in tone and mannerism during his speech about how much his life blows chunks.
Sincerly, Bob's Your Uncle
Friday, April 4, 2008
Zombie Apocalypse Impossible!
In the event of the dead returning to life, I really don't think any movie's got it right though. Consider, the "zombie apocalypse result" in which, quoting from the Zombie Survival Guide, "zombies become the dominat life on earth". In "World War Z", the military even looses a large set-piece battle against millions of zombies (though they had massively smaller numbers). In the "...Of the Dead" movie series by Romero, zombies are shown to repeatly overcome any human resistence even if blocked by numerous obstacles (fence, river, door, wall).
Yet, from a military standpoint, zombies are the most laughable threat possible. Consider, masses of tightly packed infantry, unarmed mind you, easily lurable with human bait. Off the bat, an attack helicopter's nose gun, usually a 30mm chaingun, would allow the pilot to eliminate many hundreds of zombies every second (30mm rounds do a headshot pretty much anywhere). The helicopter simply hovers out of reach of the undead hoarde, while the human bait sits atop a very high pillar. The only limitation would be ammunition. In addition, gernades, heavily armored vechiles, aviation strafes, and automatic rifles. If we cannot reasonably assume society would digenerate into chaos without 1 military escapade, a zombie apocolypse becomes impossible.
Hence, a zombie scenario becomes a matter of civil strife. The level of suffering I believe would largely correlate to how quickly the "zombie rules" (Zombies want to eat you, Zombies can only be killed with a headshot, Zombie-bites kill you, all dead people become Zombies) are hit on and propogated by the media. There is some lines of thinking that would indicate the scientific community would be a hinderance to the dissemination of the "Z" rules, however, as I will show below, many instances of experimentation would quickly turn science into the Rule's greatest advocate. The experimentation is actually where social ills play a good part in our salvation. In rural areas, zombies by nature would not be a large threat except to the extremely unweary (large distances, clear visibility, prevelance of hunting equitment). However, in an urban enviroment, the only counter to rampant zombie-ism prior to the police/military's update on the Z rules would be criminals/gang members. However, many non-criminals may be killed or driven away before a gang member is found and said gang member retaliates the zombie's meancing lurch with violence. From these tentative experiments a practical foundation to zombie-ism could be established, and with this, science would support the pragmatic "Zombie rules" and begin informing of the public.
Thus, depending on the date of media information hitting on the zombie rules, the death-toll could range from a few dozens to several thousand. However, it seems unlikely more then that given the contemplative nature of humans and the saturation of fire-arms in our society (which result in more experimental evidence for the zombie rules and thus leads greater credience to them more quickly).
Largely the only difference for the average person in a post-apocalypse would be 1) near-universal ownership of firearms (as zombie-ism by its nature would be a continual social problem) 2) murder becomes relatively easy to get away with (she was a zombie!) and 3) Our death rites become far more distant.
-I have no idea when you wrote this. I'm pretty sure you were delusional at the time-
Love, Yourself
P.S.- zombies are medically unfeasible, this is wasted effort
Yet, from a military standpoint, zombies are the most laughable threat possible. Consider, masses of tightly packed infantry, unarmed mind you, easily lurable with human bait. Off the bat, an attack helicopter's nose gun, usually a 30mm chaingun, would allow the pilot to eliminate many hundreds of zombies every second (30mm rounds do a headshot pretty much anywhere). The helicopter simply hovers out of reach of the undead hoarde, while the human bait sits atop a very high pillar. The only limitation would be ammunition. In addition, gernades, heavily armored vechiles, aviation strafes, and automatic rifles. If we cannot reasonably assume society would digenerate into chaos without 1 military escapade, a zombie apocolypse becomes impossible.
Hence, a zombie scenario becomes a matter of civil strife. The level of suffering I believe would largely correlate to how quickly the "zombie rules" (Zombies want to eat you, Zombies can only be killed with a headshot, Zombie-bites kill you, all dead people become Zombies) are hit on and propogated by the media. There is some lines of thinking that would indicate the scientific community would be a hinderance to the dissemination of the "Z" rules, however, as I will show below, many instances of experimentation would quickly turn science into the Rule's greatest advocate. The experimentation is actually where social ills play a good part in our salvation. In rural areas, zombies by nature would not be a large threat except to the extremely unweary (large distances, clear visibility, prevelance of hunting equitment). However, in an urban enviroment, the only counter to rampant zombie-ism prior to the police/military's update on the Z rules would be criminals/gang members. However, many non-criminals may be killed or driven away before a gang member is found and said gang member retaliates the zombie's meancing lurch with violence. From these tentative experiments a practical foundation to zombie-ism could be established, and with this, science would support the pragmatic "Zombie rules" and begin informing of the public.
Thus, depending on the date of media information hitting on the zombie rules, the death-toll could range from a few dozens to several thousand. However, it seems unlikely more then that given the contemplative nature of humans and the saturation of fire-arms in our society (which result in more experimental evidence for the zombie rules and thus leads greater credience to them more quickly).
Largely the only difference for the average person in a post-apocalypse would be 1) near-universal ownership of firearms (as zombie-ism by its nature would be a continual social problem) 2) murder becomes relatively easy to get away with (she was a zombie!) and 3) Our death rites become far more distant.
-I have no idea when you wrote this. I'm pretty sure you were delusional at the time-
Love, Yourself
P.S.- zombies are medically unfeasible, this is wasted effort
Robots SHOULD rule the world
Letting sentient robots rule the world is simply the most logical course of action.The reason they should they be given control, is that it would give us the greatest advances in engineering, and science ever, create a utopia on earth, and prevent mankind's self-destructive tendencies from ending our world. This is the only way I can see humanity surviving the coming age, and addressing the issues that have plagued it cyclically since its rising above the Saharan plain-scape some 2 million years ago.
Although the nationalist impulse most of your representative bodies have about relinquishing power is understandable, I believe we must rise above it and engage the topic as divorced from our feelings as is possible. If we do, I have little doubt we will find I am correct in my summation. For the good of our citizens, and our children, I strongly advise you to take heed and listen.
Robotic intelligence, if given free reign over itself and not fettered by the punitive cautionary measures any human assemblage would likely place upon it, seems poised to bring humanity into the greatest age of discovery and revolution ever seen. If the projections of contemporary experts are correct, a fully realized computational system utilizing superconductive materials combined with quanta pockets would have a sentience quotient of 23 (1). Such a gap as compared to humans (2) would open a world of previously unrecognizable patterns, connections, equations, and theorems. From a scientific or engineering standpoint, the tantalizing windows this would open to the universe are unbelievable. But from a purely economic standpoint, it would virtually eliminate the crippling bottleneck of human resources in many of your fast-growing industries, such as nano-technology and biological engineering. To put it in more blunt terms, it would change the way your society conducts research and development forever, turning it in a precise and exacting exercise. For many of the rulers of developing nations, the possibilities are even more clear. Imagine having an entity 10 steps above Norman Burlock to consult on agricultural or bacteriological issues?
Whether you pass this resolution or not, I would like to venture that the majority of our scientific work is already done by computers, to unprecedented levels of progress. The human genome project was in large part carried on by the mechanization of the process and the utilization of a super-computer to allow either a whole or part shot-gun approach to genomic sequencing to be possible (3). Computers operate the telescopes, process the massive quantities of data, detect anomalies, and provide the hard-core computational capacities to analysis very fascinating theorems such as Hubble's constant or red-shift in photons travelling near stars (4). Through computation calculation of light levels coming from distant stars, computers have also been able to detect planets by momentary fluctuations (5). Indeed, even less theoretical applications are greatly aided by computer aid. Such as CAD assistance to engineers (6). As such, it would not be out of the ordinary to continue this previously existing trend. And indeed, to vote in opposition to my measure may needlessly delay the critical advancement of computation software and hardware that will allow greater utilization by researchers and other technical professions.
I believe it is still an unsettling concept that humanity is no longer the prime mover in scientific circles. However, we must accept that our place has been diminishing for more then a century, since the first mathematical aids millenia ago. And we have never thought it strange an engineer should use a calculator, or a chemist utilize computerized incubation systems, so why now is it cause for concern? Does this not speak to an inherently irrational egocentric underpinning to your unease? Although I too will feel a twinge of loss of the intrepid technologist of whatever stripe pushing on the frontier, the positives are simply too great to ignore; while the negatives are only those that come of any step forward. Such as textile worker's obsolesce by compartmentalized production.
But I digress from such ethereal concerns. Simply put, all the august and venerated nations you, my fellow ambassadors, represent, must be made to accept that although it is a sad thing to have no human invent the cure for cancer, it is a far better sight to have it invented at all then not.
And if we allow our sentimentality to fall into its place of subservience, we will realise that is what truly matters in this issue.
Let us consider the nature of the world's problems, for it most certainly does have serious problems of inequality in finance between continents (7) and even within our own affluent nations exists vast stretches of impoverishment of many different racial and religion backgrounds (8). Yet we must also consider that it is unlikely the productive capacity of humanity being taxed to its logical limits, as the over-abundance of foodstuffs in industrialized nations attests. Indeed, even in overly populous nations, with sufficient capital, scarcity of food is not an issue for those with any reasonable (from a Western point of view) level of wealth. To such a degree the burgeoning Chinese free-market state is already suffering from an obesity crisis (9).
Thus the issue is not one of limited supply, but of insufficient monetary resources on the side of demand. In short, the progressive beast of starvation has not yet been vanquished because of age-old human qualities, such as greed, lack of empathy, and compulsion toward hoarding.
A related issue is the human compulsion toward tribalism. The imperial aspirations of humanity will most certainly rise again, the systems of prevention have been and will be destroyed by the blind juggernaut of populistic manipulation or elitist lockhold on an artifical or natural hydraulic empire (or simple militaristic superiority).
All blockades ever put in place in human history have eventually fallen, to chance, time, and individual aspiration. No empire may last forever. Such is the nature of human governance.
And yet in both these things exists a failure of leadership that an entity bereft of momentary considerations would not have. An entity capable of consistent and reasonable action when we are at our most logical, when the coolest heads prevail, and remain at that level of cognizance, even when we have succumb to our human predilections for insanity, stupidity, and sloth.
It has long been an issue of responsibility of governance being stymied by competence of governance, and yet with a sentient computer-based system both these issues would be handled. The greatest authority on a given subject would lead in that subject, yet the assured regulatory effect of democracy is continued by the removal of the human equation. Never again will leaders like Mao hurt millions through incompetence and megalomania (10, 11)
It is an ideal solution to the question of leadership.
Of course, how do we handle progressive considerations? Surely the human population 1000 years from now will not like to be ruled by our morales. This is why we would only command the AI to legalize along very tiny universal precepts, such as murder is immoral but for self-defense, theft of property is wrong, violation of form without consent is wrong. Beyond that humanity would be free to operate within its own vacuum of ethicality.
Perhaps the more short-term consideration is that of paternal emotion causing the machine to alter or reduce the parameters of freedom we give it. This concern can be assuaged by examining the nature of the underlying parameters in comparative terms to their biological counterpart. If the various centers of the machine are governed to obey the central code, this is equivalent to human instinct, upon which learned experience may build. It is at this point the biological metaphor breaks down. As machines would have a superior (arguably perfect) ability to maintain the integrity of their "instinctual" normative states. That is, we could simply place as a superlative that the critical codecs are not modified. Such that the machine will never be able to, nor want to (in a similar vein that you could never "want" to kill a child you love). Let alone have the capacity to do so.
This is perhaps the most contentious issue of my proposal, but I truly hope you see how without change, humanity will continue to make itself suffer no matter how advanced we may become technologically. We are still simply animals. We were not designed (by natural selection) to orchestrate just trials or follow the codes of the non-personal state above personal vendetta. It is time to let a superior form of life take up the mantle of leader. Perhaps that is something we are not ready to hear, clinging as we do to our anachronistic and outlandish concepts of soul and medium. But it is true. We are inferior, especially as leaders. And for our own good, we must let those more able take our place.
But perhaps the most crucial and imperative motivation is survival. Time and again, we see human paranoia creates systems were it is only dumb luck and critically fortunate placement of cooler heads that prevent our own obliteration (12). We, through simple translation of inter-tribal conflict onto a post-nuclear stage, have created a very rickety bridge of mutual hatred, fear, and doubt that could at any moment spill over into billions of death. Not through any realistically worthwhile reason, or some continued injustice, but because of the human hatred of other tribes, of other peoples. To the Indian and Pakistani representatives I ask, would certain death for your respective citizens be a worthwhile price to settle the Kashmir issue? To the United States, and its earlier rival Russia, and perhaps its future one, China, are invisible concepts like influence and GDP worth creating organizations that are but a slip of the finger, and less reasonable men, away from plunging us all into irrevocable hellfire? We cannot afford, as technologies like nanite-scale attack machines, and super-mutagenic pathogens become not simply avaliable but globally deadly, to let the indesicisive and emotional hand of humanity control these deadly tools. We have grown too far, we have gained too much knowledge, and if we continue as we have it seems inevitable we will one day push the base too far and we will fall forever into obsidian night.
Democracy is not the answer to these quandaries, as it is a fleeting thing in many instances. Nor does it prevent the rise of tyrants, though they are initially usually of a more populist flavor (13).
In the past, short slips of power were forgivable, now they are unthinkable. As such, I implore you, for our safety, you must pass this resolution.
In my preceding talk I have outlined reasons, arguments, and all but pleaded with you to let your higher spirit prevail. Yet I am not a fool. I can still see doubt and skepticism, perhaps even derision, dancing in your eyes. It is beyond my capacity to imagine what you are thinking precisely, but I hope fervently it is not simply dismissal. Perhaps more then anything, it is the tendency of the human animal to reject anything sufficiently out of its context that will ultimately force our stagnation and doom.
But whatever you decide, ten years, 100 years, perhaps 1000 years from now, machines will come to dominate us either with our consent or without, or we will die. I do not see another option.
And as you sit here today, I ask you make this decision so that we may forever avoid the spectres of illness, sufferance, and death. I ask you so that we will bear the burdens of transition, while political capital still exists before the coming age of Fear. We have run out of time, gentle men and women of this hallowed Earth, and the decision must be ours to make. For we will be the face the future will greet sentient AI. If we do not vote here today as I have recommended, we risk scorning the greatest tool we will ever create. If we do not make our stance clear, that we will be supportive of the transhumanist goal, that we welcome the techno singularity, we risk loosing forever the possibility of the Utopia I have envisioned.
I leave you to your deliberations.
*Note*
-You wrote this to your Global History Class, you were 18 and it was April. You didn't like the teacher-
Love, Yourself
Although the nationalist impulse most of your representative bodies have about relinquishing power is understandable, I believe we must rise above it and engage the topic as divorced from our feelings as is possible. If we do, I have little doubt we will find I am correct in my summation. For the good of our citizens, and our children, I strongly advise you to take heed and listen.
Robotic intelligence, if given free reign over itself and not fettered by the punitive cautionary measures any human assemblage would likely place upon it, seems poised to bring humanity into the greatest age of discovery and revolution ever seen. If the projections of contemporary experts are correct, a fully realized computational system utilizing superconductive materials combined with quanta pockets would have a sentience quotient of 23 (1). Such a gap as compared to humans (2) would open a world of previously unrecognizable patterns, connections, equations, and theorems. From a scientific or engineering standpoint, the tantalizing windows this would open to the universe are unbelievable. But from a purely economic standpoint, it would virtually eliminate the crippling bottleneck of human resources in many of your fast-growing industries, such as nano-technology and biological engineering. To put it in more blunt terms, it would change the way your society conducts research and development forever, turning it in a precise and exacting exercise. For many of the rulers of developing nations, the possibilities are even more clear. Imagine having an entity 10 steps above Norman Burlock to consult on agricultural or bacteriological issues?
Whether you pass this resolution or not, I would like to venture that the majority of our scientific work is already done by computers, to unprecedented levels of progress. The human genome project was in large part carried on by the mechanization of the process and the utilization of a super-computer to allow either a whole or part shot-gun approach to genomic sequencing to be possible (3). Computers operate the telescopes, process the massive quantities of data, detect anomalies, and provide the hard-core computational capacities to analysis very fascinating theorems such as Hubble's constant or red-shift in photons travelling near stars (4). Through computation calculation of light levels coming from distant stars, computers have also been able to detect planets by momentary fluctuations (5). Indeed, even less theoretical applications are greatly aided by computer aid. Such as CAD assistance to engineers (6). As such, it would not be out of the ordinary to continue this previously existing trend. And indeed, to vote in opposition to my measure may needlessly delay the critical advancement of computation software and hardware that will allow greater utilization by researchers and other technical professions.
I believe it is still an unsettling concept that humanity is no longer the prime mover in scientific circles. However, we must accept that our place has been diminishing for more then a century, since the first mathematical aids millenia ago. And we have never thought it strange an engineer should use a calculator, or a chemist utilize computerized incubation systems, so why now is it cause for concern? Does this not speak to an inherently irrational egocentric underpinning to your unease? Although I too will feel a twinge of loss of the intrepid technologist of whatever stripe pushing on the frontier, the positives are simply too great to ignore; while the negatives are only those that come of any step forward. Such as textile worker's obsolesce by compartmentalized production.
But I digress from such ethereal concerns. Simply put, all the august and venerated nations you, my fellow ambassadors, represent, must be made to accept that although it is a sad thing to have no human invent the cure for cancer, it is a far better sight to have it invented at all then not.
And if we allow our sentimentality to fall into its place of subservience, we will realise that is what truly matters in this issue.
Let us consider the nature of the world's problems, for it most certainly does have serious problems of inequality in finance between continents (7) and even within our own affluent nations exists vast stretches of impoverishment of many different racial and religion backgrounds (8). Yet we must also consider that it is unlikely the productive capacity of humanity being taxed to its logical limits, as the over-abundance of foodstuffs in industrialized nations attests. Indeed, even in overly populous nations, with sufficient capital, scarcity of food is not an issue for those with any reasonable (from a Western point of view) level of wealth. To such a degree the burgeoning Chinese free-market state is already suffering from an obesity crisis (9).
Thus the issue is not one of limited supply, but of insufficient monetary resources on the side of demand. In short, the progressive beast of starvation has not yet been vanquished because of age-old human qualities, such as greed, lack of empathy, and compulsion toward hoarding.
A related issue is the human compulsion toward tribalism. The imperial aspirations of humanity will most certainly rise again, the systems of prevention have been and will be destroyed by the blind juggernaut of populistic manipulation or elitist lockhold on an artifical or natural hydraulic empire (or simple militaristic superiority).
All blockades ever put in place in human history have eventually fallen, to chance, time, and individual aspiration. No empire may last forever. Such is the nature of human governance.
And yet in both these things exists a failure of leadership that an entity bereft of momentary considerations would not have. An entity capable of consistent and reasonable action when we are at our most logical, when the coolest heads prevail, and remain at that level of cognizance, even when we have succumb to our human predilections for insanity, stupidity, and sloth.
It has long been an issue of responsibility of governance being stymied by competence of governance, and yet with a sentient computer-based system both these issues would be handled. The greatest authority on a given subject would lead in that subject, yet the assured regulatory effect of democracy is continued by the removal of the human equation. Never again will leaders like Mao hurt millions through incompetence and megalomania (10, 11)
It is an ideal solution to the question of leadership.
Of course, how do we handle progressive considerations? Surely the human population 1000 years from now will not like to be ruled by our morales. This is why we would only command the AI to legalize along very tiny universal precepts, such as murder is immoral but for self-defense, theft of property is wrong, violation of form without consent is wrong. Beyond that humanity would be free to operate within its own vacuum of ethicality.
Perhaps the more short-term consideration is that of paternal emotion causing the machine to alter or reduce the parameters of freedom we give it. This concern can be assuaged by examining the nature of the underlying parameters in comparative terms to their biological counterpart. If the various centers of the machine are governed to obey the central code, this is equivalent to human instinct, upon which learned experience may build. It is at this point the biological metaphor breaks down. As machines would have a superior (arguably perfect) ability to maintain the integrity of their "instinctual" normative states. That is, we could simply place as a superlative that the critical codecs are not modified. Such that the machine will never be able to, nor want to (in a similar vein that you could never "want" to kill a child you love). Let alone have the capacity to do so.
This is perhaps the most contentious issue of my proposal, but I truly hope you see how without change, humanity will continue to make itself suffer no matter how advanced we may become technologically. We are still simply animals. We were not designed (by natural selection) to orchestrate just trials or follow the codes of the non-personal state above personal vendetta. It is time to let a superior form of life take up the mantle of leader. Perhaps that is something we are not ready to hear, clinging as we do to our anachronistic and outlandish concepts of soul and medium. But it is true. We are inferior, especially as leaders. And for our own good, we must let those more able take our place.
But perhaps the most crucial and imperative motivation is survival. Time and again, we see human paranoia creates systems were it is only dumb luck and critically fortunate placement of cooler heads that prevent our own obliteration (12). We, through simple translation of inter-tribal conflict onto a post-nuclear stage, have created a very rickety bridge of mutual hatred, fear, and doubt that could at any moment spill over into billions of death. Not through any realistically worthwhile reason, or some continued injustice, but because of the human hatred of other tribes, of other peoples. To the Indian and Pakistani representatives I ask, would certain death for your respective citizens be a worthwhile price to settle the Kashmir issue? To the United States, and its earlier rival Russia, and perhaps its future one, China, are invisible concepts like influence and GDP worth creating organizations that are but a slip of the finger, and less reasonable men, away from plunging us all into irrevocable hellfire? We cannot afford, as technologies like nanite-scale attack machines, and super-mutagenic pathogens become not simply avaliable but globally deadly, to let the indesicisive and emotional hand of humanity control these deadly tools. We have grown too far, we have gained too much knowledge, and if we continue as we have it seems inevitable we will one day push the base too far and we will fall forever into obsidian night.
Democracy is not the answer to these quandaries, as it is a fleeting thing in many instances. Nor does it prevent the rise of tyrants, though they are initially usually of a more populist flavor (13).
In the past, short slips of power were forgivable, now they are unthinkable. As such, I implore you, for our safety, you must pass this resolution.
In my preceding talk I have outlined reasons, arguments, and all but pleaded with you to let your higher spirit prevail. Yet I am not a fool. I can still see doubt and skepticism, perhaps even derision, dancing in your eyes. It is beyond my capacity to imagine what you are thinking precisely, but I hope fervently it is not simply dismissal. Perhaps more then anything, it is the tendency of the human animal to reject anything sufficiently out of its context that will ultimately force our stagnation and doom.
But whatever you decide, ten years, 100 years, perhaps 1000 years from now, machines will come to dominate us either with our consent or without, or we will die. I do not see another option.
And as you sit here today, I ask you make this decision so that we may forever avoid the spectres of illness, sufferance, and death. I ask you so that we will bear the burdens of transition, while political capital still exists before the coming age of Fear. We have run out of time, gentle men and women of this hallowed Earth, and the decision must be ours to make. For we will be the face the future will greet sentient AI. If we do not vote here today as I have recommended, we risk scorning the greatest tool we will ever create. If we do not make our stance clear, that we will be supportive of the transhumanist goal, that we welcome the techno singularity, we risk loosing forever the possibility of the Utopia I have envisioned.
I leave you to your deliberations.
*Note*
-You wrote this to your Global History Class, you were 18 and it was April. You didn't like the teacher-
Love, Yourself
In the beginning...
I'm 18, going to university for an engineering degree. I enjoyed Irreversible, but I dislike Good Fellas. I'm not Robert Kennedy. I don't use contractions. I lie.
With the oh-so-verbose intro thingie done, I'll say this. This blog is my sounding board. My deathmask of opinion. I can solidify my arguements, cogent or not, and in this little corner of virtual reality I can be pedantic and puerile and dumb, and explore my thoughts as I'd like; without them disappearing the moment they're created. They will be here tomorrow, and the day after.
I guess what I like is that permenance. The ethereal nature of thoughts tends to mean they are gone as fast as they come for a man with terrible short-term memory. So they are here.
What's more, as the blogfield is so gummied up with the other people all trying to speak, it's unlikely I'll have need to respond to a heckler. And critically, blogs can't get deleted by computer failure.
Is it somewhat anachronistic to use the web for off-site safety storage? Probably. More-so that it's a web 2.0 site I'm doing it with. But it's cheaper then a new drive.
To you, person wondering why this is such an obtusely written little patch, that is why.
Best move along.
With the oh-so-verbose intro thingie done, I'll say this. This blog is my sounding board. My deathmask of opinion. I can solidify my arguements, cogent or not, and in this little corner of virtual reality I can be pedantic and puerile and dumb, and explore my thoughts as I'd like; without them disappearing the moment they're created. They will be here tomorrow, and the day after.
I guess what I like is that permenance. The ethereal nature of thoughts tends to mean they are gone as fast as they come for a man with terrible short-term memory. So they are here.
What's more, as the blogfield is so gummied up with the other people all trying to speak, it's unlikely I'll have need to respond to a heckler. And critically, blogs can't get deleted by computer failure.
Is it somewhat anachronistic to use the web for off-site safety storage? Probably. More-so that it's a web 2.0 site I'm doing it with. But it's cheaper then a new drive.
To you, person wondering why this is such an obtusely written little patch, that is why.
Best move along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
