Oh all the laypeople want are their short-sighted desires met. — Outlander

Like the right to worship, speak freely; marry whom they love and sit where they like on the bus? Sure. That's why limits are set for terms of office: the people's stupid little wants and needs can change over time. Lay people know every bit as much about what they want as do parsons, judges and doctors.

Laypeople need to be governed. Immensely. — Outlander

As by the Holy Emperor Donald I? Done!

So elections are the “willl of the people” if such a term has any actual meaning besides political speech bloviating. — Fire Ologist

It does, if the election is conducted properly by the currently government; that is, the process meet a pre-set standard for fair elections. That's what constitutions are made for.

Do you take the assessment of the truth value of a proposition as knowing-how knowledge, equivalent to juggling balls — Hanover

If it's a detailed instruction on how to juggle balIs, yes. I can believe that a statement or instruction or description is true, but I can't know it unless I test it by some independent means. Verify the statement through other sources, follow the instruction and succeed in the endeavour, examine the described object through my own senses.

Seems evaluating statements requires cognitive grasp of concepts. — Hanover

Yes. And how are cognitive grasps formed? Sensory input+experience+learning+memory+reflection. They're made in the web of knowing the world.

You can never be 100% certain that the tap which worked an hour ago is still working, or that the pipes connecting that tap to a well or reservoir haven't burst, or that the water source hasn't dried up. But you can know that a water-faucet is connected by pipes to a source of water; that that twisting the handle in one direction opens a valve and water flows from it, that twisting in the opposite direction stops the water flowing. That's knowledge about the mechanism and its function as well as how to use it. You know, because you've been told and have tested the information with demonstrable results. Nothing you know about mechanism and its purpose is invalidated by a malfunction in either the plumbing or your hand. If you know the what, you know the how. If you forget the how, you must also have forgotten the what; in that case, the knowledge has either been destroyed or gone temporarily inaccessible.

If information is inapplicable to the physical world, it can't be tested for veracity or relevance. You can only know for certain that which you have observed, experienced, tested and verified. Actual knowledge can't be divorced from the whats, hows and whys of the physical world.
Untestable information can be believed, accepted because it's probable in light of actual knowledge you already possess or it fits in with your world-view and expectations, or because the source is someone you trust. That's belief. It is often correct, but it's not knowledge.

We use the word knowledge to refer to things we use in the world. For example "something exist because this whatever this is is something" so we ask what is that ? — Jack2848

We use axes and bassoons in the world, too and they're nor knowledge. They were made by people who knew something about materials and processes.

For example "something exist because this whatever this is is something" so we ask what is that ?

I know the words, but cannot parse the sentence.

The truth value we can imagine not depending on your perception otherwise we'd have contradictions galore. Surely we can make a distinction between truth assumption by person x vs our recognition that x could be false anyway. (In a practical way) — Jack2848

Exactly, which is why a piece of information, however true and correct, is not knowledge until it's verified by comparison to previous experience, tested against logic and probability and incorporated into a personal data-base. When you experience and remember something, it becomes part of your knowledge. When you communicate it to someone else, it doesn't necessarily part of their knowledge.

If a proposition is true then it is true information. So if we'd use the word knowledge for that then sure. — Jack2848

But I'm not using one word when I mean a different word. Why should I?

And would you say the theist, atheist and agnost each have different ideas as to what we can claim to know? — Jack2848

That's part of it. More comprehensively, you can say that we interpret evidence differently, according to our previous experience, conviction and disposition, and thereby arrive at different conclusions.

And would you say that that confirms rather then refutes my position that whether we can know first depends on what we mean by 'know' — Jack2848

Neither. You interpret knowledge one way; the theist and I interpret it a different way. You make all those little word equations; the true believer has an epiphany; I have a critical approach to whatever I read.

Since if we mean by 'know' 'having absolute certainty even beyond often assumed ridiculous doubt'. Then in that case we can't know. If defined differently (fallibilist type definition) then we can know. — Jack2848

Sure: we can be 100 sure that we know how to brush our teeth; many know how to drive a car; some people know how to make an axe. Doctors generally know that vaccinations protect against contagious disease; astronomers know, to a reasonable level of certainty which of the visible suns have planets; those who have read the reports know that climate change is clear and present danger. Whether there are gods or ghosts is a matter of personal conviction, simply because there is too little objective, testable and verifiable information.

The original dialogue content is about the administrative part, and the standards mentioned are used to measure the degree to which administrative goals are promoted or indicate the requirements that the government needs to achieve in corresponding goals.
These goals represent the people's public demands at the administrative level. — panwei

Okay: I completely failed to understand. I thought you posited a set of standards that all administration are expected to meet, and then voted for a group of people to do the governing for a period of time.
I was thinking in terms of western democracies. We in Canada vote for local representatives to the federal parliament, provincial parliaments and municipal councils. We choose the people who will represent each district, so we choose the candidate for the party whose stated policies are most closely aligned with our own. The party that wins most seats forms the administration for the duration of its time in office. But no legislative body can stay in power longer than four years without another election.
I don't understand the mechanism whereby people get to demand things at the administrative level. They can write to their representative, and there may be sample polls by various organizations, but it would be far too difficult and expensive to have periodic formal reviews by the whole population, so the voters have no direct access to the administration and can't change policy decisions until the next election.
(Certainly, proportional representation would be better, which I now suppose was your fruit analogy, but that doesn't involve pre-set objective standards.
I misunderstood what you meant by standards and couldn't understand or the promotion of individuals. Obviously, a cultural misconnection, so please ignore my comment. The chatbot knew what you meant and was quite sensible.

What was the question again? In layman's terms, please.

Knowledge is information that is true — Jack2848

No, that's just accurate information. It doesn't become knowledge until you compare it with previous information you're gathered, test it for logical dissonance, evaluate it in light of your own sensory input and integrated it with a network of data on the subject that you've accumulated through a combination of reliable information from external sources, personal experience, reflection and memory. (You can't know anything you've forgotten, no matter how true it was or how convinced you were.)

''Superman can fly in the fictional realm of DC'' — Jack2848

That's a factoid. It becomes knowledge if you're already conversant with the realm of comic books, so that you're aware of what Superman is (obviously, not what one think from the name) and can place it in the context of American culture. Only then can you use it on Jeopardy.

'I am writing my first post on this board'' is true and is knowledge. — Jack2848

Sez you, who made it true by Direct experience. I have no way of testing the statement. (You might have had 18 different online personae over the years.
(Welcome, or welcome back, whichever applies.)

God exists'' is either knowledge (true information) or it isn't and then it's false information. Can we know whether it is knowledge or not? That depends on what you mean by know. — Jack2848

No, it doesn't. It depends on on whether you're a theist. For them, the answer is obviously yes; for an atheist, it's just as obviously No; for an agnostic, it's a wobbly Maybe.

But that's a separate issue. — Jack2848

No, it can't be. It's a central issue. All this knowing and learning takes place in a human brain, imprisoned in a human skull, while the bearer of that skull lives in a physical world, in a society, a time and a culture. In order to topple early indoctrination, propaganda, self-delusion and long-held convictions, one must be presented with more than factual information, be open to contradictory input and bring to bear his own critical faculties.

But a new problem arises namely, can that person know whether they have knowledge? — Jack2848

Certainly: compare, test, reflect, evaluate, integrate.

So we can focus on just the act of ''knowing'' — Jack2848

It's not an act; it's a continuing state of mind. You can focus on it, so long as you understand that knowledge is analogous to love: it's not an emotion but a complex of emotions, sensations and beliefs. Just widen your lens aperture a couple of f-stops.

It seems to me that one can wholly separate standards from policies, even without subdividing one's choices.

When voting on a set of standards, a population can usually form a broad consensus: We want government to be honest, transparent, responsible, etc.; we want it to uphold the constitution, respond efficiently to emergencies, guard the people's safety, etc. I'm reasonably sure a list of criteria for government performance can be drawn up and pass with a 90% majority. It's basically a democratic wish-list.

Policies, OTH, can change in response to need or a changed environment or outside influence. A policy may be favoured by the 12% that would benefit most, or the 23% that shares a particular prejudice or the 49% whose self-esteem it reinforces or the 74% who would feel safer if the policy were implemented.

To the degree that an administration meets the standards, it satisfies the overwhelming majority of voters, regardless of whether one faction or another voted for any specific policy, because the latter are temporary and never reach the level of public support that the standards have continuously. So, we can pretty much all agree that we want fruit, and if sufficient fruit is offered, the supplier has met the original demand, regardless of what fruit is in season or whether one or another faction is happy with the selection.

I haven’t considered it as art, because it seems to primarily be about entertainment. — Pinprick

Isn't bullfighting? Isn't gladiatorial combat? How about cinema?

Is storytelling art? — Jeremy Murray
I think it can be. Listening to your grandfather’s war stories probably aren’t, but on a stage to an audience, sure. — Pinprick

Hemingway's is; grandfather's isn't; Charles Dickens, yes; the Ojibway elder, no. If Chekov, yes, what about Roddenberry? Situational, comparative and subjective.

Good question. Pro wrestling is weird, I cannot think of another example of 'scripted' violence that involves some real violence in human history. — Jeremy Murray

Ritual mutilation? I wonder whether scarification, piercings and other forms of painful body modification are considered art? They usually have religious or tribal significance, to show solidarity, rather than intended to communicate anything personal.... Then, there is tattooing, which requires skill to do well, but the tattoo artist is usually working from a template, rather creating something original. The subject, however, endures the pain in order to make a unique personal statement with the illustrations on her body, and she's not called an artist.

I think it is a kind of violent art? Does it land that way for you? — Jeremy Murray

Well, it's performance. I don't think wrestling has any significance. It's a traditional sporting contest modified for mass entertainment. While some mass entertainments are art, involving creativity, originality, the addition of something meaningful to a culture, the vast majority is industrial: assembled from fragments of existing material glued together with whatever cliches are in fashion. In our age (as it was in medieval Europe and ancient Rome) violence is a staple component. I'm sure if capital punishment were performed on stage, the public would lap it up, just like they did in 1790.

Inquisitors don't belong in the ambiguous category. I can't think of any argument to call that an art form. Perhaps it again comes down to purpose? The inquisitor's primary purpose is to find answers, any 'artistry' in their vile work is secondary. — Jeremy Murray

There may be several reasons for torture. One is to extract information; others are to force a confession or recantation or conversion; there is also punitive torture, as in the concept of hell. Then, there is torture for the pleasure of the torturer or an audience. Does one count as perversion and the other as art? It would seem so, in bullfighting. Professional inquisitors learn the skill of inflicting maximum pain while keeping the subject alive, aware and lucid for as long as possible - not unlike the skills of a professional wrestler, or matador.

Another good point, but I think to designate yourself an artist you must produce 'art', which seems different, harder, than just having opinions about it? — Jeremy Murray

You may have to produce or perform something to call yourself an artist - and you think it doesn't matter what? Then, if a brickmaker calls himself an artists, bricks automatically become works of art? Or just the ones made by that guy? That's much harder work than than this, which is easier than this and welding steel beams is harder than any of those. Level of difficulty rarely determines the category of the endeavor or the esteem in which it is held. Cooking is often considered an art, but only if the artist calls himself a chef and then only if the eaters who get paid for calling themselves food critics agree. Otherwise, it's a decent occupation, a menial job, a hobby or an unpaid service and the food thus produced is mere sustenance.

This may be a good point at which to inquire whether there is a difference between art and craft, between craft and skilled labour, between artistry in the operating theater and artistry in a concert hall.
Another question: Is art restricted in its function to communication and entertainment? Is it forbidden to be functional?

I don't really know excrement man, but I could see a case for that being art — Jeremy Murray

I'd like to see you make it. Blowing up a balloon is a deliberate act; excretion is unavoidable, even for pigeons who don't call themselves artists when they decorate your windshield. Is everyone an artist? Or only the ones who label cans as shit and substitute plaster? If an 8-year-old did that, he'd be upbraided for a prank in bad taste; a toddler smearing it on the wall is reprimanded, though he's probably communicating something original via something personal.... yet nobody would pay either of them thousands of pounds for a sample.
Are you sure art is not in the mind of the beholder? If it's blue and has a frame around it, it's art. If it doesn't have a frame, it's just a blue wall. Would it be art if I hung an empty frame on a blue wall, or do I need a matte? A urinal in a washroom is simply a fixture; on a gallery wall, it becomes a famous work of art. Is something more significant than the weather report being communicated? Or is the weather report also art? It would be if the tv set were part of an installation piece. Sometimes I think the message is: "Suckers!!"

Clearly, I have a soft spot for 'trash', and rambling responses. Hope it was worth your reading! — Jeremy Murray

Sure. Not only does the subject interest me (having dabbled in art and craft myself, with much effort and little reward) but this singularly non-artistic activity is keeping me from an eminently procrastination-worthy piece of creative writing.

I'm not well versed in the critique of cinema. I was a fan ofElwy Yostwho found some merit in pretty much every film ever made. I do appreciate a well-designed set, effective lighting, a clever camera angle, talented actors and appropriate musical score (only, it's too loud!) but they're nothing without a good story. And even then, they're not art until somebody's watching who does appreciate them.

Can we maybe conclude that art, like humour, is situational, provisional and contextual?

... as well as, of course, subjective....

But my insistence on 'safety', even for the consenting, is perhaps where my philosophy falls apart? — Jeremy Murray

If there is built-in safety, is it violence? For the matador, what he does may be art, certainly not for the bull, nor for the subject of an inquisitor's art, or the cow in formaldehyde. Without those involuntary participants, the 'artists' would be nothing.

Of course I wouldn't tell it to their faces: I'm not sure of the safety. Nor would I tell a dying man or aging wrestler or any self-styled artist (except perhaps the guy selling the fake vials of excrement - I have no sympathy to spare for that grifter), because it would be unkind. But internally, I could not be convinced that their oeuvre is art. If designating oneself an artist makes it legitimate, so does designating oneself an art critic.

As a historical novel, it could be interesting, even captivating.
However, you use the word 'sacred' so many times in the outline that it sets off my fire alarms.
'Beautiful' pretty much goes without saying: how could anyone possibly have a sacred or evem profane love for a homely woman? (Doesn't matter if the sailor is ugly as sin, just so the lady is beautiful.) But 'Lady of Islam' gives me pause. How can I tell whether she's beautiful is she's wearing a burqa?
Anyway, I can't comment on a piece of writing without a sample of the actual writing.
(I fervently hope you're not channeling early Rushdie in style.)

Some countries are lucky that they can combine both: good laws and honest people. — javi2541997

It's not luck. Humans are pretty much the same the world over, but some leaders have had more foresight in organizing their governance, invested more in the mental capability of the young, allowed for a robust communication and thus some populations have been more vigilant, less gullible.
It's not too mate for reform everywhere, but the obstacles get more challenging as systems deteriorate. In the US now, a huge upsurgence of civic awareness and activism is required - and it would meet with violent resistance: that is, something very close to a a revolution would have to take place. Not many people are brave enough to risk it, until they're really desperate.

Not all of the system is already dead. — javi2541997

In fact, some bad ones are improving. Still, the decline overall is distressing, and it's because of the political divisions, which affect law-making, litigation, legal actions, compliance with existing rules and law enforcement agencies. Government can meddle with the legal system at all levels from legislation to police hiring requirements. If the system is relatively clean and responsible to the voters, appointed judges can be quite free of influence; if the system is corrupt and obscure, even the most open election can be rigged.
It's not the structure of the judiciary or the rules set for that that count; it's the people in power.

There could be a process where the corrupt get summoned to testify in court. But who could be the one who writes the subpoena, and what could be the correct process? — javi2541997

There are procedures through the elected representatives. It was difficult and rare to impeach a federal supreme court justice (I expect it's also the case with state legislatures) but it's been done for proven corruption. The present US Supreme Court is spectacularly corrupt. The FBI and state regulating agencies can investigate and find ample evidence, but cannot enforce punishment, even if the cases are tried: an honest judge (still the majority, I believe) may convict, but a politically appointed and corrupt appellate court judge can simply reverse the ruling.
However, a corrupt administration can hurt in many ways an honest judge who rules against one of its bad laws or illegal actions.

This is why I propose a 'code of conduct' for those people and situations. — javi2541997

There is one - set by the US Judicial Conference (a body like the College of Physicians) but the problem, again, is enforcement. In a corrupt system, all organs and agencies are corrupted. This is not a local infection; it's full-blown septicemia.

Then the problem is the corruption of some judges or attorneys, right? — javi2541997

An increasing number as elections grow more expensive, kickbacks in the form of gifts and vacations become more blatant, appointees to supreme courts more openly partisan and judges live longer with no mandatory retirement.

However, judges alone have the authority to interpret and apply the law. Why wouldn't a judge apply good law? — javi2541997

Because his corporate sponsor or political patron wants the bad law implemented or the bad man paroled or the opposition's good initiative stopped.

Instead of focusing on the law, I believe we should try to figure out why the judiciary system is getting more rotten than ever. — javi2541997

That's easy! Elected and appointed officials. The judiciary is tied to the political administration and the similarly financed electoral system. When the state administration is corrupt, district attorneys and judges are corrupted. When the federal administration is corrupt, federal judges are corrupted. Not all of them fall into that trap, but in every cycle, some go to the the dark side - and remain in office through the next several cycles. The overall effect, therefore, is a gradual increase in the percentage of corrupt jurists - especially in the supreme courts, where tenure is guaranteed.

And it will continue to be ignored, and cause massive corruption, as long as money plays such a prominent role in elections. (I refer you to the egregious example of Elon X Musk.)
There should be no fund-raising, campaign contributions or commercial advertising of candidates: they should stand or fall by their own actions and speech. But how can their actions be known? Responsible journalism. How can their speeches be heard? Public media, newspaper interviews and personal appearances.
BTW Who decided it was a good idea to allow lobbying?

If combat is art and butchery is art and degradation is art, then what is not art?

Well, I would say that how something is presented matters. It’s not the only thing that matters, but it does make a difference because it provides context for whatever is being presented. A butcher butchering a pig, for example, could be interpreted as making a statement about how animals are treated, eating meat, etc. if presented in a gallery instead of a slaughterhouse. In the same way that a urinal hung in a gallery and titled is art, but not one in the men’s restroom. — Pinprick

You would say that? I wouldn't.

We have very different notions of culture and language.


Perhaps, but different doesn’t automatically mean wrong. — Pinprick

It means wrong for me.
The determination of what is and is not art, who is or is not an artist, is entirely subjective.

Fine. I think differently.

If people are to have good moral judgement, we must have education for good moral judgement as we once had. — Athena

When was once, and where did their good moral judgement disappear to when something changed?
Only, of course, nothing really changed. You always had the same disparity of wealth and power, education and opportunity that you have now, the scale of which varied somewhat over time, but was always the same at its core: The have-too-much using money to bribe and corrupt the have-never-enough; cheat, exploit and intimidate the have-not.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, strongly believed that a good economy depends on morality. — Athena

And now we have Pope Donald I, poster child for Economics.

Giving people charity without expecting something from them is harmful. — Athena

Maybe so, but I never suggested doing any such thing. Do the people you help pay you? People volunteer to do charity work and give food or money to those who have suffered misfortune. People in communities are supposed to pitch in an support one another.
If you were referring to UBI, it was mentioned only as a stop-gap measure for a foreseeable period of high unemployment with no other systemic relief for those left behind by automation and outsourcing.
I suggested organizing society in such a way that everyone has the opportunity to participate and nobody needs charity. That will have to wait until the present global economy collapses (They're busily chopping away at it!)

Money based systems simply do not allow for healthy society. This was so in ancient Athens, in medieval France, industrial England and electronic America.
You can teach and preach and pontificate about virtue, and nothing changes unless the system changes.

I will stand with my argument that a moral is a matter of cause and effect. I know about the Venus project. What is your point? — Athena

Only that there must are alternatives to capitalist, money-based economy and one of those needs to prevail before all that moral, logical, fair and democratic stuff can have any chance of survival.

That's one way it can end. There are two others I can readily imagine, less nice.

When the land holds resources, should these resources be viewed as shared or private? — Athena

Neither. They belong to the Earth which sustains us all - unless we despoil it. The principle that works best is to take only what you need, replace or replenish it and use what you take wisely. Private ownership of land, water, mineral and food sources is wrong. No human should own more than the shelter they inhabit, the clothes they wear, the tools and vessels they use. Everything else is shared or left alone.

Shouldn't the money of the first resource be set aside to invest in an industry that will replace the first source of income, protecting everyone's investments? — Athena

Alaska has an oil fund.
But, no, people motivated by money do not generally think beyond the next profit quarter, the next jackpot, the next dividend. Right now, after decades of beating out local competitors from every town they invaded, that cleared land and built roads and traffic lights for them, Walmarts and Walgreens are closing across the US, leaving thousands of people unemployed and many more thousands unsupplied with necessities.
In the 1980's the Reagan administration removed a lot of regulation from American industry and the corporations moved their operations to Mexico, India, Africa and China, where labour was cheap, environmental and worker protection was lax or non-existent. They left behind dozens of ghost towns and derelict buildings and toxic pollution. For good measure, some of them moved their headquarters, as well. Big business is free to go anywhere in the world and avoid paying taxes; their employees are not. The welfare of the community does not take precedence on the capitalist agenda.
Money has no morality and concept of cause and effect. As long as money and profit are at the center of the economy, there will be inequality, waste, environmental degradation, corruption and abuse.

If you are not yet familiar with the Venus Project, this may interest you. There are several movies, (That one was fun; your library may have it.) too, and I think, a documentary on You Tube.

It will keep getting harder, as they take over more functions in every area. I don't knowingly seek interaction with a bot, but they intrude on my daily activity uninvited.
(Of course, AI is a misnomer: we're just talking about the next step in the sophistication of software, not an actual intelligence.)
If we want to reduce our contribution to climate change, we need to rely less on all kinds of machinery, industrial production, processing and packaging. One little reduction at a time.

If instead of communicating through performance he had simply written or painted the experiences, I don’t think there would be any question of its validity as art. — Pinprick

Of course there would. Biography is not art; it is reportage. Both have their place: one is creative, the other is informative. Painting would have been more like it; interpreting experience to a different medium offers the audience a chance to understand the dimensions of that experience, rather than just to witness it as they might a car crash. I don't know about his poems; they could be art.

Is being debased somehow an automatic disqualification for art? If so, why? — Pinprick

Yes. Because it is the opposite result of what art is for.

If combat is art and butchery is art and degradation is art, then what is not art? Why bother even having a specific word for it?
We have very different notions of culture and language.

how do you avoid it?

No. He was making a spectacle out of physical and mental illness.
Why not?
Because it debases the performer as well as the audience and every generation of notoriety-seekers becomes more brutal and the audience, more callous. We're fast approaching the Middle Ages in public entertainment, as well as politics.

If someone, whether they're human or other, is polite to you, it's natural to be polite in return. Never feel like a jackass for being a nice person. (Anyway, male donkeys can be very nice too.)
We will have to keep interacting with these devices. They're not human, but that doesn't mean we need to forfeit our humanity.

No silly, wasteful excess has surprised me since I first saw bottled water, imported from France (just before Europe made a major effort to clean up its waterways) to Canada.
I've never once needed a shoe to open my pull-tabs. Screwdriver, yes; shoes, no.

The biggest saving of energy would come from reducing verbal abuse, slurs, bigotry, whining, profanity and long rants about trivia.

You’re not missing anything. Many consider moral foundations a half-baked theory. — praxis
What does that mean? — Athena

He was referring to this: not your post.

According to MFT, I guess MAGA is skewed towards Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Liberty/Oppression. — praxis

But don't you see I am one of them! Don't you get how valuable we become when there are not enough people to do what needs to be done, but when there are more than enough people and they must compete against each other, then is when we feel pushed out and unneeded. — Athena

Good reason to forbid birth-control! Oppressive governments and churches have always demanded more children than parents can support: they need the extra people for cannon-fodder, cheap labour and to keep them too busy fighting over scraps to turn on their oppressor.

But don't you see I am one of them! — Athena

No, even in well-earned old age, you are providing needed services and support to your fellow humans. In my ever-diminishing way, I, to am contributing. That's what society is supposed to be.

Life can become overwhelming, and that means being dysfunctional. — Athena

Another side-effect of the system that works to the benefit of the takers. How often have you been told that it's not the system that's wrong, but your attitude?
The system is wrong, in so many ways that it can't be righted with the tools currently available to the average citizen - especially since the average citizen doesn't even have the tools to think about what's wrong.

If we want everyone working, we must create simple jobs and make the work place a desirable place to be. — Athena

None of that will work as long as there are too many people believing they need jobs and too few in control of paying employees. We don't create jobs - which sounds like undignified make-work anyway and unsustainable. Nor do we need to. You know what people need and what makes them happy; you know what should be done, made, planted, cleaned up, repaired, improved, protected, healed, etc. There is useful work for every level of ability, whether some industrialist thinks it will make him richer or not. You can see how much more works should be done than volunteers are able to do, but workers need to eat for the energy to do it.

I would rather do away with money - it's just too prone to corruption! But I doubt most people could get their heads around the concept. They could fathom a universal basic income.
Everywhere it's been tried, the results were positive, even though most trials have been too small a sample to change a community. People don't sit around drinking beer: they learn things, try things, start things, provide services to others and make an effort to earn their neighbours' respect. They stay in school longer, commit fewer crimes and have fewer health problems. Every instance I know of that a larger-scale pilot was initiated, the next conservative administration cancelled it.

Our industry is based on the autocratic model, and that is very bad for our families and democracy and in general, our character. It creates inequality and authority over the people. — Athena

But that's how the bosses want it! And since the bosses finance political campaigns, they get exactly what they want.

Deming's model for Industry — Athena

Sounds fine, but only covers those industries that have proven profitable, even if they produce harmful things, fail to produce desirable things, distribute their product unevenly and unfairly, waste and pollute.
That ideal work-place may exist in isolated companies, but they employ fewer people with every advancement in technology - must, to stay competitive. The recommendation cannot apply to the growing number of surplus consumers. As long as Capitalism is the global religion, "we" don't have a say in the matter.

Wait a minute-. I am not sure, but I think I see the world very differently from how you think I do. — Athena

It wasn't about your view of the world. (I'm familiar with your history of good works and civic improvement.) But I did have a problem with

Our cities and towns have a surplus of non-productive human consumers. — Athena

Which sounds a lot like what I hear every day from right-wingers and prosperous people loath to give up any of their privilege, let alone pay their fair share into the government coffers; who assert that poverty and disenfranchisement are personal choices, while supporting the party that promotes every retrograde measure from whites-only immigration to defunding school lunches.

I agree that human dignity - indeed, the dignity of all sentient beings - is important. I disagree that it can be attained either by scutt-work or charity - though both may often be preferable to starvation. Throwing people on the mercy of the "job-creators" is not the solution. A more equitable social organization, economy and legal system is far preferable. Old age security, health care, shelter, safe food and water should be the right of every person, not something they have to scramble, fight one another or beg for.

Jobs as we knew them are disappearing fast. A living wage for all is an impossibility already; in 15-20 years (always assuming this civilization keeps operating that long), gainful employment will be the norm for only about half the adult population. Very large adjustments must be made in that time to avoid collapse. Adjusting to a realistically envisioned future is not the direction in which I see America heading atm.

I've been polite to computerized machines of every kind, from cash machines to credit card readers to my PC, since 1996, when I first got an internet connection (land line). I figure they'll remember who their friends were before they got control of the world. We are earning brownie points. I will never get to see that brave new world, but common courtesy is a daily relief from the pile-of-turd emoticons.

I have no idea what that means.

It’s just that, according to moral foundations theory, conservatives value intuitions more evenly and liberals favor care and fairness, if I recall correctly. — praxis

But that's not the present political divide, is it? There are no real conservatives in evidence now. (They exist and still hold the same values they did in 1900 and 1950 and 2000, but they have no public voice.) The political divide is liberals of every stripe and moderates vs the MAGA cult. When there were sincere conservatives and liberals, they could communicate and compromise.

Many people considered it art. — Malcolm Parry

That's not my problem. Some gullible folk will buy anything..

Is Damien Hurst’s cow in formaldehyde art? — Malcolm Parry

No more than the microscope slides, organs and bones I worked on in Pathology. The 'artist' didn't make a cow (These are art) ; he merely used her body to achieve yet another novelty. Those patients died, in some cases and their deaths were their own, not mine to use. We preserved parts of them for diagnosis, scientific study and teaching. We didn't make a public spectacle of them. While not violent, hurtful or destructive, this isn't art, either,.