How would they help them beyond their physical needs?
They would give them drugs to keep them satisfied and jerk them off / vibrate their vagene.
I don't know what kind of mental stimulation someone with an IQ around 30 would require, but I can't imagine it being overwhelming for super intelligent AI robots.
Lmfao.
No, I'm asking you if the consequence of a world without free choice went in some other direction than the one you propose -- in this case idiocracy -- and if you thought that those scenarios would be horrible.
If odds worked against all the failsafes on the way towards Idiocracy's conclusion, then yes that would be quite awful.
I agree with the "Ignorance is Bliss" principle, but I see personal satisfaction as more of a bell curve. Boredom is independent of IQ, even if a lower IQ may find simpler things more entertaining, and if they otherwise cannot function enough to relieve themselves of that boredom then they are neutrally complacent at best.
If they cannot understand the things they're sensing, are they really feeling happiness?
Okay so it would be awful. How would you ensure that it is your idea and not those other ideas, which lead to awful conclusions, was implemented? There would be many, many competing ideas, much more than we can imagine right now.
That is, how would you ensure that it was your idea that was selected?
How would they help them beyond their physical needs?
They would give them drugs to keep them satisfied and jerk them off / vibrate their vagene.
I don't know what kind of mental stimulation someone with an IQ around 30 would require, but I can't imagine it being overwhelming for super intelligent AI robots.
Is that living or merely subsisting?
You're effectively arguing in favor of a comatose society where robots keep their hearts beating, while I argue in the name of humanity's potential for self-cultivation.
Okay so it would be awful. How would you ensure that it is your idea and not those other ideas, which lead to awful conclusions, was implemented?
If you mean before we've raised the average IQ through eugenics so that it can self-maintain it's own upkeep and eventually snowball, then it'd have to be done as a show of force backed by propaganda pushing people through heuristic shortcuts. There would need to be financial backing that could be lobbied for out of the currently existing Right Wing agenda, considering that banning Abortion is a common goal between both groups.
Basically, we'd just need to take where the modern right already is and overtime use their proclivity towards 'historical precedent' to push them towards the Utopian model (kinda like what we're seeing already). The first step is merely normalizing the concept, then following that build a foundation of self-justification towards it's stance.
Ideas are hard to kill, and even harder to kill when they become a part of recorded history (as we can see with Nazi movements). As long as Utopia remains the endgame rather than just a project with a pre-designated date, it'd take either world destruction or someone enacting an information blackout ala Bladerunner 2049 to truly destroy the concept. Even if it isn't implemented now, it could still be at some point in the future as humanity's natural conclusion in lieu of it's own dying breath.
If we begin colonizing other planets we'll definitely see these sorts of models tried.
Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.
Ok fair enough, that answers how you would go about advocating for your system, but it doesn't answer why you think it was your model that was selected from the competing pool of systems advocating for eugenics or other self-propagating ideas that remove free choice (that would alter the state of affairs more or less permanently).
So let me re-state my question:
You say those alternatives would be horrible, seeing as we're pretty much fucked if we have a shitty system that enforces itself on people without being subject to change. However, your system is good, and so it's not an issue that it doesn't allow for free will -- the issue is those other systems. On a level from 0% to 100%, how confident are you that your system will be accepted by the people over the competing models (including idiocracy, which all lead to undesirable outcomes according to you)?
Ok fair enough, that answers how you would go about advocating for your system, but it doesn't answer why you think it was your model that was selected from the competing pool of systems advocating for eugenics or other self-propagating ideas that remove free choice (that would alter the state of affairs more or less permanently).
That's always a risk though. Should we not pave the way towards progress simply because something might go wrong? How things are now isn't working, and in response to it we see people mobilizing.
If it's past the point of eugenic snowballing, ideally the people going towards newer systems would be doing it from a more informed stance. I'm not going to sit here and say this is the only idea, the best idea, and that it will forever withstand the test of time when the sciences are about adapting as more becomes known within it's canon. A structure where our best and brightest can steer the next generation of replacements as a matter of nationalist pride should be steered by teams of scientists who have humanity as a species held as it's most paramount focus.
The hardest part is simply getting that snowball going, which will involve playing along within modern politics while the concept is gradually normalized.
You say those alternatives would be horrible, seeing as we're pretty much fucked if we have a shitty system that enforces itself on people without being subject to change.
It is horrible through whatever twisted it into an exaggerated form of where corporate interests have already taken us, we need to push away from it by using nowadays as an example of what to get away from. It doesn't take much research to see that people are displeased within the current model, and pushing the choice and believed convenience of it even further will lead to even more people "rejecting the program".
It needs an architect, it needs to be steered, or what could serve as the perfect example of what to get away from will instead destroy itself. People thrive within constraints, even if it's over birthing the genius that can overthrow it and take it in a superior direction, while freedom is doomed to consume itself through it's complacency. Freedom on it's own lacks purpose and ultimately leaves people unable and unwilling to pursue growth from seeing what's going on as too nebulous and overstimulating in the face of the freedom to do nothing otherwise.
To take things a step further, freedom also gives the room for people to fight themselves over trivialities, merely for the catharsis of it's release. Much like we see in the wake of modern protests, all freedom's doing for us is giving us the room to schism into more and more sub-cultures who are primed to fight one another, rather than existing as one cohesive body of people. Pedestrians arguing over gay rights for example doesn't really do anything for or against where society's going to take it if they believe themselves to have no purpose, instead having people spend their energy on themselves so that no progress is made whatsoever. Big money loves stalling progress, as we've seen time and time again for decades over matters like the electric and self-driving car.
However, your system is good, and so it's not an issue that it doesn't allow for free will -- the issue is those other systems.
Once it's understood as a matter of cultural groupthink it will prove to be quicker and more efficient, and with sciences being the foundation behind it rather than greed we'll see progress become the exaggerated concept rather than parasitism.
We are largely Nihilistic in the wake of the information age for another's profit, not our own. The illusion of choice is losing it's shimmer as people want life to have actual substance, meaning, and rather than flood that with nonsense we ought to turn our self-cultivating practices towards championing ourselves, rather than turning ourselves into dogs, into cows.
On a level from 0% to 100%, how confident are you that your system will be accepted by the people over the competing models (including idiocracy, which all lead to undesirable outcomes according to you)?
If it were to be thrown at people now it'd likely do poorly, but people are otherwise coming around to the idea more and more by the day, if not neighboring ideas that could be mutated towards Utopia.
Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.
Ok fair enough, that answers how you would go about advocating for your system, but it doesn't answer why you think it was your model that was selected from the competing pool of systems advocating for eugenics or other self-propagating ideas that remove free choice (that would alter the state of affairs more or less permanently).
That's always a risk though. Should we not pave the way towards progress simply because something might go wrong? How things are now isn't working, and in response to it we see people mobilizing.
If it's past the point of eugenic snowballing, ideally the people going towards newer systems would be doing it from a more informed stance. I'm not going to sit here and say this is the only idea, the best idea, and that it will forever withstand the test of time when the sciences are about adapting as more becomes known within it's canon. A structure where our best and brightest can steer the next generation of replacements as a matter of nationalist pride should be steered by teams of scientists who have humanity as a species held as it's most paramount focus.
If you believe your idea will not be selected as the best idea, then according to the prior probability, you have now ruined the society and lost, as the society is dominated not by scientists but people with a different agenda from yours (a different idea was selected), and being evolved in an entirely different direction without the option of anyone being able to steer it back.
In other words, the idea did not work.
On a level from 0% to 100%, how confident are you that your system will be accepted by the people over the competing models (including idiocracy, which all lead to undesirable outcomes according to you)?
If it were to be thrown at people now it'd likely do poorly, but people are otherwise coming around to the idea more and more by the day, if not neighboring ideas that could be mutated towards Utopia.
On a level from 0% to 100%, how confident are you that your system will eventually be accepted by the people over the competing models (including idiocracy, which all lead to undesirable outcomes according to you)?
This thread is amazing so far.
I've been thinking about acquiring some accelerationist and techno utopianism literature, turns out I just needed a peek of TC's thoughts.
He makes surprisingly compelling arguments for a dystopia.
Ok fair enough, that answers how you would go about advocating for your system, but it doesn't answer why you think it was your model that was selected from the competing pool of systems advocating for eugenics or other self-propagating ideas that remove free choice (that would alter the state of affairs more or less permanently).
That's always a risk though. Should we not pave the way towards progress simply because something might go wrong? How things are now isn't working, and in response to it we see people mobilizing.
If it's past the point of eugenic snowballing, ideally the people going towards newer systems would be doing it from a more informed stance. I'm not going to sit here and say this is the only idea, the best idea, and that it will forever withstand the test of time when the sciences are about adapting as more becomes known within it's canon. A structure where our best and brightest can steer the next generation of replacements as a matter of nationalist pride should be steered by teams of scientists who have humanity as a species held as it's most paramount focus.
If you think your idea will not be selected as the best idea, then according to the prior probability, you have now ruined the society and lost, as the society is dominated not by scientists but people with a different agenda from yours, and being evolved in an entirely different direction without the option of anyone being able to steer it back.
In other words, your idea did not work.
Does having a chance of failure at all mean that it must be a bad plan? Your idea of leaving it up to choice hurts the odds more, both through the sheer hydra that competing counter-ideologies end up being and through the commodity of complacency.
This ideology could potentially end up causing a rebellion within Mr. A's constraints that ends up with Utopia as it's solution, somewhat like we're seeing from the modern right right now. As I mentioned before, it is within constraints that the genius who overthrows it with a superior system may rise rather than when within a system that is too nebulous to grasp. Perhaps the Utopia plan is merely a stepping stone for the next person to come up with an even better solution, but this freedom thing? It's just more of the same and people are tired of it.
I worry that this may have dissolved too far into the hypothetical at this point to discern anything of use, as odds are going to remain a gamble on some level no matter what's promoted. Instead, we should focus on the potential based on the ideas themselves, rather than mill on and on about the unfortunate implications that follow "if someone else wins".
We need to work that much harder so that no one else wins, and to accomplish that we need to rid them of choices. Rather than assume it's lost by the merit of what happens if it does, we need to instead ensure that this doomsday never comes to pass through any means necessary. Once the journalists are all fake news, the artists dead and replaced with graphic design machines, and all counter-ideology's been silenced as "misinformation" the snowball can begin, but getting to that point is going to require working within existing systems as it becomes further normalized than it already is.
On a level from 0% to 100%, how confident are you that your system will be accepted by the people over the competing models (including idiocracy, which all lead to undesirable outcomes according to you)?
If it were to be thrown at people now it'd likely do poorly, but people are otherwise coming around to the idea more and more by the day, if not neighboring ideas that could be mutated towards Utopia.
On a level from 0% to 100%, how confident are you that your system will eventually be accepted by the people over the competing models (including idiocracy, which all lead to undesirable outcomes according to you)?
About as confident as any other system could potentially be, based on it's promises of a tomorrow that fixes today.
Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.
Ok fair enough, that answers how you would go about advocating for your system, but it doesn't answer why you think it was your model that was selected from the competing pool of systems advocating for eugenics or other self-propagating ideas that remove free choice (that would alter the state of affairs more or less permanently).
That's always a risk though. Should we not pave the way towards progress simply because something might go wrong? How things are now isn't working, and in response to it we see people mobilizing.
If it's past the point of eugenic snowballing, ideally the people going towards newer systems would be doing it from a more informed stance. I'm not going to sit here and say this is the only idea, the best idea, and that it will forever withstand the test of time when the sciences are about adapting as more becomes known within it's canon. A structure where our best and brightest can steer the next generation of replacements as a matter of nationalist pride should be steered by teams of scientists who have humanity as a species held as it's most paramount focus.
If you think your idea will not be selected as the best idea, then according to the prior probability, you have now ruined the society and lost, as the society is dominated not by scientists but people with a different agenda from yours, and being evolved in an entirely different direction without the option of anyone being able to steer it back.
In other words, your idea did not work.
Does having a chance of failure at all mean that it must be a bad plan?
No, but since you have admitted to the necessary conditions for your plan to probably fail, and because that failure implies the reduction of the human society to permanent idiocracy or implementation of other plans we both agree are really horrible, yes it's pretty bad.
We need to work that much harder so that no one else wins, and to accomplish that we need to rid them of choices. Rather than assume it's lost by the merit of what happens if it does, we need to instead ensure that this doomsday never comes to pass through any means necessary.
About as confident as any other system could potentially be, based on it's promises of a tomorrow that fixes today.
Which means that you're probably not going to win, based on the prior odds against you. So you have lost.
