Why do you say that? — 180 Proof
Cannot be the same be said of nations, democracy and civilization? Nothing humans do will ever work as we hope and plan. But we keep trying things anyway.The "idea" of one-world-government sounds great, at first glance. in a perfect world, with perfect people, and perfect systems, it could work. Alas, there is no perfection here. — BC
Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult. — BC
How long, do you figure, before that's all perfected enough to give up standing armies? — Vera Mont
At least ten millennia of grinding out of our lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest as civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy".I think our faith in technology and failed faith in each other is a tragedy unfolding. — Athena
If "humanity under one government" run by humans, then I completely agree with you in both cases, BC. The inmates are congenitally too defective to run the entire asylum.One question: "Could humanity be united under one government?" Another question: "Should humanity be united under one government?"
I vote NO in both case. Can't be done; shouldn't be done. — BC
At least ten millennia of grinding out of lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest in civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy". — 180 Proof
9 charts that prove there's never been a better time to be alivehttps://nypost.com › 2018/03/03 › 9-charts-that-prove-t...
Mar 3, 2018 — Since the mid-18th century, global life expectancy rose from 29 years (where it had hovered for 225 years) to around 71.4 in 2015.
Missing: gotten | Must include: gotten — Susannah Cahalan
Right. So, business, conflict, persecution, economic exploitation as usual, until the climate puts an end to us - or our super weapons do. Fair enough. — Vera Mont
War is just diplomacy, negotiation, value clarification, psychotherapy, and so forth carried out by more aggressive means.
Joking, of course.
The "idea" of one-world-government sounds great, at first glance. in a perfect world, with perfect people, and perfect systems, it could work. Alas, there is no perfection here.
Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult.
Then try small-region government, 2 or 3 nations.
Then try for slightly larger blocks, all democratic, effective, humane, sophisticated.
That should take us out to around 2500, A.D. — BC
I think our best bet is to put together effective, democratic, humane governments. — BC
Not reform - abolish.) Reform government to stop conflict, persecution, economic exploitation — PhilosophyRunner
Not combine; break 'em down. The US should be at least eight separate countries, maybe more. Canada should be at least five. Australia, maybe only two, but I'm not sure. China, probably seven. States, provinces, principalities, regions, tribes, whatever social units were viable before federations and empires subsumed them, each one to become a self-designated, self-governing nation. Make all the little, workable nations independent, except for two things: international conflict, which must come under arbitration, and human rights, which are to be enforced by interpol.2) Somehow combine current countries to make a global government — PhilosophyRunner
'Political democracy' without effective economic democracy is democracy-in-name-only (DINO). In the last few centuries, however, "the Enlightenment" hasn't been radical enough for that much 'democracy' ...What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere? — Athena
:100:... we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses? — Athena
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein
The US should be at least eight separate countries, maybe more — Vera Mont
I can understand the idea of doing away with nation states intellectually, but I definitely don't feel it. I prefer a certain level of territorial exclusiveness. "We are over here; you are over there; let's keep it that way." — BC
What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere?
— Athena
'Political democracy' without effective economic democracy is democracy-in-name-only (DINO). In the last few centuries, however, "the Enlightenment" hasn't been radical enough for that much 'democracy' ...
An alternative that might minimize constraints on optimal 'liberty, equality and security' would be a post-scarcity economy which probably can only be developed and maintained by AGI automation of global supply chains, manufacturing and information services.
... we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses?
— Athena
:100:
I agree we are in very grave trouble!
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
— Albert Einstein — 180 Proof
At least ten millennia of grinding out of lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest in civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy". — 180 Proof
I don't claim "we cannot figure things out for ourselves" but ratherWe have the mindset that leads to your belief we must depend on a god or AI because we can not figure things out for ourselves. — Athena
The classical humanism of "The Enlightenment" you're espousing, Athena, reminds me of Ptolemy's epicycles. :eyes:We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. — 180 Proof
Do you really believe, Athena, that 'the global governance problem' (e.g. climate change) is going to be solved, or even effectivey managed, by "Enlightenment" / classical democracy under material & axiological conditions of scarcity? :chin:Fully realized, optimal, human liberty requires post-scarcity conditions to be sustainable.
Seems we're busily and very cleverly making them as crazy as we are.As AI moves closer to replicating humans, it has the potential to reshape every aspect of our world – but most of us are unaware of what looms on the horizon.
Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult. — BC
We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global governance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. — 180 Proof
An unbiased AI with perfect knowledge or information about the social system, that can not be bribed or threatened would be the ideal governing system (as long as it's done correctly). — punos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.