In theory, at least, there is a real and significant threat from unconstrained AIs, and from Skynet too, under the right (wrong?) circumstances. As people place their homes and lives under over-the-internet control, all kinds of unpleasantness become possible, if not likely. — Pattern-chaser

The real threat isn't that AI would become somehow conscious (or whatever).

The real threat is that we in our ignorance just let simple and pathetic algorithms run our lives and make decisions for us when we should use our own brains.

It's not about Computers getting too smart, it's about us getting dumber.

It's interesting/amusing/depressing how Trump supporters' proclamations about Trump's wall have changed. — Arkady

They have quite a time following their extremely insecure leader. Have just few right wing talking heads saying that he "chickened out" and "gave everything away "to the democrats" and you have the debacle of a tragicomedy that is the shutdown.

The ineptness of Trump to handle anything is present here as other persons would have understood that these right-wing talking heads need far more his approval than the other way around. And that the whole issue isn't any kind of life or death for his supporters, some kind of "No new taxes" pledge that would haunt him.

Perfect example of this is Obama... and his promise to close GITMO. Nope, he didn't close the prison, but none of his supporters cared a damn. They were the first to blame the Republicans for keeping it open and were the first people coming forward to defend him that he tried and hence it's not his fault.

So would it be with this lunatic Wall-thing.

If that were the case, then religion would no longer exist, yet it persists. Science provides all sorts of information about how the world works but provides us little guidance on how we ought to live in the world. Even if all religious thought is factually incorrect, it might still have utility. — Hanover

Right on. How the World actually is doesn't give an answer how it should be. Or how you should live your life and what is good and what is bad.

In the UK, have a huge number of 'safe-seats', well over 350, in a parliament of about 615, this is the cause of the so-called disconnection between parties establishment and their voters. — romanv

This is something relative to the UK, where the electoral system differs from ours. Here we use a proportional representation, namely the D'Hondt method. In the UK you have actually various systems, but the notable one is the "winner-takes-it-all" system, the single member plurality system. I assume this system gives you the "safe-seats". Correct me if I'm wrong.

There are pros and cons in every system I guess. For example, with the proportional representation system here the votes needed to win a seat depends on other members success.

we discuss the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy' this is a well established political theory, that is backed up by studies of large organisations that shows that all organisations are shaped by an oligarchy at the top, as they reward loyalty. The only way to prevent it is by a NOTA option on the ballot, as that reduces the power of the oligarchy at the top significantly. — romanv

Umm...how?

So if people can vote your NOTA option and these NOTA's get over 50% which makes the election process be held again, just how does this have these kind of effects the way parties are organized?

You see, in democracies the elections are the thing that are democratic, not the political parties themselves (which is something many Americans are confused about with their so-called "primaries"). How political parties organize themselves are up to themselves and their members: if the ordinary members haven't a say, it's the problem of the party, not the democratic system. With or without any NOTA option.

Hence actual participation in political parties by ordinary people that aren't looking for a political career or job opportunities later from the party is the best way to keep the representative model working and the political parties on beat with the voters.

What we call democracy is really an elected oligarchy, and the characteristics it has are a result of having an elected oligarchy, rather than a democracy. — romanv

Oligarchy means a bit different thing. Besides, if the voters are passive and go along with the candidates and parties that they have, it's basically up to them. The root cause of the problem likely is that people don't hold political parties accountable, far too easy to believe the lies over and over again and pick the least worst candidate there is.

Your NOTA option might also just justify and encourage apathy and disinterest in politics in general. The attitude of "I don't know, I don't actually care, I'll just vote NOTA" without any consideration of what that NOTA actually would be.

Please critique. — romanv

Happy to talk further, but only if you are willing to engage honestly, not like Herge. — romanv

Well, you asked for critique, but I'm not so sure how willing you are to hear it...

What you are stating here is that political parties are disconnected from their voters. Their job is to represent voters, if they can't know why people chose NOTA over them, then that means they are not doing their job. Its a pretty incredible claim you are making there. — romanv

Is it incredible, really?

You can see from many examples that voters can make quite a surprise to the parties with so-called "fringe" views becoming suddenly mainstream. That there simply isn't a party that you would really like is reality in many countries.

The fact is the membership in political parties has waned quite universally in the West. For example in my country, where the majority of people belong to some association or many, at the historical height 600 000 were members of political parties (in the early 1980's), but now the membership has declined dramatically. This from a country (Finland) with +5 million people, hence at the height well over 10% of the people did belong to political parties here (which I find amazing today).

In the UK which has over thirteen times the population, members of political parties are is less than a million (with Labour having the largest amount of members, over half a million). That means that something like 1,5% of people in the UK actually are members of political parties.

That political parties have become estranged from the people is a totally true problem. There are positive and negative aspects in that politics have become a profession, that you have career politicians. Above all, membership in political parties is extremely important as the actual membership of the party elects (or ought to elect) the leaders. Unfortunately in some countries political parties are themselves weak and basically are just campaign machines huddled around one politician.

Let's assume its true. How do parties find out? Well, they engage with the voting base, knocking on doors, gauging opinions, gathering feedback, conducting surveys, and utilising focus groups; there are plenty of tried and tested methods of finding out why people chose NOTA. And it's their job to do so. It's literally crazy if they don't know. — romanv

Actually it isn't.

You see a political party usually has some core ideology, those beliefs that make it to be seen as belonging to the left or right. And that political ideology then unites the people that form the political party and then they go on to advance their political ideology and agenda.

If the population seems indifferent or not excited about the agenda, then a political party won't throw away it's core ideology, but simply it will start to sell it in the way that it would be more popular. Heck, it's marketing! You see, people simply don't start a party without any beliefs and then just change them to whatever the majority is feeling at the moment.

They will make choices that will be of benefit to them, and discard choices that make them worse off. Therefore, over time, they themselves will be able to steer society to a point where the common good has been maximized, if – and only if- they have the power.

NOTA provides that power.

How?

The NOTA option becomes a powerful voting bloc encompassing voters from all political stripes. It serves to unite all those who are dissatisfied, and ensures only a candidate with the consent of the majority can enter parliament. — romanv

Ah, the idea that the "sleeping party", those who don't vote, especially if it the biggest "party" makes a "clear" statement of dissatisfaction, hence if only those sleepers would vote!

The problem only is that "nota" can mean whatever, people wanting even more leftist or even more rightwing policies or simply being "NOT interested at all". As Herg said above: "People putting a cross in the NOTA box could have a variety of reasons for doing so".

Your answer to this:

Yes, you understand the vast the scope of the NOTA option immediately. I disagree that they don't know why NOTA was chosen. Local party activists will know exactly why NOTA was chosen, and in fact its very presence will ensure parties begin to start taking mitigating measures to prevent voters choosing NOTA. — romanv

This doesn't make any sense. How on Earth could the "local party activists" know? From elections results that x amount of people voted candidate A, y amount of people voted candidate B and z people voted NOTA? This simply doesn't steer politics into any direction as the NOTA option doesn't give at all any information. And when the objective is to elect actual representatives, one has to pick actual people, not "I opt for better politicians".

My forecast? When our wells go dry, as they likely will, regardless of the last 30 yrs of never having it lose pressure let alone go dry, those with older animals will likely pay for the bottled water, which they never budgeted for or relocate. The horse owners who were boarding their horses with no water charge will give up the hobby because of the expense and once again our desert will be disgraced with people who let their pets go into the wild to fend for themselves or another 'feeder farm' will appear and stain our animal loving community. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Even if a bit off the topic, thanks for writing about reality about ranching in Arizona and the increasing urbanization. At least that ought to work wonders on the price of the land.

Well, I think having a ranch or farm is something that will shrink even further or become a hobby of the rich. Fewer ordinary people will have horse ranches I guess. Farms will change either to huge enterprises with a lot of robots or be tended by old people them who are barely making it. That's why I'm happy that at least I saw in my childhood at our summer place an active countryside with neighbours having cattle and people still living in the countryside. Our summer place, and old farm established by my great grandparents is an old two-story house built in 1914 with some fields and forest around it. Some forty years ago on the road where the summer place is located lived nine families all year around with three of them having cattle and even some horses. Now only two families live there, all the cattle has been sold in the 1990's, and all places kept or sold to be summer places, which is lucky as abandoned house left to be ruined don't look nice. One old farmer rents the fields of the village. You can see the slow death of the countryside, but it's a logical result since agriculture was basically based on substance farming in the 19th Century up until the 1960's. Unfortunately my children won't see it anymore as I did.

I bet in Arizone that's a huge deal for a family that has had a ranch to sell of the cattle and horses and become people just living on a former ranch.

Now what? We cannot expect those who arrive with nothing to know the language, know our customs or know our laws, can we? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, at least the Mexicans are North American. Their culture (and basically culture in Latin America) is a lot closer to American than European. Far easier to make a Mexican to be a gringo than someone from another continent.

The "economic boom" that Idaho would experience would be based on what? Need? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yep. Increase in population is the most natural reason for an economy to grow. One really has to ruin the economy or simply not have a functioning economy for population growth to be inherently a problem.

How deep does that assistance go? Well if we are in living in a Utopian world, there would be no bottom of the well of assistance. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If one thinks that people need help and assistance, then there indeed is no bottom.

Actually I've come to the conclusion that welfare especially focused on some ethnic people is a sort of evil counterinsurgency strategy to keep the people poor, apathetic and stigmatized. And no, I'm not in favour of the eradication of the welfare state in general, but I argue that the promotion of a free and healthy economy with functioning institutions (education, jurisdiction etc.) is the way to go. Unfortunately too many otherwise smart people think that some sort of planned economy is a better solution.

Here's a simple experiment, naiveman.

Have your friend stand about 300 meters from you. Then have him phone you and with the phones open have him yell as loud as he can. You can easily notice the difference and the time lag: that you hear his yell on the phone far earlier than you hear him by air. You can easily notice two different time frames and also assume the third small fraction of when the sound goes through the communication system to your phone. Speed of sound in the air is pretty slow. (For example, notice how few movies get this right with lightning or with explosions happening farther away)

Now, does this make causality different? Because the causality is that your friend agreed to do the experiment and yelled, making a sound that you then heard twice.

Do notice this in physics:

In classical physics, an effect cannot occur before its cause. In Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time.

Here it is important to understand what specific idea is behind this thinking: that it is about physical effects. Yet the thing is that we can understand that when look at the night sky we are seeing "past history" of stars and galaxies in the sky.

Currently, it seems impossible to stop a nuclear war by the end of 2020.

Trump is likely to drop about 450 50-kiloton nuclear bunker busters from naval F-15 'Sea Eagles' launched from an aircraft carrier on N Korea, to ensure he wins the next election, but if impeachment efforts appear successful, he could press the button sooner. — ernestm

Hardly know where to start on the totally false statements here. Like the F-15 is a land based aircraft used by the USAF, not the USN. And that 450 number is gotten likely from the life-extension program for the old 1906's era B61 bomb that Pentagon has asked for during the Obama years. (Why the US would use the full arsenal on NK I have the faintest idea)

What's the likely outcome? That basically North Korea gets it's ICBM delivery system which makes the US not to engage in a "pre-emptive" strike on the country. Clinton didn't go to war with North Korea. Neither did Bush or Obama. North Korea has sunk a South Korean warship and made an artillery strike on a South Korean town and that hasn't started a war. In earlier decades North Koreans even killed American servicemen on the border and that didn't start a war either.

I'm doubtful of Trump attacking his new friend in North Korea, just to get the focus away from domestic issues. Typically the US can be very belligerent towards countries that don't have nuclear weapons, only those that have so-called potential weapons.

John Gould, is it not obvious to you that Spengler wrote his books from the standpoint of a Victorian man who is watching how the British Empire is declining? — DiegoT

Why on Earth would you call this German historian a Victorian man? German thinkers are typically quite positive about things German (that is, before certain Adolf H).

Spengler sponsored, in “Prussianism and Socialism,” a brand of socialism which was anti-Marxian, anti-republican, anti-proletarian, nationalistic, bellicose, capitalistic, and aristocratic. Germans were not revolutionaries, he maintained. The sadistic French, yes. The Frenchman is not satisfied without human heads on pikes, aristocrats hanging from lamp posts, priests massacred by women. As for Marx—Marx belongs to England.

Here, of course, Spengler, who from 1914 to 1918 was occupied with the first volume of the “Decline,” was doing his bit after the armistice, but he went on to explain that the Prussian socialist ethic says, “Do your duty, work,” while the English capitalist ethic says, “Get rich, then you don’t have to work any more”

You conveniently left out the next words that I wrote: "It probably remains as an Islamist insurgency, but the locals need to be the ones to tackle that. We don't need to become another participant in Syria's all-against-all civil war." — yazata

My bad, yazata.

Yet I think it's telling that Trump's special envoy to the Middle East in the battle against ISIS resigned immediately (and Trump acted as even he didn't know him). I did mention this earlier (or was it on another thread) what he said just few days before:

"We're on track now over the coming months to defeat what used to be the physical space that ISIS controlled," McGurk told CNBC's Hadley Gamble. "That will not be the end of ISIS." "Nobody is naive," McGurk said less than a week before Trump's decision. "The small clandestine cells, the individual terrorist attacks, will remain a threat for some time. That is why we have to remain together as a global coalition to keep the pressure on."

Furthemore, just remember how basically the US armed forces won Al Qaeda by the "Sunni Awakening" and basically backed another insurgents than Al Qaeda and truly got the Sunni's on their side. But then the US withdrew and what did the Shia regime do in Iraq? Broke every promise that Americans had done, jailed the Sunni vice-prime minister and continued sectarian policies that basically then lead to ISIS to emerge.

But the argument that "now it's time for the locals to do their share" is somewhat lacking. Just like if the US would retreat from Afghanistan and "leave it to the locals", how do you think history will see that if then in a couple of years the Taliban retakes Afghanistan?

That's actually what happened to the Soviets. Once they withdrew, it took (if I remember correctly) several years for the insurgents to overthrow the Pro-Soviet Najibullah regime. And then the country fell into anarchy and finally Pakistan got involved with a certain Proxy Group called "the students".

". Perhaps, the person that knows this the best; but, hasn't even used this word is Noam Chomsky. — Wallows

Perhaps because it's not exactly fascism.

Fascism seems just to be a common swearword (just like marxism is for others), but fascist economy is a specific kind of economy.

The difference between the fascist model and the current American model is that in the fascist model the industry is subjugated to serve the nation and it's government, whereas in present day society it is more like corporations and the oligarchs, the industry has more power over the government. And globalism makes the nation states compete between themselves to get the multinational companies, not the other way around. Fascism would hate this and nationalsocialism would totally be against it.

Hence basically if you look for fascist economies, the most closest one is of course China.

You may be right, it may be civil war in a kind of semi-civil discourse — tim wood

That I think is the correct term to describe it: a semi-civil (war) discourse.

Meaning that Americans can hurl obscene insults and loathing across the social media, act all warlike with few hotheads even creating up a small riot for the onlooking media before the police separates the demonstration and the counter-demonstration.

I'm not in camp who forcasts that a civil war or a semi-civil war will erupt in the US. What can happen is something equivalent to the restlessness of the 1960's. Acts of sporadic violence. Home grown terrorism by individuals or small cabals of extremists. Racial riots are a possibility, like in the Detroit or later the LA riots when a totally outrageous video of police violence finally causes a true outrage in a city where racial tensions are ready to explode. Yet these kind of events are really riots, eruptions of violence and disobiediance and not the kind of violent struggle with an objective like what you have with a civil war.

In fact a civil war needs a feeling of total hopelessness, that things won't get otherwise better. This feeling is not shared only by some estranged person that has serious mental problems, but with ordinary people that otherwise would have a "normal" life. Civil war means a total collapse of the security system: if the police dissappears from the scene, people will form militias. Civil war would mean that states truly would start declaring their independence and forming their own militaries out of their National Guard units.

And civil war means that people genuinely think that killing other people, their fellow citizens, will make the country a better place to live. That is hardly happening with Trump. Or with the next person who becomes President however progressive he or she would be.

Yet the social media seem like something similar to the Ruandan genocide will soon happen in the US.

When one organization emerges from another with same people in charge, be it an offshoot or not, there simply is a link. Period.

Peculiar how you find it racist.

(1) When we people refer to Western civilization today, do you think it is fair to say that they typically have in mind Anglosphere countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand. — johnGould

Especially those people who come from the US, Canada, Australia, the U and New Zealand. Others not so.

Do you think what we currently call "The West" is best represented by this group of Anglophone countries?

I would be interested to hear what people's views are on these two questions. — johnGould

As unenlightened commented earlier, the French likely don't think this way. But the Anglophones surely see themselves as being what is left of the West.

I would argue that West Europeans would likely not think of themselves not being Western.

Of course there is this West bias especially when it comes to what basically was called East Rome. Those people called themselves Romans for obvious reasons and were just called Byzantinians by the Westerners. They are typically forgotten and aren't viewed as part of "Western". Naturally for the Westerners eager to declare themselves the successors of Ancient Rome, the actual state surviving in the East for a thousand years was an uncomfortable detail. Also it is notable that Greece and Greeks, who now belong to the Orthodox Church are just given the spotlight for being the "cradle of Western thinking", but then are disattached from being part of the West for some reason.

Much is argued about the Balkans being under Ottoman rule and about Russia being under Mongol rule and thus somehow East Europe isn't western. Yet seldom is Spain separated from the West for being under Muslim rule.

I would argue that the definition of the "West" and "Western" culture depends on the issue at hand. If it's compared to "East" being Asian or "African", then "Western" has a lot within it starting from Latin America to Russia. If one makes a separation with West European and East European, just like North European or South European, then the issue is quite different.

Al Qaeda and ISIS aren't even allied, much less the same thing. Less racism, please. — frank

And whom was the leader of ISIS? Wasn't it Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi? Formerly known as the leader of the Al Qaeda in Iraq? You see The Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) was also known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), was the Iraqi division of al-Qaeda. And that ISI became ISIS. Yeah, perhaps ISIS and Ayman al-Zawahiri aren't now in speaking terms, but they surely come from the same root.

The roots of ISIS trace back to 2004, when the organization known as “al Qaeda in Iraq” formed. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was originally part of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda Network, founded this militant group.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq began in 2003, and the aim of al Qaeda in Iraq was to remove Western occupation and replace it with a Sunni Islamist regime.

When Zarqawi was killed during a U.S. airstrike in 2006, Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri became the new leader and renamed the group “ISI,” which stood for “Islamic State of Iraq.” In 2010, Masri died in a US-Iraqi operation, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took power.

Some facts please, frank.

If you could entertain this idea for me, it might show representatively, what I believe is "too much".
If we think of a stable base of a community as a dried out sponge, we are capable of absorbing many, many drops of water without reaching the sponges capacity. Once the sponge has reached it's capacity to absorb even one more drop of water, when one droplet hits the sponge it sends off hundreds of little droplets in every direction of the saturated sponge. The only way for the sponge to absorb more water is to wring it out and then and only then, can the sponge begin the absorption process again.
So to answer your question, how much is too much for my community, my state? It is when one more droplet of water sends of thousands of little droplets out in ever direction with no plan on how to wring it out. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Send all the newcomers to Montana and Wyoming. There are only two persons per square kilometer in those states, hence a lot empty area for people to fit there. And basically there are so few people now in those states that their objections don't matter (as elections go). And the foreigners wanting to come to the US will think twice before coming to Montana and Wyoming (as New York and California are off limits). And if people Still want to come, well, the two states are in for an economic boom as they have to basically build new cities for the newcomers.

My country is filled with people as there are 16 persons per square kilometer, and Tiff's Arizona (right?) has a whopping 23 per square km. God, you have it so cramped with people there, Tiff.

Even amongst poor people, violent crime is disproportionately commited by black youths. — DingoJones

Doesn't matter. As they are far more whites than blacks, povetry in general is a good statistic. Hence if your income is lower than mine, then you are more likely to commit crimes. And if you are younger than me (and also a male), those statistics also puts the probability higher. Perhaps Drek's friend should be worried about coming across you in a dark alley.

Sounds a bit offensive? Well, I tried to be.

But the statistics are true. And here the issue is that people generally go with the statistics that conform their prejudices or their World views. It has gone to level that just what statistics (that are true) you pick or adhere to are seen as a political stance: if you speak about race and crime, naturally you are a right-wing racist bigot. If you don't and take other statistics, obviously you are some SJW.

My favorite statistic is that before as a young man, I lived in the part of the Capital here where a) the crime rate was the highest in the Capital and b) there were well armed foreigners that the police didn't interfere with at all, basically the areas these foreigners controlled where no-go areas for the local police.

Yep. I lived in the most prestigious and expensive part of Helsinki, that is the City center, and there the crime rate indeed was high as there is a ton of people more than anywhere else every day and night. And the well armed foreigners? The US and Russian embassies (among other) where in my neighborhood. And I assume that the local police will never try to disarm the US Marines stationed in the US Embassy.

Thoughts? — Drek

Poor men make more thefts, burglaries and violent crimes than rich men (or women). Hence your friend should be against low income men. They obviously should be locked up to make the World a better Place.

According to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status – like a good job and the ability to support a family – matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.

Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario.

According to the FBI, just over half of murders in which the precipitating circumstances were known were set off by what is called the “other argument” – not a robbery, a love triangle, drugs, domestic violence or money, but simply the sense that someone had been dissed.

Besides, when your friend admits to be Aporophobic, it is better than admitting to be racist (as the term isn't well known). If he is a male and poor, then there's a problem...

We were in Syria to help defeat ISIS, and now that ISIS no longer holds any territory and its "caliphate" has been erased from the map, that's been successfully accomplished. — yazata

How typical of the arrogant and ignorant hubris that is so usual. Let's see, how many times have Americans stated (and believed) that Al Qaeda/ISIS has been successfully erased and "mission accomplished"? I count three times at least.

With this thinking, the US again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Has become a habit.

Great way of control for the modern police state! Especially when you combine your credit scores with your chat history. What better way to control what people say to each other especially about politics, if it affects your ability to get a loan from a bank or to get a job.

I struggle to find examples in which anonymity is strictly a positive force — Tzeentch

So I guess you hate that election votes are anonymous? That it would be better that the government/political parties/your employer/everyone would know just who have you voted in all elections.

Or the anonymity in this site?

Every time I read a book or anything in language I have a voice in my head reading it aloud to me. There's a technical term for it in psychology or cognitive science which I can't find at the moment. Sometimes I engage in a dialogue in my own head when doing philosophy. — Wallows

Notice that this isn't the only way to read. With English, a foreign language to me, I do the same, but with text written in my own mother tongue I don't have to do this as I can read faster than the writing can be spoken. It's basically just excersize.

I assume that when you drive and see a STOP sign or a speed limit, there doesn't have to be a voice to say "Stop" or "speed limit sixtyfive" in your head before you understand the meaning of the sign and what you have to do. You can react immediately to the sign.

Hence the "voice in your head" is more like a way to concentrate. Some have to concentrate by speaking out loud and I presume that the "voice in your head" is just a more subtle version of this.

Your position was that an American charitable giving evaluation had to account for the selfish withholding of money from public healthcare. — Hanover

Wrong, you simply have to take into account all of the expenses. Just as Tzeentch above comments.

I pay $4,000 total tuition per year for 2 kids both at major research universities (that's $1,000 per semester for each child) — Hanover

And here there are no tuitions for universities. Hence, and hopefully you would get my point, to compare the the two systems you have to look at how much more taxes then I pay than you. So if you give to voluntary charities there, you do have to take into account similar aid is given otherwise through taxes.

And with health care the American system basically is twice more expensive, even if we have universal health care.

The world fills our universities, they are open to all levels of achievement, and are the envy of the world. — Hanover

Indeed. I've myself pointed out that basically in research and the volume of scientific papers just one single Ivy League university, MIT, is equivalent in scale to all universities and R&D sector here. Btw, in MIT nine months’ tuition and fees for 2017–2018 are $49,892. (Should be added that a third of the students attend tuition-free and half have scholarships. The other half however...)

One interesting thing to notice is how Russia isn't actually very religious. Of course the Soviet Union was atheist, yet Ukraine too belonged to the union also (and is more religious). Yet this goes a bit against the propaganda of Putin's Russia, which portrays itself (with many in the religious right of the West believing this) as a defender of Christianity and Christian values.

And then the liberal and very permissive Netherlands is as religious or actually more religious...

Your comment about the generosity of Americans being explainable due to their lack of spending on healthcare doesn't follow. Americans are the most personally generous nation and they spend the most per capita on healthcare. — Hanover

Are you sarcastic, Hanover?

(What I was trying to say is that when things that charities try to help are taken care by the government and tax income, that ought to be remembered when comparing countries.)

Yes, indeed you do spend a huge amount more on health care than any other country per capita in the World. Even Norway with it's oil revenue and lavish welfare state doesn't come close. Only thing that you left out is that your health care system is one of the lousiest ones on average. The U.S. spends about twice what other high-income nations do on health care but has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rates (with similar countries that is, typically Western OECD countries). And there's a ton of other examples, here's just a few.

- The U.S. has the highest rate of deaths amenable to health care among comparable countries (Western countries)
- Hospital admissions for preventable diseases are more frequent in the U.S. than in comparable countries
- The mortality rate for respiratory diseases is higher in the U.S. than in comparably wealthy countries
- The U.S. has higher rates of medical, medication, and lab errors than comparable countries
- Use of the emergency department in place of regular doctor visits is more common in the U.S. than in most comparable countries (which means far higher health care costs)

Yet indeed you can argue that the US has top-of-the-line medical care also and that is true: for rich people or those who's workplace offer great coverage.

You see, basically that generosity is that you give insurance companies and the health care industry huge profits. Perhaps also you make some doctors millionaires too. And this is totally logical: the health care system is largely there to make a profit, and indeed it does that well. Great generosity from you! Yet how this extremely expensive system simply just continues to thrive with people being OK with it is amazing. Seems like marketing and lobbying works.

Education in America is free from kindergarten to 12th grade. Pre-kindergarten and college is also free in my state. — Hanover

Are your universities also free? In fact only the UK is comparable in tuitions to the US.

On the other hand, ideally we want a President who most people feel represents the country as a whole, and not just the nutzo wing of one of the political parties. You know, after the election there is governing, which can be hard to do if the election totally polarizes the country — Jake

Polarizing the electorate seems to be the new fad. And I think that the American voters aren't yet so tired of the partisanship and of loathing the other party that they really would want a President who seeks consensus.

propose a post-islamic, civilized (not religious, not tribal) vision for all Afghans. Invent a new national meta-narrative and sell it to the people. — DiegoT

Like the communists had done in the Saur-revolution? They surely wanted to "modernize" Afghanistan. What better way to bring "modernization" than to kill the "Islamists" (as we would call them today):

Between April 1978 and the Soviet invasion of December 1979, Afghan communists executed 27,000 political prisoners at the sprawling Pul-i-Charki prison six miles east of Kabul. Many of the victims were village mullahs and headmen who were obstructing the modernization and secularization of the intensely religious Afghan countryside. By Western standards, this was a salutary idea in the abstract. But it was carried out in such a violent way that it alarmed even the Soviets.

Hence I would propose first knowing Afghan history and culture before issuing that they simply have to have a new national meta-narrative. Above all, the answers have to emerge from inside Afghanistan itself, not from foreigners that have fought a war in their country for decade and a half.

Claiming that the brain is capable of super-Turing operations is tantamount to attributing a soul to it. — Inis

This is the typical nonsense that a lot of people have when they think that the human brain functions like a computer and hence humans function like computers. It follows the idea that present scientific understanding answers everything (and not to agree with this you are anti-science!) Hence when the World view was focused on a mechanical Clock-work universe, then some believed that people were truly mechanical, worked like mechanical clocks, as simply the scientific knowledge of that day didn't have other more advanced models. Hence the mechanical man was then the model of the day. Now we have computers, hence human beings have to (for some reason) operate like computers.

Humans simply operate differently than the rule following machines as humans are conscious, can understand the "Program" they act on and they can innovate. A Turing Machine simply cannot follow an order of "do something else" that isn't defined in the Program it's running. It's as simple as that.

To refer to a machine as being intelligent is a blunder of intelligence. None of the definitions of "intelligence" can be satisfied by machines. Every definition (save the misnomer referring to computers) of intelligence includes terms like capacity to understand, to think, reason, make judgments; and mental capacity. These terms are precisely outside the ambit of what computers can do, so why was such a poor term chosen for computing operations and data processing of a machine ? — Anthony

The answer to the OP is easy.

People don't actually have a clue what defines a Computer and how Computers and data processing machines operate.

Hence "intelligent" is just as loosely defined as in a commercial selling us some improved machine (as being intelligent).

The greatest act of charity any such society could perform for the world is declare: "We have enough. We are satisfied. I can live with one car instead of two. I do not need luxury toothpaste. Eating meat twice a week, instead of seven, is enough for me." — Tzeentch

Some might argue if this is really charity. As there are far more people than cars (1 billion of them), the two car limit doesn't sound as a sacrifice. (Especially if you're single)

There are a whole host of ways to help other people. — Bitter Crank

Of course one can give donations to charities and even volunteer. Yet wouldn't be giving a job to an unemployed person be even more of a help?

isn't he just doing what he said he was going to do? — Blubarb

Actually no. He said he was going to defeat ISIS and basically he is withdrawing well before that has been truly accomplished.

(cnbc) Just days before submitting his resignation, U.S. special envoy Brett McGurk, who heads the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State, said in an exclusive interview that putting an end to ISIS will be a long-term, multiyear effort.

"We're on track now over the coming months to defeat what used to be the physical space that ISIS controlled," McGurk told CNBC's Hadley Gamble. "That will not be the end of ISIS."

"Nobody is naive," McGurk said less than a week before Trump's decision. "The small clandestine cells, the individual terrorist attacks, will remain a threat for some time. That is why we have to remain together as a global coalition to keep the pressure on."

But guess who was naive? Naturally the stupid bullshitter decided otherwise.
Hence McGurk resigned.

Hasn't it been demonstrated ad infinitum that this is simply the wrong strategy to implement in trying to accomplish a goal? Or is it a sound and successful strategy? — Wallows

Sometimes, if you back the winning side of the war. Of course it's a delicate thing to handle as people in the intervened country can have a long memory.

Then what has been the deciding factor in reducing absolute poverty? Economics? — Wallows

Not only capitalism and a free economy. Also you need strong institutions, political stability, a rule of law and a justice state, which are necessary for a well functioning economy. Otherwise capitalism will bring you corruption and at worst, a cleptrocracy where those in power will steal the wealth of your country and leave the population poor. The possibility of social upward mobility is also important: that even if you come from a poor background, you can rise to a more affluent class. Wealth distribution is important, which comes from things like that ordinary people can find decent jobs and can get affordable loans to buy a home for themselves, which the next generation can inherit. Hence wealth distribution doesn't only mean that you take from the rich and give to the poor through taxation, but that the labour force gets it share through better wages and has the ability to get loans just like the rich can. Hence povetry isn't eradicated by the wealthy giving alms to the poor, it's eradicated by the poor having the ability to improve their lives themselves.

Basically the largest change has been the "takeoff" in China and now also in India. Both countries basically scrapped the socialist planned economy models, even if China does plan a lot. One might argue that they changed an even more lousy economic system just to the lousy one we have.

They risk escalating tensions, as I said. You seem to be in denial here. — S

There is nothing escalatory or basically different as those views do not differ from past administrations. It's you that is in denial here or simply ignorant about US foreign policy, of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Just look at the following quote:

We share the concerns expressed by many of our friends in the Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf States, about Iran’s support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize the region. Meanwhile, we will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran’s support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, and its human rights violations. We will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen Israel’s security — efforts that go beyond what any American administration has done before.

That was a direct quote from President Obama. I don't see a huge difference on the stance and what Mattis has said. Above all, if you would have a Clinton administration rather than a Trump one, the line that Mattis takes would extremely likely be the foreign policy stance too.

I would be concerned about someone like Mattis jumping on a situation in the Middle East, especially to get at Iran, or in the South China Sea regarding disputed islands, or with Russia — S

Except that he, just like the military leaders in your country, think that attacking Iran is a really bad move. And "jumping" on the other two countries is the last thing the US military wants to do. First of all, is it so difficult to understand deterrence? That you have a firm stance and that decreases the chance of escalation? And having a firm stance doesn't mean you want war. Si vis pacem, para bellum

And I don't understand why calling the situation with Russia how it is, is escalatory. Because Russia's objective is to break apart NATO and make Atlanticism a thing of the past. It's a bit confusing why Americans don't see the hostility towards them in this. Perhaps it's because of this ignorant self centered attitude that because you don't have anything against Russia, then Putin doesn't have anything against you. Hence the best way forward then is to appease Putin and give him what he wants as a "gesture of friendship" and not to "escalate" things. One can be self critical about the actions of your own country, but that self criticism can get carried too far away, when one starts to think that every problem happens because of US actions.

Did you read the Wikipedia page? Look at his political views regarding Iran and Middle Eastern allies, Japan, Russia, and China. — S

And what on Earth is wrong with those views? First of all, He's the secretary of defence of the Trump administration. It's his job to talk about possible security threats.

Ok, let's really go through what that page says about Mattis:

Iran:
Mattis believes Iran is the principal threat to the stability of the Middle East, ahead of Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Middle Eastern allies:
Mattis praises the friendship of regional US allies such as Jordan, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates.

Japan:
Mattis emphasized that the United States remains committed to the mutual defense of Japan

Russia:
Mattis said he believed that Russian President Vladimir Putin's intent is "to break NATO apart." Mattis has also spoken out against what he perceives as Russia's expansionist or bellicose policies in Syria, Ukraine and the Baltic states

China:
Mattis called for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and criticized China's island-building activities, saying: "The bottom line is [...] the international waters are international waters."

And we should also add here his view about the Palestinian question:
Mattis supports a two-state solution model for Israeli–Palestinian peace. He has said the situation in Israel is "unsustainable" and that Israeli settlements harm prospects for peace and could lead to an apartheid-like situation in the West Bank.

S, what above do you find so incredible here? That above is basically your foreign policy consensus. And goes in many cases against especially Trump (on Russia and the Palestinian question).

America stands as perhaps the only nation that devotes astronomical sums of money to charity and foreign affairs? — Wallows

Do you? Or is it just because there are over 300 million of you?

Foreign aid given Per Capita
1. Norway $812.58
2. Sweden $701.10
3. Luxembourg $609.48
4. Denmark $447.05
5. Switzerland $421.37
6. Netherlands $338.38
7. United Kingdom $284.85
8. Finland $234.13
.
.
.
17. United States $ 95.52

And of course the question ought to be just how astronomical your charity is without universal health care, absence of free education or other "socialist" things that other, poorer countries pay with taxes? And you might argue that they indeed are poorer as they do take care of their poor people more than the US does. Yet if the government does the tasks that voluntary charities do your country, can these things be measured? Perhaps it goes against the American ethos of the self made man and the focus on the individual and not the collective.

People (myself included), often become depressed when confronted with the misery of the world. Their powerlessness becomes a source of supreme frustration. The caring aspect of oneself turns on itself due to internalizing these issues and one becomes stuck in their own poop. Therefore what's the solution? To start caring even more? How? — Wallows

Well, is caring through charity the real response?

You really should ask and look how absolute povetry was eradicated in various countries, how countries that have been poor have gotten more affluent and solved their problems. And we've seen the biggest reduction in absolute povetry in the World during this era, so there's a lot of information about it. Even if charity is a good thing, seldom has some voluntary charity been the answer in eradicating povetry historically.

With the Betrand Russell quote, well, just what concrete solutions does it give? Because that is what we need, concrete answers to real problems. Usually people aren't happy with the answers at all.

I would be very concerned about his foreign policy. I can envisage escalated tensions between the US and countries such as Russia, China, and Iran. — S

Why? I don't.

You see Mattis is your basic general who basically represents the normal US geopolitic strategy. And these strategists typically want to avoid escalations and put a lot of emphasis on the status quo, just like other countries normally do.

It is the politicians with an agenda who crave for escalation and change, it the people like the neocons that after seeing that the US could form a formidable alliance during the Gulf War, could get a green light from the UN and even from Soviet Union and have a short war to liberate Kuwait, they then take it as free pass that the US can do absolutely anything totally indenpendently of others.

Generals are typically risk avoiders and do understand the role of the military just to be a deterrence: that actually your whole foreign and security policy is a success when you don't have to deploy your troops in a war. The exception to this rule is general Flynn, who totally went into the political bullshitting of the Trump campaign. Needless to say few if any other general has been fired from his positions so many times. Yet usually it's not the generals, it's the politicians who want to show that they are tough guys and get the US into some foreign quagmire.

And I believe Mattis has no intention to get into politics. I will just wait that he will write his memoirs after the Trump debacle and give an insight to this most chaotic and deplorable administration lead by the worst President in US history (at least until now).

It's interesting how parallels can be drawn to what happened in Syria fairly recently compared to Afghanistan. — Wallows

Not just these two countries.

When some country disintegrates to civil war, there has been this lure historically (and still is) for other countries to get involved in the conflict to further their agenda and objectives and to back up their favorite side. Happened with DiegoT's Spain when it had it's civil war and happened in Africa with the First and Second Congo War with African countries picking their sides. Hence this is not only something that Great Powers do, but basically an universal phenomenon.

No, with about 8000,000,000 of us on the planet today, and we have done nothing to slow the rate at which that becomes 9000,000,000, and 10,000,000,000 of us soon after that, there can/will be no future for our species, sustainable or otherwise. — Pattern-chaser

On the contrary. Have you noticed that fertility rates globally have gone down?

This is 1970's reasoning, which has been shown to be incorrect.

Simply put it, Afghanistan has been extremely weak and divided after the civil war erupted after the Saur revolution in 1978. And not only it has been the neighbours that have wanted to influence the outcome of the war, but also the Superpowers during the Cold War too. This has been one of the worst outcomes for any Third World country: to have a civil war that the Superpowers were involved through their proxies. Angola suffered the same fate, but the Civil War finally ended after the Cold War ended. Not so with Afghanistan.

Unfortunately the Taleban regime gave a safe have to the wrong people and the war has dragged on. Now if Osama would have still been in Sudan, then naturally the US would have gotten itself involved with Sudan and invaded the African country, not Afghanistan.