Chernobyl series on HBO

[Tks]

With respect to the mini-series. Did anyone pick up on why shutting down the reactor caused it to blow from yesterday's episode ???

TIA

Nah, I think we need to keep watching for the reveal. So you didn't miss anything :}

 

[Blumlein 88]

snip.........
Oh and also I wouldn't be able to give you a proper answer because THOSE "whys/whens/etc.." are precisely what the topic of contention of social engineers are always deliberating on. But a quick basic answer would be systems of taxation, and democratic referendums/voting of allocation of funds (until AI systems can be brought to speed to properly give us insight as to the effecacy of our choices).

See this is one of those things we'll likely not agree on. Are there times when some over-seeing group might make good rational decisions for everyone else? Yes. But history would seem to show that even not very smart people can make better overall decisions for themselves than can a gov't controller or social engineer. There are simply too many facts to be cogently used by social engineers. So they make poor decisions too often. And collectively it works out better to let people manage their own lives even though some do that poorly. Social engineering does even more poorly, and can prevent those who would do well by luck or talent from doing well for themselves. Sort of a lose-lose proposition.

I've no doubt that global warming is happening due to people's activities. I don't know what should be done about it. I mentioned the club of Rome, and systems modeling. This situation is one such modeling would be good to use. There are too many factors and too many unknowns about what happens taking this or that path. Systems modeling actually works to minimize specifics and yet model a large global situation in ways that can give insight. Which might then inform policy. Even then the gov'ts of the planet are too fractured and confrontational to make it work as things stand currently. The obvious moves to combat global warming in isolation without systems modeling are likely to have disruptive unintended bad consequences in other areas.

 

[Tks]

See this is one of those things we'll likely not agree on. Are there times when some over-seeing group might make good rational decisions for everyone else? Yes. But history would seem to show that even not very smart people can make better overall decisions for themselves than can a gov't controller or social engineer. There are simply too many facts to be cogently used by social engineers. So they make poor decisions too often. And collectively it works out better to let people manage their own lives even though some do that poorly. Social engineering does even more poorly, and can prevent those who would do well by luck or talent from doing well for themselves. Sort of a lose-lose proposition.

I've no doubt that global warming is happening due to people's activities. I don't know what should be done about it. I mentioned the club of Rome, and systems modeling. This situation is one such modeling would be good to use. There are too many factors and too many unknowns about what happens taking this or that path. Systems modeling actually works to minimize specifics and yet model a large global situation in ways that can give insight. Which might then inform policy. Even then the gov'ts of the planet are too fractured and confrontational to make it work as things stand currently. The obvious moves to combat global warming in isolation without systems modeling are likely to have disruptive unintended bad consequences in other areas.

Social engineers was a poor word, I meant to say all people involved with discussions on these sorts of topics. Professionals, academics, etc..

I mentioned a few times, people need to be replaced eventually in government, in the same way they are standing to be replaced in current industries due to AI, and automation. People still need to be used as a stop-gap, until we can get proper systems running with simply "maintenance" crews to keep the place running properly and take manual control over some decisions AI can't account for.

But I fully agree, the biggest roadblock is people themselves. We got people working at SpaceX making massive strides with progress thought to have been a pipedream but a few years ago, meanwhile there are people that will still tell me the Earth is flat. This inequality with respect to education is a staggering contributor to the sorts of roadblocks we understand ourselves about.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Let me frame it in a way that can be compared to capitalism in it's current form. You say it's like "basic nature of humans". And we see our nature is quite animalistic, thus be extension any infraction or attempt to go against human nature is an affront to something like capitalism that is also "natural".

The problem is, when did "natural" become "good"? This is why language is quite powerful in the hands of utterly useless but imperatively needed masters of language and emotion churning folks like public figures/politicians.

When well-being is being infringed upon, why does "natural" or anything else matter? It doesn't, and most people will do almost anything to bring an ending to pain/suffering/discontent. Religious people will suspend the beliefs of their life (like hardliner anti-vax, and anti-science, and anti-medicine people) and visit a doctor when their situation becomes grave. There are cases of true devout believers that actually stick to their word under all costs, and the costs have lately been infants dying of easily preventable conditions due to the negligence of these lunatic parents (a case recently of a couple lost their second child this way after they were in court for the first).

Likewise with capitalism.. if it is causing this staggering level of success at the costs of billions of people and animals and life on Earth in general. Why would it make sense to keep doing it, and not always at least attempt to find a better form if we are to stick with it's core tenants? It simply has lost it's purpose, and isn't scaling with all current interpretations and applications of it in the US for instance.

You can't make an appeal to tradition/nature (basically saying, we should do something we always have because it's worked in the past, or because it's "natural"), it's simply logically false. It's like me saying "Let's continue slavery, because it feels natural, and we've always done it, and the economy benefits greatly". If you're not ready to claim this, then you're simply not being consistent.

I'm glad you agree modifications have to be put, but this is always the point of contention "how much" and "what" modifications will suffice? The illusion that it is "self regulating" is the biggest nonsense imaginable, and as totally revealed itself to be a massive falsehood. It is literally the originator of things like monopolies. And with current technology, and things like "copyrights" and "intellectual property", those tools can be leveraged in various ways that totally obliterate any "self regulation" that stands in the way of the pure monetary incentive, and incendiary expansion of the monopoly to unwieldly levels as we've seen from companies deemed "Too Big To Fail".

In survival situations, you either "give up freedoms" or most likely you worsen your chances of survival. You claim "evidence" that "freedom" (this word needs real contextual definitions honestly) helps make the world a better place, more ways than it hurts. Well I can just as easily level the complaints of 1-2 billion people in poverty/stavation on the planet that will easily stand against whatever evidence you claim to have. Quite firmly I would imagine. Now if you said capitalism/freedom MADE the world a better place, or makes SOME aspects of the world better, then I would agree in the past tense for capitalism, and agree freedom makes things always better for the majority of society. But when a fight or flight moment comes, you're going to wish monarchies returned, just for the sake of survival.

You've completely misunderstood me when I used the word natural. I was not speaking of natural as being good. Nor of it being moral. Nor of it having intrinsic value. So most of your reply was way off the mark. I was using natural in the sense if you know humans are naturally motivated in a certain way, you are making your job of changing behavior far more arduous if you take an approach directly against that nature. It might not be impossible, but it is a difficult way to do things. Capitalism instead harnesses some of that nature to accomplish some good things without fighting against that nature. That is one of the reasons it has worked so well. It harnesses greed and self interest instead of saying people shouldn't be greedy. It was a good serendipitous paring with Christianity which at least largely had as it core business curbing man's baser instincts.

 

[Blumlein 88]

snippage........
In survival situations, you either "give up freedoms" or most likely you worsen your chances of survival. You claim "evidence" that "freedom" (this word needs real contextual definitions honestly) helps make the world a better place, more ways than it hurts. Well I can just as easily level the complaints of 1-2 billion people in poverty/stavation on the planet that will easily stand against whatever evidence you claim to have. Quite firmly I would imagine. Now if you said capitalism/freedom MADE the world a better place, or makes SOME aspects of the world better, then I would agree in the past tense for capitalism, and agree freedom makes things always better for the majority of society. But when a fight or flight moment comes, you're going to wish monarchies returned, just for the sake of survival.

I would not take the complaints of those 1-2 billion people at all. Because there are that many if not more that without the advancements and help of capitalist western society they would not now be alive. And those that were might well be in even worse conditions. Some even make the complaint that giving aid and supplying too much food the west is responsible for these people's situation, yet otherwise they'd not be alive. You want to ask them if they would rather they had never been? A social engineer, an academic might make the decision that their lives are too poor so don't let them be born. I bet they wouldn't choose that.

But when a fight or flight moment comes, you're going to wish monarchies returned, just for the sake of survival.

No your quite wrong about that. I don't even know where you get the idea monarchies are going to do better.

And you might find it worthwhile to read this book.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0756J1LLV/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o09?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think

Despite how some people are talking about capitalism being bankrupt now, the world has gotten much better in the last 50 years. The most important and rapid improvements are for those in the worst conditions in the world. Disease rates, mortality, hunger, income, quality of life are improving the most for the lowest 20%. Academics seem to love heaping scorn on capitalism. Ask for the better replacement, and you usually get lots of silence or ridiculousness. Capitalism isn't perfect, it has its problems, but it has gotten an ill deserved bad rap globally in the last decade as it one way or another is funding these improvements to the worst off couple billion people in the world. It really is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

 

[Tks]

You've completely misunderstood me when I used the word natural. I was not speaking of natural as being good. Nor of it being moral. Nor of it having intrinsic value. So most of your reply was way off the mark. I was using natural in the sense if you know humans are naturally motivated in a certain way, you are making your job of changing behavior far more arduous if you take an approach directly against that nature. It might not be impossible, but it is a difficult way to do things. Capitalism instead harnesses some of that nature to accomplish some good things without fighting against that nature. That is one of the reasons it has worked so well. It harnesses greed and self interest instead of saying people shouldn't be greedy. It was a good serendipitous paring with Christianity which at least largely had as it core business curbing man's baser instincts.

Okay, so I misunderstood, how? Regardless, this is why I stress diction needs elaboration, and why relatively short posts are hard to give brief replies to, and even then I could waste my time when someone comes back and says "that's not what I mean by natural". Well if you didn't mean those things, there was not need to use it in the context you did for example.

That confusion aside. I'm not trying to change behavior, nor does behavior need changing. Values need shifting, temporarily at least in pressing moments, and permanently if they are values that better serve our existence on this planet with as least suffering as possible.

As for how humans are "naturally" motivated.. I addressed that even under my understanding of your word "natural". We already live in opposition to nature currently, so I don't understand what you mean it might "not be impossible, but a difficult way to do things". We're already doing all sorts of things that we "naturally" wouldn't do, and sometimes do things we "naturally" would do. What you're saying can mean anything, and by extention doesn't actually serve any purpose because not precise example of specificity is given to demonstrate the precise point you're wanting to make now, nor how any of it is in opposition to any of the statements I've made in the prior post, aside from saying I misunderstand your meaning of "natural". Then you make claims "it harnessed greed and self interest instead of saying don't be greedy". Then you claim Christianity has had a core impact on curbing our baser instincts.

You're not actually proving this in any way or by any example or logical deduction. What does "harnessing greed and self interest" in the context of capitalism even look like, and why would this demonstrably lead to higher states of well-being for instance?

Also, you then simply made the declaratory statement of Christianity being a good pairing along with the "good" that capitalism is. Where are you supposing Christianity is "good"? No more blood has been spilled in history than in the names of God/gods. I don't understand what sorts of good you're assuming come out of something like Christianity especially in the context of capitalism. Saying Christianity has done SOME good is okay, but unless you're trying to sell me on the idea two negatives make a positive, I fail utterly to see the correlation where good comes out of two very seriously antiquated ideas in their current forms.

Perhaps the issue with Christianity can be taken up on another thread, I can provide many instances where almost all religions (especially current ones) do us more a disservice today than a benefit. This is even before the notion that any of these religions are true in their claims.

We're clogging the thread with this severely off topic tangent this is flowing into :{

 

[Blumlein 88]

Okay, so I misunderstood, how? Regardless, this is why I stress diction needs elaboration, and why relatively short posts are hard to give brief replies to, and even then I could waste my time when someone comes back and says "that's not what I mean by natural". Well if you didn't mean those things, there was not need to use it in the context you did for example.

That confusion aside. I'm not trying to change behavior, nor does behavior need changing. Values need shifting, temporarily at least in pressing moments, and permanently if they are values that better serve our existence on this planet with as least suffering as possible.

As for how humans are "naturally" motivated.. I addressed that even under my understanding of your word "natural". We already live in opposition to nature currently, so I don't understand what you mean it might "not be impossible, but a difficult way to do things". We're already doing all sorts of things that we "naturally" wouldn't do, and sometimes do things we "naturally" would do. What you're saying can mean anything, and by extention doesn't actually serve any purpose because not precise example of specificity is given to demonstrate the precise point you're wanting to make now, nor how any of it is in opposition to any of the statements I've made in the prior post, aside from saying I misunderstand your meaning of "natural". Then you make claims "it harnessed greed and self interest instead of saying don't be greedy". Then you claim Christianity has had a core impact on curbing our baser instincts.

You're not actually proving this in any way or by any example or logical deduction. What does "harnessing greed and self interest" in the context of capitalism even look like, and why would this demonstrably lead to higher states of well-being for instance?

Also, you then simply made the declaratory statement of Christianity being a good pairing along with the "good" that capitalism is. Where are you supposing Christianity is "good"? No more blood has been spilled in history than in the names of God/gods. I don't understand what sorts of good you're assuming come out of something like Christianity especially in the context of capitalism. Saying Christianity has done SOME good is okay, but unless you're trying to sell me on the idea two negatives make a positive, I fail utterly to see the correlation where good comes out of two very seriously antiquated ideas in their current forms.

Perhaps the issue with Christianity can be taken up on another thread, I can provide many instances where almost all religions (especially current ones) do us more a disservice today than a benefit. This is even before the notion that any of these religions are true in their claims.

We're clogging the thread with this severely off topic tangent this is flowing into :{

I could address each paragraph individually. I'll just ask this. You want specifics. I do too. We're going to scrap terrible old awful capitalism. What do you have to go in its place?

You also have misunderstood me on Christianity as well. It would take lots of back and forth to straighten this out so we are communicating accurately with each other. So probably not the place. But I would like an answer for the wonderful new thing to replace capitalism.

 

[Tks]

I would not take the complaints of those 1-2 billion people at all. Because there are that many if not more that without the advancements and help of capitalist western society they would not now be alive. And those that were might well be in even worse conditions. Some even make the complaint that giving aid and supplying too much food the west is responsible for these people's situation, yet otherwise they'd not be alive. You want to ask them if they would rather they had never been? A social engineer, an academic might make the decision that their lives are too poor so don't let them be born. I bet they wouldn't choose that.

You seem to have forgotten my position on capitalism. I needs a serious surgery, not a complete overnight throwing away in the bin.

In the interest of making this reply short, the portion I have quoted is quite alarming enough for me to end further correspondence. Let me just touch on that what I quoted, in an effort to demonstrate how far away from rationale I believe you are now.

First off, not heeding the complaints of 1-2 billion people starving is borderline lunacy. Partly because the stable human population of the planet was less than 2 billion before the advent of Oil. So when you say you wouldn't heed these people, that is quite alarming, proportional to the staggering number.

Second, by the logic of "they wouldn't be alive if it weren't for us" (so you can't complain, and you won't have your complaints heard by me) can be applied to fathers who rape their daughters (worst case scenario for example). You're basically claiming, the level of suffering doesn't matter in the slightest when compared to the "gift of life granted". If you truly hold that belief and you didn't speak in thoughtless error, then you are overdue for some ethics and morality philosophy, or a visit to a psychologist. I don't say this in jest, and I truly believe you simply didn't think much at all when you made these statements, so thankfully I think it's just that, and not that you're some deplorable sort of person.

Third, "might well be in worse conditions".. Worse condition than starving? I don't understand what that looks like, but perhaps you mean't instead of 1-2 billion people starving/poverty, maybe only 100,000,000 in starvation/poverty. Then I would agree, we would have technically less people starving.

Fourth, you speak about asking those folks if they'd rather never have lived? I think this is a question more effectively answered when you ask yourself. Ask yourself if you would mind not existing, or starving to death along with a child in your arms in the same situation. This is an easy one to me, but I'll await your preference.

Finally, your whole idea is flawed because it's based on taking credit for their situation, credit for this amount of people (thanks to "advancements of a capitalistic western society"). When in fact the only "advancement" was the discovery of Oil that spearheaded everything else that sustained and allowed the growth of such a massive population that isn't getting it's life-sustaining portion of that discovery. All it's getting is the caloric luxury of allowing more people to produce. The worst part is, you won't take the blame for their situation even if you're not directly to blame - you don't seem to understand the moral imperitive of how physically easy it would be to end these folks' suffering, but doing so would require taking money and spending on things that the current economic paradigm has set very little value to. But until my prior statements are addressed, things like ethics and moral imperatives for other fellow humans could perhaps be a fruitless discussion until I know exactly the sort of person I am conversing with.

 

[Tks]

I could address each paragraph individually. I'll just ask this. You want specifics. I do too. We're going to scrap terrible old awful capitalism. What do you have to go in its place?

You also have misunderstood me on Christianity as well. It would take lots of back and forth to straighten this out so we are communicating accurately with each other. So probably not the place. But I would like an answer for the wonderful new thing to replace capitalism.

Just read all of my posts. It doesn't need full replacement, just need to take portions that work, and portions that don't need to be thrown away. As for specifics, I answered another user. Basically requiring in the end-game, AI to have the decision making process when the set goal of well-being for the whole human population is the consideration. Again, the solutions are simple, the implementations aren't and getting over political/economic hurdles will be the biggest problem. I can't keep repeating myself to every single person when pressed for this. Nor do I have the full solution down to the micron of logistical precision. But when I hear "capitalism best - no change required" getting pressed for specifics is mostly a waste of time as far more qualified people have debated this to nearly death.

 

[DKT88]

Just read all of my posts. It doesn't need full replacement, just need to take portions that work, and portions that don't need to be thrown away. As for specifics, I answered another user. Basically requiring in the end-game, AI to have the decision making process when the set goal of well-being for the whole human population is the consideration. Again, the solutions are simple, the implementations aren't and getting over political/economic hurdles will be the biggest problem. I can't keep repeating myself to every single person when pressed for this. Nor do I have the full solution down to the micron of logistical precision. But when I hear "capitalism best - no change required" getting pressed for specifics is mostly a waste of time as far more qualified people have debated this to nearly death.

I don't want to jump in but for one question of clarification. When you say "in the end-game, AI to have the decision making process" do you mean turn decisions over to AI algorithms, or is that a typo?

 

[Blumlein 88]

You're not actually proving this in any way or by any example or logical deduction. What does "harnessing greed and self interest" in the context of capitalism even look like, and why would this demonstrably lead to higher states of well-being for instance?

People like to have more. People like to do things that improve their own condition when they can. People can be greedy and want an abundance beyond their basic needs. Some systems would try to coerce them not to do this. Or limit having more than they need. Having enough is enough they might say. Instead with capitalism, you want to have more, good go get more. You want 40 acres of farmland even though your family can live on 20. Fine get 40 acres, farm it, sell the surplus make some money(or trade for surplus goods). You like the slight luxury and greedily want more, good as long as you aren't cheating or stealing from others, go get 80 acres and have even more (and incidentally you'll grow even more food for someone to have). You happen to be better at this than someone else, good the more farm land you have, the better you'll live and the more that gets grown. All guided by the greed and self interest without anyone needing to micromanage it or prod it into happening or trying to stop and make them do something else. They go in a better direction all on their on. Better isn't necessarily best, but better happens pretty often given the chance.

Now substitute well you can do all you can, we'll leave you with what you need and redistribute it fairly for maximum good. Well that greedy self interest won't be harnessed anymore.

Read some of the writings of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto Polar.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Just read all of my posts. It doesn't need full replacement, just need to take portions that work, and portions that don't need to be thrown away. As for specifics, I answered another user. Basically requiring in the end-game, AI to have the decision making process when the set goal of well-being for the whole human population is the consideration. Again, the solutions are simple, the implementations aren't and getting over political/economic hurdles will be the biggest problem. I can't keep repeating myself to every single person when pressed for this. Nor do I have the full solution down to the micron of logistical precision. But when I hear "capitalism best - no change required" getting pressed for specifics is mostly a waste of time as far more qualified people have debated this to nearly death.

The well being for the whole human population is where you'll run into trouble. That kind of centralization hasn't worked before, and you'll need some specifics to convince that it can work now. That sort of thinking gets decision making pushed too far from the realities of those with a stake in the matter. Too far from those that have to live with those decisions. Happens in bureaucracies large and small.

 

[Tks]

I don't want to jump in but for one question of clarification. When you say "in the end-game, AI to have the decision making process" do you mean turn decisions over to AI algorithms, or is that a typo?

Eventually if possible, yes. It doesn't have to be final decisions (because I, and everyone currently alive lacks the mental capacity to fathom what AI at that point would be capable of), but if we're talking about AI as understood today, making decisions will be something far better done by them (but of course verified by councils of experts and such, for serious undertakings and moments of crisis would have always the final say). AI algorithms ought to be used like any other form of technology, off-loading any undesirable "work" that humans can't do as efficiently as can a machine. Politics is something I think that falls squarely with an aspect of human existence that stands in stark opposition to the deep integration of the world's societies. By intrinsic value, all politics is steeped in corruption by some measure, as it is always a battle that must be done that is vying for control, or share of something, at the expense of something else. At least with AI that has the overarching goal of providing the most for all, with well-being the top priority, we can at least rest easier knowing everyone will be getting a more fair shake. And not at the mercy of a politician that outclasses another like lawyers do in courtrooms.

 

[Tks]

You're not actually proving this in any way or by any example or logical deduction. What does "harnessing greed and self interest" in the context of capitalism even look like, and why would this demonstrably lead to higher states of well-being for instance?

People like to have more. People like to do things that improve their own condition when they can. People can be greedy and want an abundance beyond their basic needs. Some systems would try to coerce them not to do this. Or limit having more than they need. Having enough is enough they might say. Instead with capitalism, you want to have more, good go get more. You want 40 acres of farmland even though your family can live on 20. Fine get 40 acres, farm it, sell the surplus make some money(or trade for surplus goods). You like the slight luxury and greedily want more, good as long as you aren't cheating or stealing from others, go get 80 acres and have even more (and incidentally you'll grow even more food for someone to have). You happen to be better at this than someone else, good the more farm land you have, the better you'll live and the more that gets grown. All guided by the greed and self interest without anyone needing to micromanage it or prod it into happening or trying to stop and make them do something else. They go in a better direction all on their on. Better isn't necessarily best, but better happens pretty often given the chance.

Now substitute well you can do all you can, we'll leave you with what you need and redistribute it fairly for maximum good. Well that greedy self interest won't be harnessed anymore.

Read some of the writings of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto Polar.

Problem being you have a misunderstanding of economics then, and of reality. What if I want not 80 acres, but I want the landmass of 80 countries. And second, why are you placing pre-conditions on capitalism like "as long as you aren't cheating or stealing" as if such a thing is possible in a fully capitalistic system. You're contradicting yourself if you go back to the comparison made with capitalism and how it satiates the human natural tendency.. the tendency if left free will always produce a minority that will cheat, and under capitalism with full free-markets, this is an intrinsic reality that is guaranteed, not simply a "possibility". I'm not talking about enslaving populations under totalitarianism, I'm asking for the logically understandable outrageous policies (for one example) that allow people to be multi-billionaires to be removed.

You can talk about 80 acres all you want, and how "if you're good enough, you'll have more, and it will be fairly earned with your sincere effort". But tell me how you can apply this thought to any person with an 11-digit salary, I want you to tell me how it is remotely possible these people earned that level of wealth without cheating, and how they actually did $10+ billion dollars worth of "better work" than someone else. What dictionary do you read where you define this as a "better direction", when every single economist worth their degree will agree it's this sort of inequality and excusing the existence of such is at the core of all our economic issues presently.

Also I know of Hernando, he's almost infantile in his ideas especially land tilting. Core of which (like many others) his unshakable belief in "property rights". Running totally contrarian to the reality when eventually all property will eventually be someone's and anyone else born after that will be leasing to live on such property. So basically if your luck in life sucks, get fucked. This is at the core of what I hope one day will cease to be a reality and pervading thought, and granting tenure to squaters of eventual lands the are speculative in their future value is quite a cancerous ordeal. Also as an atendee of the Davos Forum, this isn't particularly a person I would want speaking for alternative/better means of economic function, but precisely the sort of preservationist smokescreen the current system will uphold as he legitimizes them by ascribing potentially bringing people out of poverty without changing the system and using the same old one that's been broken now since the last century at the very least. Again, he and his ideas are evidence of why capitalism in it's current form needs to be relinquished to being a relic.

As for your closing comment on "harnessing greed" I've put that to bed I think in my prior reply. It seems like machinations fit for a compelling story in a TV series or movie. I'll take that "greedy self" being "not harnessed" at my expense without hesitation. Greed has no redeeming part in society, as it runs contrarian to cooperation, well-being, and prosperity. Which is why outward manifestations always assimilate into some of the most disgusting results where these sorts of people make for thrilling specimens for scientific evaluation. This is not how social animals, nor us function. Please lets cease at least this idea of "greed is good" even in some instances.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You seem to have forgotten my position on capitalism. I needs a serious surgery, not a complete overnight throwing away in the bin.

In the interest of making this reply short, the portion I have quoted is quite alarming enough for me to end further correspondence. Let me just touch on that what I quoted, in an effort to demonstrate how far away from rationale I believe you are now.

First off, not heeding the complaints of 1-2 billion people starving is borderline lunacy. Partly because the stable human population of the planet was less than 2 billion before the advent of Oil. So when you say you wouldn't heed these people, that is quite alarming, proportional to the staggering number.

Second, by the logic of "they wouldn't be alive if it weren't for us" (so you can't complain, and you won't have your complaints heard by me) can be applied to fathers who rape their daughters (worst case scenario for example). You're basically claiming, the level of suffering doesn't matter in the slightest when compared to the "gift of life granted". If you truly hold that belief and you didn't speak in thoughtless error, then you are overdue for some ethics and morality philosophy, or a visit to a psychologist. I don't say this in jest, and I truly believe you simply didn't think much at all when you made these statements, so thankfully I think it's just that, and not that you're some deplorable sort of person.

Third, "might well be in worse conditions".. Worse condition than starving? I don't understand what that looks like, but perhaps you mean't instead of 1-2 billion people starving/poverty, maybe only 100,000,000 in starvation/poverty. Then I would agree, we would have technically less people starving.

Fourth, you speak about asking those folks if they'd rather never have lived? I think this is a question more effectively answered when you ask yourself. Ask yourself if you would mind not existing, or starving to death along with a child in your arms in the same situation. This is an easy one to me, but I'll await your preference.

Finally, your whole idea is flawed because it's based on taking credit for their situation, credit for this amount of people (thanks to "advancements of a capitalistic western society"). When in fact the only "advancement" was the discovery of Oil that spearheaded everything else that sustained and allowed the growth of such a massive population that isn't getting it's life-sustaining portion of that discovery. All it's getting is the caloric luxury of allowing more people to produce. The worst part is, you won't take the blame for their situation even if you're not directly to blame - you don't seem to understand the moral imperitive of how physically easy it would be to end these folks' suffering, but doing so would require taking money and spending on things that the current economic paradigm has set very little value to. But until my prior statements are addressed, things like ethics and moral imperatives for other fellow humans could perhaps be a fruitless discussion until I know exactly the sort of person I am conversing with.

You should read the book I suggested. The current estimate is about 795 million people are starving or near starving. Not a good number. But what would I gain listening to their complaints. There were just shy of 1 billion starving people in 1970 when their wasn't but 3.7 billion people alive. We've doubled the number of people, and reduced those starving by 20%. By percentage it has been cut to nearly 1/3 the percentage while doubling those currently alive. That trend persists and the number starving is being reduced. Maybe it could have been done sooner, maybe it could have made a bigger difference in some other way. The idea capitalism is responsible for this suffering and therefore it needs major surgery doesn't fit with these facts. Sorry.

Your comparison with incest and rape is ridiculous. Without life there is obviously no suffering. We all prefer life not involve suffering. Maybe you would give up your life if you knew it involved starving and seeing a child die. Not something I'm glad of ever happening to anyone. But I believe many people wouldn't make your choice. It isn't a choice anyone gets anyway.

You also could do with reading de Soto Polar and learning about dead capital. If you really wanted to bring these poor starving people some prosperity and quality of life. You might read his book on "Why capitalism works in the west and not anywhere else." Of course you seem to have the opinion it doesn't work anywhere now.

 

[Tks]

The well being for the whole human population is where you'll run into trouble. That kind of centralization hasn't worked before, and you'll need some specifics to convince that it can work now. That sort of thinking gets decision making pushed too far from the realities of those with a stake in the matter. Too far from those that have to live with those decisions. Happens in bureaucracies large and small.

You already have centralization, I've explain in other posts, there is no actual free-market capitalism here in the US for everyone. The only difference with my aspiration, is hopefully that centralization decides to serve the entire population more, rather than have laws ridden with loopholes that conveniently benefit the folks with billion dollar net-worths.

Run into trouble is only because (as I spoke with to Cosmick) is due to the system itself fighting any sort of change, there isn't much moneraty incentive in perpetuating well-being. But there is much in creating a problem and drip feeding symptom relief. If you can't get over that some things will have to be done without any money waiting at the end of the road for some institutions or companies, then we are at an impasse on what constitutes doing things that benefit the world population.

Look, I hope you don't take this as an insult, or as me being scum, but I truly have to bow out of the conversation. I'm literally at my point of tiredness of typing. Also I feel when amrim sees this, I'm going to feel uneasy for polluting this thread with so much off-topic discussion (again this was supposed to be for an HBO show). Please lets start a private conversation this forum gives, I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Safe to say I have written quite a bit today on this thread, you have to at least give me that leeway as reason for exiting now..

 

[DKT88]

Eventually if possible, yes. It doesn't have to be final decisions (because I, and everyone currently alive lacks the mental capacity to fathom what AI at that point would be capable of), but if we're talking about AI as understood today, making decisions will be something far better done by them (but of course verified by councils of experts and such, for serious undertakings and moments of crisis would have always the final say). AI algorithms ought to be used like any other form of technology, off-loading any undesirable "work" that humans can't do as efficiently as can a machine. Politics is something I think that falls squarely with an aspect of human existence that stands in stark opposition to the deep integration of the world's societies. By intrinsic value, all politics is steeped in corruption by some measure, as it is always a battle that must be done that is vying for control, or share of something, at the expense of something else. At least with AI that has the overarching goal of providing the most for all, with well-being the top priority, we can at least rest easier knowing everyone will be getting a more fair shake. And not at the mercy of a politician that outclasses another like lawyers do in courtrooms.

I suggest we don't actively pursue a future where AI makes political decisions for us, that has Orwellian implications that I hope we don't have to grapple with someday. Instead think about AI developing strategies to deal with the wicked problems that we face. AI research has already shown that a self-taught machine can develop strategies in complex games that humans never thought of and in fact don't fully understand (i.e. Alpha Go Zero beat Alpha Go, which had beat the best human players). I'll drop off this now.

 

[RayDunzl]

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to say "Mine!" when you grow up, has - to put in mildly - a fatal design flaw. -- Frank Zappa

I'm going to feel uneasy for polluting this thread with so much off-topic discussion

I'd consult the thread owner first...

 

[Tks]

I suggest we don't actively pursue a future where AI makes political decisions for us, that has Orwellian implications that I hope we don't have to grapple with someday. Instead think about AI developing strategies to deal with the wicked problems that we face. AI research has already shown that a self-taught machine can develop strategies in complex games that humans never thought of and in fact don't fully understand (i.e. Alpha Go Zero beat Alpha Go, which had beat the best human players). I'll drop off this now.

Truth be told, there will hopefully be no such thing as political decisions in the same way there are no political decisions to be made if there is only one system of sorts. But I agree until then, no need for it to make political decisions, but just suggestions of which we can use to base the decision. It's only when simulations become accurate enough can we then let off the reins a bit, so to speak.

Just wanted to give you a reply, and say I agree essentially with the premise of what you're saying with just a bit clarification on what I've mean't. As I've told others, I hope you understand how unwieldy this has become, and keeping every sentence and portion free of any sort of slight misunderstanding or error that leads to such, isn't easy.

I'll be dropping as well, quite late here. Take care!

 

[DKT88]

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to say "Mine!" when you grow up, has - to put in mildly - a fatal design flaw. -- Frank Zappa



I'd consult the thread owner first...

huh, I guess my kid was different, her first words were "trust fund".