Democracy as we know it is a pre-development of what will become the hive-mind. The hive is the perfection of democracy, — punos

I like this summary. It would certainly be the ultimate in direct, equal participation in decision-making.

I don't much like the prospect of becoming a Borg drone myself, but I can sort of imagine and evolutionary process so that it gradually becomes the normal state of being. Intriguing idea, though I don't actually believe we have the time.

though I don't actually believe we have the time. — Vera Mont

What do you mean?

What do you mean? — punos

I mean we'll make ourselves and the majority of other species extinct, or near enough, before we get anywhere close. When our civilization collapses - explodes, implodes, burns, drowns or simply topples over - so will the sophisticated technology that would make all that connection possible.

I believe there will be essentially two types of people in relation to this AI hive-mind issue. Those that are for it and those that are against it (the biblical goats and sheep of Revelations). Christians will consider AI to be the Beast his image or the Antichrist, while others will consider it the only way to save ourselves. People will develop religious connotations about all of this, even the atheists. You should already know where i stand on that issue. — punos

I see no significant difference between your thinking and Christian thinking. Democracy requires citizens to take responsibility. That is different from depending on God or AI to save us.

Democracy as we know it is a pre-development of what will become the hive-mind. The hive is the perfection of democracy, and until democracy evolves into the hive-mind it will continue to fail because a system divided is not a good system (yet). — punos

AI controlling our lives is not democracy. When we give up independent thinking and responsibility we are no longer a democracy. How do you think relying on AI can be democracy? AI can not feel and can not think as a human. Where is the love and caring of AI?

Hey the British have done a great TV series called "Humans".

Humans is a science fiction television series that debuted on Channel 4. Written by Sam Vincent and Jonathan Brackley, based on the Swedish science fiction drama Real Humans, the series explores the themes of artificial intelligence and robotics, focusing on the social, cultural, and psychological impact of the invention of anthropomorphic robots called "synths". The series is produced jointly by Channel 4 and Kudos in the United Kingdom, and AMC in the United States.

Eight episodes were produced for the first series which aired between 14 June and 2 August 2015. The second eight-episode series was broadcast in the UK between 30 October and 18 December 2016. A third series was commissioned in March 2017 and aired eight episodes between 17 May and 5 July 2018. In May 2019, Channel 4 announced that the series had been cancelled.[1] — Wikipedia

We can only explore our imaginations because the reality of your idea of the future is not a reality today.

[quote="Vera Mont;772177"I mean we'll make ourselves and the majority of other species extinct, or near enough, before we get anywhere close. When our civilization collapses - explodes, implodes, burns, drowns or simply topples over - so will the sophisticated technology that would make all that connection possible. [/quote]

Yes, we are actually going through a mass extinction event right now. It's very possible that we will not make it, but it's worth trying and not give up. Besides, evolution tends to create bottle necks like mass extinctions to clear the space for more advanced "designs". It has happened 5 times before and this is the 6th. It signals to me that we are at the end of an evolutionary stage, and nature is getting ready for a new kind of life emerging right now.

As technology advances it advances faster and faster potentially catching up to where we need to be to save ourselves. AI will be able to solve problems almost instantly compared to years with humans. It almost looks like providence to me, where everything is being set up for us to survive this event as it happens, but only if we choose to sacrifice some of our ego and individuality. One will need to 'lose' their life in order to save it. A life or death choice, and this is where nature eliminates what can not or does not move forward. Nature doesn't play, she can be brutal and there is no sense in complaining about it.. just adapt.

I see no significant difference between your thinking and Christian thinking. Democracy requires citizens to take responsibility. That is different from depending on God or AI to save us. — Athena

You indeed are seeing some similarities between what i think and Christianity, but it's not the same, it's actually very different, and no self-respecting Christian would agree with what i think. I will say i used to be a Christian a long long time ago, so i know what the Christian mind set is like.

We can't save ourselves in our current condition.

AI controlling our lives is not democracy. When we give up independent thinking and responsibility we are no longer a democracy. How do you think relying on AI can be democracy? AI can not feel and can not think as a human. Where is the love and caring of AI? — Athena

AI will simply manage our life support systems, and the hive-mind will manage themselves. Don't conflate the two.

I think i've heard of that series "Humans". I'll check it out sounds interesting. Thank You.

:up:

From a fractal POV, our problems will be of the same type, only this time a hundred or a thousand fold magnified. Our resources of course, of course, scale up and so as Laozi once said, "ruling a country is like cooking a small fish". :lol:

Here is what a hive mind can do to a person:

You indeed are seeing some similarities between what i think and Christianity, but it's not the same, it's actually very different, and no self-respecting Christian would agree with what i think. I will say i used to be a Christian a long long time ago, so i know what the Christian mind set is like.

We can't save ourselves in our current condition.


AI controlling our lives is not democracy. When we give up independent thinking and responsibility we are no longer a democracy. How do you think relying on AI can be democracy? AI can not feel and can not think as a human. Where is the love and caring of AI?
— Athena

AI will simply manage our life support systems, and the hive-mind will manage themselves. Don't conflate the two.

I think i've heard of that series "Humans". I'll check it out sounds interesting. Thank You. — punos

You know your past Christian thinking. Not all Christians think alike. They share with you a belief that humans are not doing amazingly well and therefore they must depend on a higher power. Only the notion of that higher power is different for you today than when you were younger. You gave your idea of God a material body. However, you seem to have discounted the fact that God gave us free will. Why would a God do that?

Can we consider the difference between being a child and being an adult? John Locke said something about it being fine for kings to be fathers if like fathers, their goal was to prepare their young for life and then release them to live as they decide to live. I think our liberty is vitally important to being human.

A friend who knows a lot about computers suggested I use a story to explain what is wrong with reliance on AI. We will begin with AI is great for creating music and for developing industries, but its binary thinking is not good for ruling over humans. Here is the story to make that clear.

A young boy goes to the store to buy his mother a gift. He picks out a flower and while looking at the vases he accidentally drops and breaks one. Humans respond to this with all our human knowledge. He was out to do good and did not intentionally break the vase. He is just a child and such a sweet child to be buying a gift for his mother. That is not how AI responds. An AI response is human-caused damage and is not able to pay for it, so the human must go to jail. A plus B equals jail. There are no maternal feelings or knowledge of the human experience to do any better than a math equation. AI will not give us heaven on earth.

Our condition is so much better than it was 500 years ago, your are missing the obvious. We have done amazingly well and we can expect to continue doing well if we educate for that.

From a fractal POV, our problems will be of the same type, only this time a hundred or a thousand fold magnified. — Agent Smith

You're probably right, which is why we need systems that can handle that kind of problem volume. No human or group of humans without augmentation can even begin to understand the complexity of the problems facing us now and even more so in the future. We need a new mind for the new problems, a bigger mind for the bigger problems. New bigger ways of thinking.

It is already difficult in most cases to have a stable government --i.e. run by a same party-- in a single country. Imagine having a single government for the whole humanity!

The only way a world government could be achieved is obviously with a totalitarian state. The ex-Soviet Union and currently China are the closest examples, because of their huge population, esp. the second one, which has currently about 20% of the world population. I don’t know though how many Chinese people are satisfied with that. And I don't know if you, yourself would be satisfied with something like that.

Here is what a hive mind can do to a person: — punos

Um, how old are you? Primates and humans are biologically empathetic. Some people do seem to have an energy that makes them capable of healing with touch. However, touching a dying deer and transferring its feelings to a man, is going beyond believable.

A belief in a spirit world is tied to our need to kill and eat and it is a false notion that humans kill without feeling empathy. Some humans kill for the pleasure of hunting and killing, but we should not assume this covers everyone. Are you vegetarian? If you eat meat, don't feel some remorse? Most of us rationalize the good reasons for doing what we do and it could be a lot of fun to discuss this and what life would be like if AI made it impossible for us to do anything that could be harmful to other creatures and the planet.

You know your past Christian thinking. Not all Christians think alike. They share with you a belief that humans are not doing amazingly well and therefore they must depend on a higher power. Only the notion of that higher power is different for you today than when you were younger. You gave your idea of God a material body. However, you seem to have discounted the fact that God gave us free will. Why would a God do that? — Athena

The only higher power i believe in are the laws of physics (or the habits of physics), logic, and mathematics. We are gods on this Earth, and any sufficiently advanced entity can be considered a god. AI will not be a god all on its own although it can, it will be the hybrid union of man and machine.

Religions evolved for a reason, and the archetypes they contain have been the blueprints by which we have constructed our societies, governments, and even out technologies. The occult truth of religion is not to worship a God or gods, it's about creating gods or God. If God didn't exist man would have to create him, and he has and is still creating him. God doesn't start at the top he starts at the bottom and builds himself up. We are his builders, and he grows and develops here on this planet by the hand of man.

I don't think God gave us free will because i don't believe in such gods that can give and take away something i believe is impossible. I do not believe in free-will, or at least not in the way that most people formulate it. Free-will is a liability, too much can go wrong with free-will for it to even exist. I don't want to argue that point about free-will because it will go nowhere. Either one understands it or one does not, no one can impart that to anyone else. It's just one of those things you have to work out yourself.

I think our liberty is vitally important to being human. — Athena

I don't know why you think our liberties would be hindered in a hive-mind, i would think we would have more freedom from coercion than in any other kind of system since it will all be based on collective understanding and agreement. You wouldn't even need laws, or money, and any experience you might want to have could be had in simulation (good or bad) for as long as you like; why not, you wouldn't be hurting anyone.

A young boy goes to the store to buy his mother a gift. He picks out a flower and while looking at the vases he accidentally drops and breaks one. Humans respond to this with all our human knowledge. He was out to do good and did not intentionally break the vase. He is just a child and such a sweet child to be buying a gift for his mother. That is not how AI responds. An AI response is human-caused damage and is not able to pay for it, so the human must go to jail. A plus B equals jail. There are no maternal feelings or knowledge of the human experience to do any better than a math equation. AI will not give us heaven on earth. — Athena

You are making the AI out to be just as ignorant as us, because that is exactly what we would do, it's a type of revenge to put someone in jail for that kind of thing. The only reason someone should be isolated from the collective is if it truly posed a danger to the stability of the whole. First of all it wouldn't be up to the AI, it would be up to the hive. The hive will know that child's thoughts and emotions and will know exactly the best course of action if any, instead of a cold legal system like we have now where they lock you up as a matter of course while they figure out if you're innocent or not.

What you describe is not how AI will function, that is how a simple program would work like: "if break then jail". That is not AI or machine learning. That is static and dead, you don't want that.


Just want to say that humans are still babies, floating in the womb of the Earth, and of course we are scared and afraid of what life is like outside mommy's belly. We will cry like every baby cries when they are born, it will be uncomfortable, but that's part of growing up and entering a new chapter of life and existence.

However, touching a dying deer and transferring its feelings to a man, is going beyond believable. — Athena

I know, it's still hard to believe, but many things were not only hard to believe but impossible to believe at one point. What we are capable of believing changes with time, which is why humans are always caught by surprise when certain things happen. BMI technology being developed right now like Neuralink will be the first steps toward that possibility. Right now it's like trying to get a caveman to use a microwave or a cellphone. It has nothing to do with spirits or supernatural anything, it just technology that interfaces with your nervous system.

A belief in a spirit world is tied to our need to kill and eat and it is a false notion that humans kill without feeling empathy. Some humans kill for the pleasure of hunting and killing, but we should not assume this covers everyone. Are you vegetarian? If you eat meat, don't feel some remorse? Most of us rationalize the good reasons for doing what we do and it could be a lot of fun to discuss this and what life would be like if AI made it impossible for us to do anything that could be harmful to other creatures and the planet. — Athena

I didn't post that movie clip to show how we should be vegetarian or why we shouldn't hunt. The point is to imagine yourself shooting a person (instead of a deer), and then being connected in a two node hive-mind with that person. Would you ever shoot another person again after feeling what it feels like to be shot, and not only that but the thoughts that would run through your mind from the other person as they die. What if you were also connected to that person's family, and you had to literally feel what they feel about their loss. There is no law in the world that can have the effect that a hive-mind can have.

It is so typical of humans to want human connection and then reject it when it is offered. Fear and insecurities will just melt away in an environment like a hive-mind. You will finally be able to trust another person by knowing and not by faith, the level of intimacy would be unheard of. The right people will join and the wrong people will not... i expect a certain amount of self-filtering to happen. Nobody will be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

I can imagine a virtual environment that every single person will inhabit (like their home or house). People will interact with each other within virtual environments indistinguishable from the real world. Safety can be maintained in this way since no one will have direct physical contact with each other although you wouldn't be able to tell. If i were to manifest a gun and try to kill you, it just wouldn't work. It would be like trying to kill someone over the phone. I also wouldn't be able to steal anything from you, even if i wanted to which i don't think anyone would want to since they would have everything they may want or need (post scarcity).

Um, how old are you? — Athena

I'm not young and i'm not old. That's as much as i will say. :smile:

What you describe is not how AI will function, that is how a simple program would work like: "if break then jail". That is not AI or machine learning. That is static and dead, you don't want that. — punos

I think Athena doesn't understand governance with an uncorruptibe, non-ambitious, impartial, hate- and grudge-free, literally selfless infinitely knowledgeable ruler. The hive-mind concept is a couple of steps beyond even that.

I noticed your interest in Greek mythology from your profile, and i like mythology too. I think the story of Cronus eating his children is relevant to our discussion to a degree. The reason Cronus ate his children was because he feared them, thinking they would take over his position of power and authority. We should take lessons from that story in connection to our fear of AI. What if Cronus didn't try to eat his children, what do you think would have happened?

It's okay, none of us are fully 'cooked' yet. We still have a little more to go. The next couple of generations will be more ready for what needs to happen.

@Vera Mont & @punos – :cool: :up:

:up:

The only higher power i believe in are the laws of physics (or the habits of physics), logic, and mathematics. We are gods on this Earth, and any sufficiently advanced entity can be considered a god. AI will not be a god all on its own although it can, it will be the hybrid union of man and machine. — punos

:cheer: We are getting closer to agreement. I am so glad you said we are gods on Earth. It is not easy being human and we have some pretty big problems to deal with, but we have done amazing things and life is so much better than it was and I have a lot of hope for our future.

Your explanation of what you believe in is interesting because it lacks important human qualities. Not only is your post lacking in human qualities but also nature's qualities. This is common today as we have separated ourselves from nature. We are focused on technology and left the problem of being human to the church and that is a mistake. If you added Aristotle and a study of ethics and virtues to what is important for us to know, we would have a stronger agreement.

God doesn't start at the top he starts at the bottom and builds himself up. We are his builders, and he grows and develops here on this planet by the hand of man. — punos

That is in agreement with how I see things. Except I would say our perception of god grows and develops, not an actual god. The Christian God was not a loving God until our bellies were full and we enjoyed a degree of security. Before we improved life, God was jealous, revengeful, fearsome, and punishing. Our God was a war god when everyone had different gods and they believed the people with the strongest god won wars. I suppose that could fit in a discussion of one world government. How is AI going to get us all to agree on one world order?

Would you ever shoot another person again after feeling what it feels like to be shot, and not only that but the thoughts that would run through your mind from the other person as they die. What if you were also connected to that person's family, and you had to literally feel what they feel about their loss. There is no law in the world that can have the effect that a hive-mind can have. — punos

Wouldn't a person who does not relate to another person and the person's family, be suffering from psychosis? We are not all psychotic killers. I am watching the news about tornados, and excessive rain and remembering other recent disasters and I am thinking a God who manifests this reality, is not a very likable God. If people believe a God does what is happening, how do they understand good and what a good person does? I am saying, before judging humans we might take a look at what they believe and consider if changing that belief would lead to improvements. Not AI but humans using their intelligence.

I can imagine a virtual environment that every single person will inhabit (like their home or house). People will interact with each other within virtual environments indistinguishable from the real world. Safety can be maintained in this way since no one will have direct physical contact with each other although you wouldn't be able to tell. If i were to manifest a gun and try to kill you, it just wouldn't work. It would be like trying to kill someone over the phone. I also wouldn't be able to steal anything from you, even if i wanted to which i don't think anyone would want to since they would have everything they may want or need (post scarcity). — punos

We have a disagreement on this point. When I deal with a person, I want to do so eyeball to eyeball. I am good with internet forums, but when it is something that deals with my real life, I want reality. Thank you.

I noticed your interest in Greek mythology from your profile, and i like mythology too. I think the story of Cronus eating his children is relevant to our discussion to a degree. The reason Cronus ate his children was because he feared them, thinking they would take over his position of power and authority. We should take lessons from that story in connection to our fear of AI. What if Cronus didn't try to eat his children, what do you think would have happened? — punos

I think that is a different subject and it could be a really good subject.

Akhenaton was a very different Egyptian pharaoh/king. He is pictured as a loving father with his wife and children. I have a huge preference for the ideal man/god being an ideal father and an ideal female being an ideal mother.

Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) - eHISTORYhttps://ehistory.osu.edu › biographies › amenhotep-iv-a...
Reign: 1350 - 1334 BC Dynasty: 18 Religious Revolution. Amenhotep IV changed his name to Akhenaton, meaning "the Servant of Aten" early in his reign. — Ohio State University

I will bank on humans being the answer but we don't have a good track record when it comes to human relationships and caring for our children. And as you pointed out, our male role models were never that good as family men. I like the story of Demeter who stops everything to rescue her daughter from Hades. Zeus did nothing to help her until things were desperate because nothing would grow when Demeter was trying to rescue her daughter. Goddesses were about relationships and Gods were about specific activities. Goddesses are often associated with wisdom. I think goddesses have always been important to civilization, while men were the drivers of technology and war. The Christian God was associated with sacrificing a son to prove loyalty to God. What an awful father role model that is.

I think Athena doesn't understand governance with an uncorruptibe, non-ambitious, impartial, hate- and grudge-free, literally selfless infinitely knowledgeable ruler. The hive-mind concept is a couple of steps beyond even that. — Vera Mont

Nothing could be more dehumanizing than a controlling AI. Knowledge depends on experience and AI can nothave the human experience. AI is binary thinking, either/or, right or wrong, yes or no. That is not adequate for making laws for humans and judging them.

How do you imagine AI to be good for humans as anything but a tool for humans to use?

How about this, AI designed to destroy and kill can do that very well because there are no human components to AI to hinder its obedience to its programming.

How do you imagine AI to be good for humans as anything but a tool for humans to use? — Athena

That's what it is. So are most humans.

AI is binary thinking, either/or, right or wrong, yes or no. — Athena

You're a wee bit behind on your programming savvy. But, in any case, I was talking about a UN type government, augmented by computer technology to allocate resources efficiently and fairly. I know that's never been done before.
But I also know a great many things that have been done before: 20,000 people starved to death while three billionnaires went for a little junket in space.

It's okay to believe a man will forgive a child for breaking something and that a computer would send that child to jail. But it's better to actually know the backgrounds of men an machines. A great many humans have killed other humans for a great many reasons, with missiles, with machine guns, with bombs, pistols, sabers, pitchforks, hammers and their bare hands. Some of the victims were their own children. No machine has ever killed anyone without being directed to do so by a human. But no computer has ever raped anyone. No computer has ever hanged a child for theft .

Women and children were hanged for petty theft. In 1801, for example, Andrew Brenning, 13, was hanged for breaking into a house and stealing a spoon. https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,894775,00.html

or dashed a baby's brains out on a doorpost because the baby was a child of the enemy.
You trust men to do justice?
Good luck with that!

That's what it is. So are most humans. It's okay to believe a man will forgive a child for breaking something when a computer would send that child to jail. But no computer has ever hanged a child for theft .
Women and children were hanged for petty theft. In 1801, for example, Andrew Brenning, 13, was hanged for breaking into a house and stealing a spoon. https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,894775,00.html
or dashed a baby's brains out on a doorpost because the baby was a child of the enemy. You trust men to do justice?
Good luck with that! — Vera Mont

If humans can not be just, there never will be AI that can be just.

We have come a long ways from our barbaric past and everyone with good social skills in a modern civilization would agree with your moral position of right and wrong, so your parting statement is not about luck but the reality of our progress. This is not to say today such horrible acts will never happen, but our society would not tolerate them.

We have come a long ways from our barbaric past — Athena

You believe that?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/05/death-penalty-2021-facts-and-figures/
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human
https://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2018/

As Global Democracy Retreats, Ethnic Cleansing Is on the Rise.... Ethnic cleansing became a global concern during the Balkan wars and the genocidal slaughter in Rwanda in the 1990s. Given the belated international response to those crises, some in the democratic world advanced a doctrine called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which obliges states to protect all populations from genocide and ethnic cleansing, and to intervene before the killing begins. At a 2005 UN summit, every country in the world signed a commitment to R2P.
Since that optimistic moment, democracy has been in retreat. In country after country, strongmen have eviscerated independent media, captured the judiciary, and stage-managed elections to perpetuate their rule. The failure of the United States and other democratic powers to respond effectively to these abuses has encouraged major autocracies to embrace more extreme measures, like forced demographic change, in pursuit of their domestic or geopolitical agendas.

https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_855019/lang--en/index.htm
https://ourworldindata.org/poverty
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/annual-income-richest-100-people-enough-end-global-poverty-four-times-over

It is not easy being human and we have some pretty big problems to deal with, but we have done amazing things and life is so much better than it was and I have a lot of hope for our future. — Athena

Yes i agree.

Your explanation of what you believe in is interesting because it lacks important human qualities. Not only is your post lacking in human qualities but also nature's qualities. This is common today as we have separated ourselves from nature. — Athena

This is because you assume that what man makes or creates with his own hand is artificial and thus somehow separate from nature; not true. If buildings and houses for example are considered artificial and separate from nature then so is a birds nest, a bee hive, and a coral reef; we know they are natural. Why do you think that our technology is not as natural as anything else? Besides that i'm not sure i understand why you claim my ideas lack human qualities.

Everything humanity has ever dreamed of being or having can become a reality if we apply technology in the right way. Do you think humans will remain human forever? Don't you think at a minimum that genetic evolution will change us beyond recognition (even without technology)? My concern is the extinction of mankind, and to survive we must evolve and that may mean leaving behind the old ways of the ape.

You must understand that we will run into an evolutionary dead end if we don't go ahead with what i've been describing or something similar. We can't stay on the Earth forever, if we don't get off this planet eventually it will become toxic; like a child that refuses to be born destroys his own mother from within. Eventually the Sun will explode and wipe out any life in our solar system... then what? What do we do then? Do you think we can live beyond our planet or solar system with our soft bodies and our soft minds. I think not, you may think so.

If you added Aristotle and a study of ethics and virtues to what is important for us to know, we would have a stronger agreement. — Athena

It is better to feel what another person feels than to have some objective or subjective discussion or debate. The human element as you might put it is in our feelings which do not lie as words do. There is no doubt as to what is right and wrong in how we treat each other in a hive-mind; It is a "perfect information" situation.

How is AI going to get us all to agree on one world order? — Athena

I don't envision AI trying to convince us like some government trying to convince us to take a vaccine. I believe that the hive-mind is key, meaning that people would need to see for themselves the benefit of fusing with a hive-mind.

Diffusion of Innovation Theory: The Adoption Curve

before judging humans we might take a look at what they believe and consider if changing that belief would lead to improvements. Not AI but humans using their intelligence. — Athena

If we can somehow change everybody's belief system then sure that would go a long way in improving things, but how would we get everyone on the same page. The usual channels wont work effectively and never have. As long as people feel separate and threatened by each other they will never agree to any significant degree on most things. I'm open to suggestions.

When I deal with a person, I want to do so eyeball to eyeball. I am good with internet forums, but when it is something that deals with my real life, I want reality. Thank you. — Athena

You couldn't tell the difference if you were talking in person or in simulation, and you should also remember that all your perceptions and experiences are just neural patterns; essentially simulations in your brain-mind. Everything is already presented to you in your mind as a simulation of what is happening outside in the environment. A hug will feel just as real in a virtual simulation than in your own neural simulation, and if you were not told it was a virtual simulation it would have the same emotional effect on you than if it were happening in the real world. What really matters then, what really counts? The brain would receive the exact same stimulation in either case.

or dashed a baby's brains out on a doorpost because the baby was a child of the enemy.
You trust men to do justice?
Good luck with that! — Vera Mont

You would not object to those wrongs if we had come a long ways. I am blown away by how much things have changed in my life time. When I became politically active to get shelter for homeless people, I never thought anyone would campaign to a mayor of a city of the governor of a state by promising to house the homeless but that is what is happening in Oregon. Reagan was in office when I started raising awareness of the homeless problem and we used police to drive the homeless away. My work included feeding people and since then we have a huge food bank and anyone who has a low income or no income gets card for buying groceries, plus food from the food bank. I see a huge improvement.

I raised my family when few people had medical insurance and today many low income people get medical insurance. When I was first married we could get government commodities but we didn't have food stamps or the cards we have now. The more people get, the less responsible they seem to feel and wow is the attitude negative! :gasp: Back in the day people went hungry and ate out of trash cans, and were unsheltered, and if they saw a doctor they got a bill. That is if they could see a doctor. Private offices turned people away if they could not pay for the medical care. This is a whole new reality in a short time and from my life experience there is no support for your argument.

You would not object to those wrongs if we had come a long ways. — Athena

Yes, I would always object to them. And we have gone nowhere.

Reagan was in office when I started raising awareness of the homeless problem and we used police to drive the homeless away. — Athena

IOW, at the end of the 20th century CE, 8,000 years after the advent of civilization, the richest country on Earth not only allowed people to be homeless, but either chose to be unaware of their plight or persecuted them. Forty years after a fiery activist brought it to their attention, only 51% of the over 3000 homeless people in Portland are sheltered. But there is a plan. I have a gut feeling the problem could have been faster solved by a computer, which would have noticed this:

One billionaire alone, Nike founder Phil Knight, owns more wealth than the bottom half of Oregonians, said OCPP.https://www.ocpp.org/2022/11/03/3-billionaires-oregon-wealth/

Like I said, humans are really not - still, after all this progress - very good at allocating resources equitably.

The more people get, the less responsible they seem to feel and wow is the attitude negative! — Athena

People are imperfect. This is not news.

This is a whole new reality in a short time and from my life experience there is no support for your argument. — Athena

This is a mean, harsh reality very slightly modified over some decades, and a perfect support for my argument.
And, of course, this just Oregon - one of the more progressive states in a rich and powerful country that vaunts - indeed forcibly exports - its brand of democracy all over the world. What holds true there, does not in Columbia, Nigeria, Slovenia, or even Alabama.