And I think you have just overstepped my personal demarcation of civil discourse. — Vera Mont

I do not understand your reasoning. Hitler gave us a great gift. He showed us what can happen when some people have too much control and opposition to their control can be totally suppressed. How do you think, the AI people are talking about here, is different from that? I do not take this lightly. I am very serious and I want others to take their faith in AI and their apparent willingness of give control of our lives to a group of people or AI. AI must be programmed by people and their good intentions could be a terrible mistake. I want people to think about this.

I am seeing a willingness to give control to a ruling power and a complete lack of responsibility, just like the Germans who put Hitler in power.

↪Athena
It's more helpful if you just state your point clearly and not obscure it even more behind rhetorical questions. Thanks. — 180 Proof

If you do not want to think and answer my questions, why are you here?

I guess i agree if i had to put it in those terms (culture or authority), but both those terms imply some external force or influence imposed on an individual. If we can get rid of this "externality" of perceiving others as apart from us then new healthier more peaceful forms of social order would emerge not based on silly cultures and external force by arbitrary flawed power hungry psychopathic individuals.

The hive-mind takes care of this problem by taking the collective and transforming it into a "composite individual". If you and I were right now linked to each other in a hive-mind situation, then you would not be able to keep secrets from me and vice versa, you would not want to hurt me because you would feel it too and vice versa. You can call it a new type of culture if you like (hive-mind culture). This is a wholly different situation compared to what we have always been familiar with, which is why traditional governments and laws will become obsolete.

Do you need a law or rule, or someone to tell you not to cut off your left arm? No i don't think you do; The hive mind will feel the same way about itself. — punos

I am so confused! Your first paragraph seems to favor extreme individualism and the second one seems to favor the extreme collective. :gasp: What is good about a hive mind? What you describe sounds absolutely terrible to me. You really think it is a good idea if others know everything we think? No privacy? What you are talking about sure is different from the Constitution the forefathers of the US designed. It is far from the Athena distinction between what is private and what is public. But Sparta the enemy of Athens would approve of no one having privacy and the collective having complete control. How do you justify that?

Do you think individuals should have no boundaries? It might be nice if we could fly but there could be problems with that. If we sit all day, we become weak, and we must exercise to maintain our bodies and minds. Nature puts boundaries on us and I am sure we also want boundaries in our relationships. Becoming virtuous requires as much work and a strong body requires exercise and achieving arete is what gives our lives joy.

If it's that simple, why has it never yet happened in any of the nations ruled by humans? — Vera Mont

It did happen and I don't know why people's attitudes are so bad and they are so willing to destroy everything we have gained. Never before could imagine feeding the world, or ending poverty. We have achieved so much and instead of feeling real good about what we have achieved, everyone here seems to be very negative about our human accomplishments. You all have active imaginations and I am very frightened by the belief that AI can do better and should do it with total control of our needs. I think you all would have voted for Hitler.

Long ago I decided I do not want to go to heaven. I enjoy being a human free to make my own choices and to be politically active to change the things I think need to be changed. I like the challenge of life and do not want to give that up for heaven. I do not think AI can do better than a god but it sure could make things a whole lot worse.

Social media has been used to divide us and to manipulate people and for all forms of evil and I don't think it is the answer for the future.

I think that democracy as we know it is actually a preliminary development that foreshadows the full development and implementation of a global human hive-mind system. Social media and BMIs will be part of this final evolution of a hive-mind, where humanity can finally be as one, united and mature as a global species. People will be able to feel each others pain and suffering thus engendering a mutual compassion among all connected ("One for all and all for one"). Symbiotically Infuse the AI into this hive-mind and the old ways of governing with laws will be no more needed. This can be the ultimate form of democracy if we do it right or the ultimate form of tyranny if we do it wrong (50/50). — punos

The are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. Do you agree or disagree with that?

How is a culture manifested? How is authority over the people manifested? Where does AI fit in?

↪Athena I don't see the point you're making or how your post addresses my post from which you've quoted an excerpt (out of context). — 180 Proof

The point is, who or what, is responsible for your well-being and the well-being of those we share this planet with? What are the boundaries of responsibility?

My main point really is that any government controlled by humans in power positions will always eventually slip into some despotic state. AI i believe may be the only way out of our own corruption, and self-destruction; people should not be able to govern other people, but they do need to be governed by something. — punos

A democracy is rule by reason and making sure that happens is as simple as universal education for good citizenship in a democracy.

What do you think can give AI good judgment and how can it enforce its mandates?

That's from the article; I didn't say it. I heard the music, though: it was rather dull, with none of Beethoven's spirit. Of course, the computer only had fragments to go on. — Vera Mont

Of course computers and not equal to humans and never will be.

More likely to happen if a benign computer is in charge of allocating resources than a random assortment of self-interested humans. — Vera Mont

That is a dreadful idea and I used Tocqueville's explanation of why it is a bad idea. What is the point of even living? Would you be good with your family suffering from malnutrition because global warming and war meant countries on the other side of the world needed more food and that meant everyone around the world would have barely enough to eat? How about a decision to end all meat production or no sugar because those products can lead to health problems, and raising meat is the least efficient way to feed people? What other decisions are you willing to give AI?

How about enforcing a law that only married people can have a child and only one child?

Feeding the world is not just a matter of how much we can produce and spread around the world, but also how much we reproduce. It is vital that we reduce populations to more sustainable levels. And how do we want AI to enforce its mandates?

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

And what of liberty?

This is from Tocqueville's 1840 Democracy in America............

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest – his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not – he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances – what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch43.htm

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

We are far beyond the mindset of primates. However, we have not experienced our full potential because never before did we have the resources nor the knowledge that we have today. Only recently has the world had large populations of older people and that is a very exciting change in human reality.
The mindset of a 34-year-old is very different from the mindset of 68 year old. Not that long ago 45 years old would be old and the end of our life expectancy. Today 68 is not that old. Not that long ago it was common for young people to drop out of school by 8th grade and get a job. They did not have the high-tech media we have today. Unless they lived in cities they did not have great sources of the information nor have any reason to learn about the world and evolution and technology.

The world we live in today is very different from the world we have before WWII and expecting us to adjust to this change in before having enough experience with the change, is unrealistic.

"By feeding data about Beethoven, his music, his style and the original scribbles on the 10th symphony into an algorithm, AI has created an entirely new piece of art."

Music is mathematical. Having feelings for a child and figuring out how this child is special and the best way to help the child actualize him or herself is not mathematical.

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

A second thought on what you said here, is what family has to do with democracy and a humane government.

In a way, I feel like what I think is important is drowning in this thread. What if our lives were organized around what is best for the children? Not just what is best for my own children, but for all children and their future in this country. Can males think like that?

What happens when both parents put their careers first? What values are the children learning? How do they experience themselves?

Father, Alpha male that he is, has time to play with the dog but mother doesn't have time to sit and pet puff. Dick, helmet on and balls in hand, is playing too. Little Sally is being trained to be a household drudge just like her mother.

Where is Jane? Mothers for Liberty might well ask where Jane is--certainly not being supervised by here mother and father. She's probably out on the street being tricked into prostitution. She'll be seeing a lot of dick. — BC

I never saw Dick and Jane as you see it, and that may be my err? I can see what you see, but that is not the only way to perceive those pictures. Childhood is preparation for adulthood and I see nothing wrong with Sally imitating her mother. I also see a father playing with his son and I think it is wonderful that a father is engaging his son. Many people believe sports are a very important preparation for life. For sure a father playing with his children is important to their lives. The difference in our perception may be no different from seeing the glass half full or half empty.

My school teacher grandmother preferred Alice and Jerry books. Dick and Jane books were built on the sight reading method and the Alice and Jerry books were based on phonics and independent thinking skills. I have a strong preference for phonics and independent thinking skills, over reliance on memorization that is sight reading. Reliance on memorization and "group think" is a threat to democracy. Defending democracy begins with how we prepare children to read and think.

My err maybe, I am happy with our male and female differences and having different roles in society. I think really good things come out of wanting to be a homemaker and community volunteer. Not just personally but to the whole of society. Democracy is strongest if it is ordered by family order.

A wonderful thing is we live longer and can have both the traditional family that focuses on the benefit to children and society as a whole, and we can have careers if our husbands want us to succeed as much as we want them to succeed. My son is that kind of husband. His father was not so I got the worst consequences of being the traditional woman instead of the happy family I always wanted and then a career. Knowing how my son is different from his father proves my dream of family can be a reality.

So you believe DINO is the best we can do? :chin: — 180 Proof

Hum, you must not read my post.

Your story has been the experience of millions of Americans whose lives have been made miserable by capitalism and the policies of both conservatives and neoliberals. These ill effects cut across the working class, gender, geography, and race. That's it in a nutshell.

Our (working class) experience isn't universal. Another class called the ruling class, or upper class, has a much different experience. The functioning of the economy was designed to deliver, cradle to grave, a steady stream of substantial benefits for the top class, through the labor and at the expense of the working class.

Our loss has been their gain. — BC

I like what you said because it includes both sexes. Our labor history is terrible and at least most women had the protection of home, while men risked their lives for very little money and union people got their heads bashed in by the police and security people paid to suppress the people and protect property rights. The Roosevelts stood against that exploitation but Franklin's New Deal gave government powers it never had before and this is not all good! I wish we understood fascism as an economic order that began in Italy, instead of the horror that it became under Hitler.

:sad: Too many ideas in my head at one time. I am not into bashing men because we have a history of them being treated very badly. We need to work for peace between the sexes and I would love to be free to enjoy being a woman again and not having to compete like men. My knight in shining armor would think I did earn my SS and SSI and that civilizations protect women and children, and protect men with safe working conditions and social justice.

Back to politics, Hoover and Franklin worked together to give us Big Government with more power than it ever had before and that is economic fascism. At the time, before the horrors of WWII, fascism was thought to be the answer to devastating economic swings and economic injustice.

I think it would be helpful to use the terms autocratic and democratic. The US modeled its industry after Britain's autocratic model. What Franklin did was make the government a stronger autocratic force to have power over autocratic industry. At the same time, Deming was trying to get industry to accept his democratic model. The US refused the democratic model for industry, so following WWII when the US was Americanizing Japan, Deming went to Japan and taught them the democratic model. Japan raised to out-compete us for world markets. We say we defend democracy but I don't think we know what it is and why it is a good idea to defend it. Shouldn't we use the democratic model of Industry instead of the autocratic one? For darn sure, workers would not have approved of their jobs being sent overseas, ruining not only their lives but the economies of their communities. Everyone here has mentioned bad values, but what we must understand is what organization has to do with our social, economic, and political order.

That said, what does everyone think will happen to education and our medical care with teachers and nurses demanding more pay? Would the democratic model improve the situation? The fight is not just about wages, it is also about working conditions, and that leads straight to concern about how much a worker is valued, verses exploited. Is medical care for profit a good idea? How is that democratic?

↪Athena You have my admiration, Athena. Thank I am probably a bit older than you, but I witnessed and became involved in that transition from housewife (perhaps with a degree in home economics) to professional (perhaps with a degree in CS). My first wife grew into that transition while we were married, and left and made a career for herself. At first, painful for me, but, nevertheless, the right move for us both. — jgill

I think we are the same cohort. I think I got whiplash looking back on all the very rapid transitions we have been through. I was already into the 1950 Dick and Jane social order when Hippies came on the scene and I was glad to join them. I lived in a rural area so this was not the San Francisco or LA hippie thing, but home-baked bread, chopping firewood, and making clothes, gardening and canning. For me, this morphed into a connection with Mother Nature and Goddess. Then bam! We were "just housewives". Things got pretty insane. From Goddess to "just a housewife" was quite a fall.

Next thing we knew, we were in a recession, our husbands left us with teenagers to support and we had no work history to compete for jobs when it took at least 5 years "professional experience" to get a referral to a shoe shining job. We had to hide our educations and use our domestic experience to get jobs and then our resumes labeled us with jobs that had nothing to do with our educations. :lol: Thank goodness I can laugh at the comedy of errs. But I am not going to be passive about the opinion that we did not earn a decent life.

Neither I am going to accept our changed values, as though the traditional woman did have great social value. The USSR "liberated" women before the US. Immediately their economy benefitted from the surge of women workers, but then women and children began sliding into poverty. The divorce and abortion rates began to increase. In the US we can add to that, women and children have increasingly been involved in crime, both as victims and perpetrators. In the 1970's we announced a national youth crisis and now we have a 6-year-old taking a gun to school and shooting a teacher. It seems every week we learn of a new mass shooting. DOES ANYONE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANT ROLE TRADITIONAL WOMEN SERVED IN SOCIETY?

She worked hard all her life as a hospital cleaner. — universeness

Bingo! However, it is the whole human value system as you keep saying. My understanding of welfare is the result of exploiting the poor for wealth. When England had to go to war, too few of its military-aged males were fit for service. Industry was asked to increase its wages and Industry argued they could not increase wages and remain competitive in world markets. So the government began supplementing Industry with welfare for the poor.

I do not want to blame anyone for this economic disparity because I can not think of how things could have been done better. I want to focus on the human value factor.

The Bible was used to get workers to work hard and accept low wages. This is so easy to do with all its talk of the poor always being with us, and the rich not getting into heaven. The Bible also makes some comments about women that justify male authority over them and this is not conducive to justice and living happily ever after. The Greeks were very patriarchal. I think are better models of civilization but I can not remember their names. I think Aristotle had a strong influence on our social organization with men as heads of the house and justifying slavery.

The Iroquois social organization and ancient civilizations I can not remember appear to have had more equal relationships with women, and it seems where there is more equality between men and women there is more equality in general. The burr that is in my side is valuing money and not humans. And if we were to value our good citizens, what benefits of society should they expect?

Social Security is based on a notion of human dignity. It came about during the Great Depression and it was based on age, not need, to protect the dignity of older Americans, when people would rather die than accept welfare. At that time, the idea was if older people would retire, the young could have their jobs. But this covered primarily male jobs, not domestic workers and farm laborers.

Free high quality education for all from cradle to grave. Is it only the human invention of money that is stopping that from happening? Is it not possible to explain to billionaires and multi-millionaires that we are going to take some of their ridiculous surplus and use it to providing free education for everyone in your country of the USA and if they don't like it, they can f*** off and live somewhere else but they must leave their ill-gotten gains in the country? Am I being too 'radical?' — universeness

Okay love, I started this thread because I was a traditional woman as my father and husband wanted me to be. I was the perfect 1950 woman as she was portrayed in Dick and Jane readers and TV shows. The down side of that is it left me in poverty to raise two teenagers by myself. Then as a result of low wages, when I was disabled, My Social Security was so low it is supplemented with SSI. People with SSI loose their payment if they have over 2 thousand dollars in the bank. It cost more than $2000 to move, and car repairs can be thousands of dollars. The limit on how much money we can have in a savings account, keeps us in constant insecurity. When I complained about that in another forum, a gentleman said SSI is welfare and I am getting more than I earned. Excuse me, I did everything society asked of me and more. I have volunteered most my life because it is important to me to be a valuable citizens.

Like many women in my cohort, I wanted to raise my children, then complete my college education when they were old enough to leave alone, then have a career , pay off our home and help our children go to college. Unfortunately, I did not marry as well as my family thought, and I could not fulfill my life plan. To add to that was a very long recession that hit at a critical time. Recessions can destroy people's lives and if we follow Aristotle, we think when a force of life prevents a person from doing the right thing, it is not that person's fault. Hey, I didn't get the career I wanted but I do volunteer 5 days a week. Telling me I have earned my social benefits really pisses me off.

It is a human value issue.

Well, if there is a problem with paying women more, we need a mathematician. But my concern is not a material one as much as a value one. This is not just about women getting paid more, but the reason for them working has changed. I think women have always played a vital part of all communities and if they stop doing that because they feel valued for fulfilling their traditional role, how will that change how we value ourselves and others?

I want to see economic considerations, social considerations, and political considerations.

For example, government is doing much for children than it did before women were allowed to represent us in state and federal legislatures and the stronger the push for welfare programs gets, the stronger the conservative resistance gets. The stronger the push for accepting our differences gets, the stronger the push back gets and that culture war is flaring up as a battle to control education.

Okay, now how much government control do we want? Social programs are not free so how much more do we want to pay in taxes?

I have heard children with only one parent are at risk. How can government resolve that problem?

Wobbly, sure, with no solid foundation. But not entirely arbitrary, surely? You have the vehicle's service history? — bongo fury

If we do perhaps experience amnesia the people who think they know us will tell us who we are and who is important to who we are and not important to who we are. If we look like a male and chose to look like a female, surely there will be people to tell us about who we are. If our skin is dark, the White people in the neighborhood may wonder what we are doing there. Or if we are a Whitey in the wrong neighborhood someone will tell us we should not be there. Our sense of self is a little complex and some of us avoid our families because their opinion of who we are may not be to our liking. Who we are, depends to some degree, on those who are judging us.

Our sense of self is not all in our brains, but in every cell in our body. How we feel about ourselves and our lives is in our bodies. Our judgment of right and wrong is in our body and notions of right and wrong are recorded in our cells from the beginning of our existence. In general, it would be more correct to say, "I feel you are right", or "I feel you are wrong", because rarely are we actually weighing the facts and using logic to judge what is so. We are reacting and how we react is pretty automatic.

You don't believe me? Say to yourself "I am really sexy" and notice how your body reacts. Is your body giving you an "Oh, Yeah I am hot!" or a cynical "You are too fat or too old to be sexy." Want to invest $5000 in a hot new stock? What does your gut say about that? :chin:

My question is, without our material bodies, what can we experience? If we do not experience ourselves, reacting to other beings, can we have a sense of self? We do not just think who we are, we feel who we are in relation to others. How we feel about ourselves and our lives may have very little to do with our thinking. We may even realize our thoughts based on our feelings are not rational.

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

What good talking points you presented. Have you heard about the democratic model for industry? Years ago I had the privilege of attending a seminar for the democratic model and I am sure that is our way out of the mess we are in, along with education for democracy.

I am confident that up to this point, Christianity has been the worst hindrance to democracy. A healthy democracy requires literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Only the elite could afford that education, so our thinking did not change as much as it needs to change if we are to have democracy. Perhaps Einstein did not have the necessary education if he stopped with the quote you used. He was educated in Germany, right, the nation that became the enemy of our democracy. Public education in the US did attempt to prepare us for responsible citizenship, but in the effort, it Americanized the past lessons and in so doing separated US from the past wisdom, and our Christian history made this a very serious problem of consciousness. We 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.

The US adopted Britain's autocratic model for industry and Christianity supports that. It is what Einstien said is the wrong mindset for democracy. During the great depression Deming developed the autocratic model of industry. The autocratic model lead to not only terrible exploitation of humans and a terrible economic problem, especially when our industry was sent overseas, but it also manifested White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, male privilege that held females in slavery until just recently. The slave-master relationship of marriage is as bad as slavery is bad.

Hopefully, we are having meaningful discussions here that will recorrect the problems, including the problem of miserable families. For darn sure the correction will not be a god nor AI ruling over us.

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

Can we focus on gathering information so we can defend democracy with reason? What are the different forms of government? What are the benefits of each form of government? What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere? Maybe these questions that need to be answered before we consider one world government.

Here is one of my favorite quotes that justifies democracy and it may be essential to one world government.

“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Cicero

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

A religious person could not have made a better argument for ending our liberty. However, the reasoning for democracy is based on the human potential and the Enlightenment built on literacy in Greek and Roman classics has greatly improved our lives and this was made possible by free public education for that purpose. Then we replaced liberal education with education for technology, and we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses?

Also, life is better and if we think things are getting worse we should ask why instead of giving up on humans.

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

I want to add a thought, which among us would choose to live with our parents and be free of all responsibility except to do as we are told?

↪Marigold23 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

So is war a better way to resolve differences?

Why do you say that? — 180 Proof

Have you ever had a problem with your user name for the internet and wished you could just call someone and explain the problem? You know, like in the not-so-distant past when we could actually talk face to face with someone when we had a problem and get it resolved. Since the day of the internet, that was the end of reasoning with another human being to resolve problems. Don't get me wrong, I love the internet but I have no desire to be under the control of AI! I think our faith in technology and failed faith in each other is a tragedy unfolding. I think increasing our reliance on AI is a terrible mistake.

This is why I refer to it as an (optimal) effect of a (beneficial) Technological Singularity which, for me, is the sufficient condition for 'world governance'. Primates like us are mostly wired for – territoriality and forming dominance hierarchies – tribal eusociality, and so monopolistic social arrangements, as you've pointed out, are inexorably subject to moral hazards because our atavisms. 'Human-level A.I.' (or more advanced) will not be constrained by primate glands and reproductive drives; provided we can engineer 'philanthropic A.I.'; it can govern us and all other planetary systems as an integrated whole. :nerd: — 180 Proof

Well so much for liberty. Will that utopia include drugs like people used drugs in The Brave New World to deal with their totally useless lives.

Heck no there should not be one world order. It is much better to stay with wars to determine what happens.

Not that I am recommending silent suppression of speech. I am simply saying that the nature of too much self disclosure on a public philosophy site is worth reflecting upon, mainly for how it may impact on you at some point rather than just those who read it. — Jack Cummins

That is an important warning, especially for those who must work for a living. I have heard some real horror stories about how something said on the internet can seriously damage one's life. Besides our personal experiences are not empirical. I try so hard to not speak of personal experience, but when we experience something, it is very real for us in a way that empirical information or someone else's experience does not have that same quality of reality. And especially when talking about hormones and the female experience or how females are judged, the need to speak from experience is overwhelming!

If gender change meant painful monthly cycles and mood swings, why would any man want that? The way women are treated is not always nice, so again I have to ask why would a man want that? What is their fantasy of being a woman that makes being one of them a good idea?

Positive characteristics of females? I think males who desire to be females to do not have all the facts of being one, and considering this discussion has advanced to talk of suicide we might consider what hormones have to do with depression.

Abstract
The biological plausibility for the effect of sex hormones on the central nervous system is now supported by a considerable amount of clinical data. This critical review guides the reader through the plethora of data, from the earliest reports of menstrual madness in the nineteenth century to neurobiological work in the new millennium. It illustrates through the scientific evidence base that, although the effect of estrogen on the central nervous system, particularly on mood and depression, remains a controversial area, there is now considerable evidence for the psychotherapeutic benefits of estrogens in the triad of hormone-responsive depressive disorders: postnatal depression, premenstrual depression and perimenopausal depression. The article also reviews the compelling data that testosterone supplementation has positive effects for depression, libido and energy, particularly where patients have only partially responded to estrogen therapy. — J Studd & N Panay

Personally, I love steroids! I was given steroids after surgery and I felt so good I wanted to get a job as a janitor and return to life as it was when I felt like an Amazon woman who could do anything. My daughter was horrified and frantically said I should not get the job because it was the steroids making me feel so good and unfortunately continued use of steroids can lead to serious problems.

I also found my menstrual cycles were hell when I was in a bad marriage but when I was in a supportive man, my menstrual cycles were a period of bliss and feeling in touch with the universe. I would say our environment is just as important as our hormone cycles.

I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. — Lady Bracknell

That is a shame. We have so much potential but to manifest it requires education and training. I really do think it a shame to not develop our arete.

I would love to be as attractive and physically fit as I once was when I felt like an Amazon woman who could do anything that was physically challenging. Maybe in another 50 years, the medical community will be able to return us to a better physical condition, but today when us old folks look in the mirror and see an old person, we better be able to say, "I look just like a grandma or grandpa should look" and like it. We must make the adjustment to our changed physical reality. From this perspective, when a see a man who has attempted to look like a woman, I think he is wrong to expect others to accept him as a woman. I mean really, if I were trying to be accepted as a teenager when I look and move nothing like a teenager should I expect everyone to accept me as a teenager?

It is a bit complex. Aging is less complex as we all do it bout the same. But sexually there is a spectrum of differences and a person's voice, appearance and movements are an expression of hormones and hormone receivers, as well as psychological factors playing into the mix.

There are cognitive differences. Behaviour is learned. So no. — Benkei

I am not sure about that. True mammals do learn from each other but I don't think that is true of all animals. I think if we were to focus on hormones and behavior, science would indicate hormones do trigger behaviors. Same as an itch triggers the desire to scratch. And an age-related increase in testosterone increases and then decreases aggressive male behaviors. While a female may be consumed with a desire to have a child and later, for hormonal reasons, may have no interest in sex.

In the US we could really use better sex education. Correct information could decrease marital problems and perhaps increase our ability to accept people's sexual differences.

Those aren't male or female traits but gender stereotypes. You shouldn't confuse the two. That said, it is correct that male gender stereotypes are valued more than female ones. It reinforces biases as people try to conform their behaviour to what's expected and the end result is a lot of sexism even from people who don't intend it. — Benkei

Biologically males and females are different and that biological difference includes psychological and behavior differences. The same thing also manifest homosexuality and all the different places on the sexual spectrum. And men improve with age because their hormones change with age.

When I realized Santa Claus was not real, I was angry with my mother for lying to me. She explained Santa Claus is real in spirit. Santa Claus is the happiness and the spirit of giving.
We can give any time of the year but the spirit of Christmas is something we share together and that makes it a bigger deal than just buying someone a gift. It is special foods, traditions and songs. As one song says, it is a wonderful time of the year, and participating in Christmas is not being alone but a part of something much bigger than ourselves.

I think we have a hard time with spirits. I believe they are real, such as morale, that high-spirited feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. We experience spirits and that makes them real, but they are not materialistic and most of us are limited to materialistic thinking.

Note: philosophy is not therapy and beliefs that make people happy and more successful are not thereby shown to be true. (Philosophy is the enterprise of using reason to try and find out what's true. It is not the enterprise of trying to make people happy or successful or psychologically robust).

So, what claims about the nature of reality - and what supporting arguments - do you understand Stoicism to denote? (Because I think they'll either be banal or obviously false). — Bartricks

Socrates was very interested in happiness and there is much philosophical discussion of what virtues have to do with happiness. Buddhism is missing from this discussion but shares much with Stoicism and those world views are very much about happiness.

A philosophical way to determine the concern with happiness is to ask a person what he wants and then why he wants it. What do you want and why do you want it?

I did not mean to hijack the thread. I just thought that Aristotle was not well represented as a strict Draconian. — Paine

I have totally enjoyed your post and that is why I thought we could open another thread. I am still determined to find what I read that lead me to think Aristotle favored at least some things about Sparta. I want to learn more and your question hit my curiosity.

I like your term "Draconian". That is exactly what I was thinking, that Aristotle was Draconian.
But how can one strive for perfection and not be uptight? On the other hand, he did speak of moderation and the golden mean.

Weren't all the Greek philosophers a little uptight about getting it just right because the consequences of not getting right are bad? And Sparta winning the war with Athens, threw Socrates and his followers into a spin, questioning what did Athens do wrong, leading to losing the war. Obviously, Sparta had to be doing something right if it won the war. This interests me but it is not the topic of this thread. help

Cleary you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You have said that you do not believe in God.

You have also said that you do not think that there could be any other explanation for the world apart from God.

So, you believe a contradiction. That's dumb. That is, you believe something - the world - exists and that it could only possibly exist if God exists, but you believe God does not exist. Jeez. Join. The. Dots. — Bartricks

Excuse me. You do not know Athena do you.

Athena's personality is a very dualistic one. At times she exhibits a very masculine aura; at others, she is the vision of feminine loveliness. Her attitiude changes almost daily, depending on certain situations. She uses her wisdom to decide how she should react in a situation. Athena's duties are where she has earned her fame. Weaving and warfare are the areas where she excels above all others, except in the case of poor Arachne. As the goddess of wisdom, Athena displays her wisdom through various ways, especially in war, thinking out carefully who should win and then aiding them. But she is often confusing in how she can change her mind half way through, a characteristic that she is female. In all of these ways; her personality, duties, and wisdom, spread through endless tales, Athena became a three-dimensional character, forever changing as humans still do today. — Laurie Parrish, Lynette Delp, Alex Klinkhardt, Stephanie Palmer

It is not a good idea to piss off any of the gods, and certainly not a good idea to piss Athena off. Now do you want to talk about ignorance? Being disrespectful as you were in your opening line, is an obvious sign of ignorance. Do you want to try again, or should we just ignore each other?

If your god is believable or not is up for question. However, there could be no manifest reality without logos.

The Stoic contribution would probably be through Stoicism's conception of the "brotherhood of man." The Stoic Musonius Rufus, Epictetus' teacher, taught the equality of men and women. Aristotle thought all non-Greeks inferior. The Roman contribution would likely be through its law and natural law jurisprudence (an offshoot of Stoicism), and the eventual extension of Roman citizenship to everyone in the Empire. — Ciceronianus

Aristotle also thought women inferior. I think most groups of people thought they were superior to all others. It seems to be a human trait.

Roman law of nature is not about nature. However, it was used to give Christianity its form. Roman law of nature took what was common to different people and determined that is a truth. I think we could call that rule by reason because they made the effort to understand who is right about something and who is wrong. When I look at Christianity I see a lot of beliefs mixed into it with Christianity taking credit for the "brotherhood".

You think the only possible explanation for the external world is God?!?

Why on earth would you think that?

And second, you also think - incoherently - that God does not exist.

So, er, you think the external world doesn't exist? Or do you not see the contradiction in your beliefs? — Bartricks

What is God? What is the external world? I believe the universe exists. I think I believe energy continues to flow from the center of the universe but I have not gotten enough information to have confidence in what I think.

I do have confidence that the Bible is written by people and to me, its explanation of God is not believable.