What is the one thing that shapes your whole political philosophy?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

which is why the technocrats will be in charge.

also not everyone follows your idea of happiness.

happiness of the general population is one of the major goals of technocracy.

foxhound_fox

you are wrong, Plato tells us that the highest calling of man is the seeking of knowledge, not pleasure.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]Democracy either descends into tyranny or elevates to technocracy.foxhound_fox

democracy has historically always ended in tyranny...

get a history book.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"] i'm talking about in the figurative "workplace" one should not be a pilot and a mathematician.

frannkzappa

because one would be either a better mathematician or a better pilot,

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

abundant resources is theoretically quite achievable, technocracy can wait till technology catches up.

frannkzappa

at the current growth rate of ~ 2-3% GDP per year for the distant future . . . yeah, it'll be a good, long while.

meanwhile, we can just let congress continue to delegate to the experts increasingly, as the trend has been, until transitioning to 'technocracy' is an exercise in futility well before getting everything everyone wants is an issue

'cos that's how it'll go down

you do realize this is how technocracy starts, right? it depends on how much and how soon they relinquish their power.

Democracy either descends into tyranny or elevates to technocracy.

America is in a pretty good position at this point in time.

It is a hybrid of sorts that seems to work much better than hypotheticals that you seem to be fond of.

America is in a pretty good position at this point in time.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

my point with the 'not many experts' deal is that there would be few people with power

very few people with power in their respective fields

making decentralization inherently problematic

coolbeans90

yes, but when holding a large amount of sway over a field, you then have a high chance of corruption within any single field

which means you have tons of corrupt fields that will either ally, oppose, or manipulate each other for gain and these will conglomerate into factions that invariably result in the centralization of power which lends itself handily to what we refer to in the common man's tongue as tyranny

GG technocracy

you failed at even being technocratic

anyway, i am done for now

my face is now a pillow

you keep saying this but you never take into account abundance economics and platonism.

you are wrong, Plato tells us that the highest calling of man is the seeking of knowledge, not pleasure.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]America is in a pretty good position at this point in time.foxhound_fox

money doesn't exist in technocracy.

foreign nations are resources to be used or obstacles to step over.

i also meant that statement in terms of becoming a technocracy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]you are wrong, Plato tells us that the highest calling of man is the seeking of knowledge, not pleasure.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Why not?BranKetra

because one would be either a better mathematician or a better pilot,

a person can be better at math than he is at piloting or vice versa.

if you focus all your time on one and not two that ""one" will be greater than if you spent time on two.

money doesn't exist in technocracy.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]money doesn't exist in technocracy.foxhound_fox

by taking what it needs from foreign states and through artificial creation.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

because one would be either a better mathematician or a better pilot,

frannkzappa

a person can be better at math than he is at piloting or vice versa.

if you focus all your time on one and not two that ""one" will be greater than if you spent time on two.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] I wonder about the outcome of a situation where and when the best pilot in the world is also the best mathematician and someone tells him that he cannot do both because he is better at one than the other.

BranKetra

a person can be better at math than he is at piloting or vice versa.

if you focus all your time on one and not two that ""one" will be greater than if you spent time on two.

look at it this way.

say you have two clones that are exactly alike.

1 clone spends his time piloting. the other splits his time between piloting and math.

is it not logical that the one who spends all his time piloting will be the better pilot than the one who splits his time?

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]you are misinterpreting me.

a person can be better at math than he is at piloting or vice versa.

if you focus all your time on one and not two that ""one" will be greater than if you spent time on two.

frannkzappa

look at it this way.

say you have two clones that are exactly alike.

1 clone spends his time piloting. the other splits his time between piloting and math.

is it not logical that the one who spends all his time piloting will be the better pilot than the one who splits his time?

by taking what it needs from foreign states and through artificial creation.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Is specialization in the scenario I presented necessary? BranKetra

look at it this way.

say you have two clones that are exactly alike.

1 clone spends his time piloting. the other splits his time between piloting and math.

is it not logical that the one who spends all his time piloting will be the better pilot than the one who splits his time?

he would benefit society more as a better mathematician or as a better pilot. doing both limits his potential.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]by taking what it needs from foreign states and through artificial creation.foxhound_fox

whats wrong with that?

mankind has always done it.

One of my teachers in high school said that he pretty much only cared about what the person he's voting for would do for education. Seemed silly to me at the time but I can see why now.

One of my teachers in high school said that he pretty much only cared about what the person he's voting for would do for education. Seemed silly to me at the time but I can see why now.

cain006

supporting education should be paramount, your teacher was a smart man.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

 

look at it this way.

 

say you have two clones that are exactly alike.

 

1 clone spends his time piloting. the other splits his time between piloting and math.

 

is it not logical that the one who spends all his time piloting will be the better pilot than the one who splits his time?

frannkzappa

he would benefit society more as a better mathematician or as a better pilot. doing both limits his potential.

social darwinism.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Most likely yes That does not address the scenario I am presenting. You were saying earlier the needs of many outweigh the needs of few, but the possibility of my scenario exists where and when being equally skilled as a pilot and mathematician would be best for society instead of someone specializing in one of the fields.BranKetra

he would benefit society more as a better mathematician or as a better pilot. doing both limits his potential.

social darwinism.

VaguelyTagged

how so?

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

he would benefit society more as a better mathematician or as a better pilot. doing both limits his potential.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] It may limit his potential in one field, but it rivals it with another. A restriction to a single practice is just as good or bad as an evenly distributed skillset in my opinion.BranKetra

for two physical things to equal each other they must PERFECTLY the same. perfection does no exist in the physical world.

whatever has proven to make people living in a society happy.

basically whatever works.

> perfection does no exist in the physical world That statement is debatable with things like the golden ratio in existence.BranKetra

the golden ratio exists only as a concept, what we deal with are imperfect representations.

we know things like pi exist but we can't ever draw a line of length pi exactly.

The ones who demonstrate their value above the average are the ones who should be rewarded.EagleEyedOne

i agree

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]> perfection does no exist in the physical world That statement is debatable with things like the golden ratio in existence.EagleEyedOne

boom

You have now convinced me.

I will now abandon my old anarchistic and communistic ways for technocracy.

I will now bow down and serve a small handful of elitist despots in the name of technocracy and the greater good. People are too lazy for real socialism to ever work, so they need to be controlled and disciplined by the state. You guys don't have any similarities with the leninists. Nothing bad will come out of this. You convinced me man, you guys know so much. I was so naive to think it wasn't a better idea.

:lol:

You have now convinced me.

I will now abandon my old anarchistic and communistic ways for technocracy.

I will now bow down and serve a small handful of elitist despots in the name of technocracy and the greater good. People are too lazy for real socialism to ever work, so they need to be controlled and disciplined by the state. You guys don't have any similarities with the leninists. Nothing bad will come out of this. You convinced me man, you guys know so much. I was so naive to think it wasn't a better idea.

:lol:

RushKing

there is no excuse for anarchism, communism (in theory) is at least palatable, but anarchy is suicide on a global scale.

by no means a small hand full.

this is very true.

not really.

You have now convinced me.

I will now abandon my old anarchistic and communistic ways for technocracy.

I will now bow down and serve a small handful of elitist despots in the name of technocracy and the greater good. People are too lazy for real socialism to ever work, so they need to be controlled and disciplined by the state. You guys don't have any similarities with the leninists. Nothing bad will come out of this. You convinced me man, you guys know so much. I was so naive to think it wasn't a better idea.

:lol:

RushKing

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]> perfection does no exist in the physical world That statement is debatable with things like the golden ratio in existence.BranKetra

can you explain my points?

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

You have now convinced me.

I will now abandon my old anarchistic and communistic ways for technocracy.

I will now bow down and serve a small handful of elitist despots in the name of technocracy and the greater good. People are too lazy for real socialism to ever work, so they need to be controlled and disciplined by the state. You guys don't have any similarities with the leninists. Nothing bad will come out of this. You convinced me man, you guys know so much. I was so naive to think it wasn't a better idea.

:lol:

frannkzappa

there is no excuse for anarchism, communism (in theory) is at least palatable, but anarchy is suicide on a global scale.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

You have now convinced me.

I will now abandon my old anarchistic and communistic ways for technocracy.

I will now bow down and serve a small handful of elitist despots in the name of technocracy and the greater good. People are too lazy for real socialism to ever work, so they need to be controlled and disciplined by the state. You guys don't have any similarities with the leninists. Nothing bad will come out of this. You convinced me man, you guys know so much. I was so naive to think it wasn't a better idea.

:lol:

V3rciS

there is no excuse for anarchism, communism (in theory) is at least palatable, but anarchy is suicide on a global scale.

i believe the word you are looking for is dystopia

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"] The Universe would not exist if it wasn't for imperfection. In a perfect Universe, all mass and matter would be evenly distributed that is, no clumps of mass called planets.frannkzappa

can you explain my points?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Are you sure?BranKetra

can you explain my points?

you claim the existence of strait lines,perfect circles and pi?

show me one.

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

there is no excuse for anarchism, communism (in theory) is at least palatable, but anarchy is suicide on a global scale.

frannkzappa

i believe the word you are looking for is dystopia

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]
Anarchy is utopia...as described by M.Bakunin, it can never be achieved. Not within a human society.

V3rciS

i believe the word you are looking for is dystopia

Well now screw politics and give me some food for thought over here...  :P

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29409727/artificial-intelligence---ethics-challenges-thoughts....-

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]
Anarchy is utopia...as described by M.Bakunin, it can never be achieved. Not within a human society.

V3rciS

i believe the word you are looking for is dystopia

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i believe the word you are looking for is dystopia

RushKing

There is a pocket of communism in the US right now. So technically it has already been achieved in this country.